I answered the GP assuming a genuine question and without pejoratives. If you disagree with what I say, please criticise it, don't claim that my argument makes me a member of a group, then go on to create a straw man and attack that.
I have never heard of this organization, nor the guy who the award was taken from, nor have I played any of the games he made
And yet you seem to feel you are qualified to comment on this situation.
I DO know that a mere accusation without proof is not sufficient for me to pass judgement
Do excerpts from biographies written about Nolan qualify? This isn't 'he said/she said'. This is people pointing at well-documented behaviour and objecting to someone who engaged in it being honoured.
Given that this is some decades old story about a bunch of people I've never heard of, it's unlikely I will do the required research to develop an informed opinion
Not even reading the linked article, it seems.
but I don't have the facts to comment on it either.
and yet, here you are accusing those who have of belonging to some group you wish to vilify and of engaging in behaviour that only superficially matches the one you are ranting about.
How about you go live your life in the way you see fit, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone to do the same.
A question was asked. I offered an explanation. You've seized on that to declare your ignorance on the topic, label me an SJW and make some implications about the quality and/or lack of evidence.
I'm using a 'tactic'. I'm using reason, evidence and argument. I'm not trying to persuade you - you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in information; that you are happy in your ignorance. I'm using this opportunity to try to highlight some of the problems with your position in the hope that other people reading this can engage in a better class of discussion.
and leave the rest of us
Appeal to popularity. You responded to me. I'm responding to you. There's no 'us' and your position isn't improved by appealing to it.
To summarise - you are ignorant, happy in your ignorance and from a position of ignorance think to argue against a straw man of 'SJW tactics' that you seem to object to.
I look forward to your reasoned and considered response.
It seems to me like absolutely zero male corporate executives, or basically anyone in a position of power, is going to escape this.
Many, even most. But not all.
Ideally the current ability for past behaviour to be exposed, for patterns of behaviour to be demonstrated, for victims to discover that they are not alone and to share their experiences will result in slimebags not being as successful as they have been. Maybe then people who aren't slimebags will rise to more senior positions and we'll see less sociopathic behaviour at the executive level. I doubt that this will be the case, but at least there's now more scrutiny and more pressure to behave, and more avenues to charge those who don't.
I do wonder one thing...would men complain if the situation were reversed? I don't know if I would.
This view is something that comes up a fair bit, and results from some things being very, very different to experience as a male than as a female.
The reason you'd react differently is that you aren't constantly bombarded with unwanted sexual contact; of having to constantly check and guard to make sure that something you say, or do, or fail to say or fail to do might be construed as an invitation. Of being told that when something does happen that maybe you invited it, even unconsciously. You aren't physically weaker than many (most? all?) of the people hitting on you; you aren't likely to be physically forced, or to have to choose to submit to something you _do_not_want_ for fear of something even worse (rape vs rape-after-being-beaten-into-submission).
Talk to some of your female friends and relatives. So much is just assumed it's rarely talked about. It's so constant and so pervasive that it's taught and passed on from childhood. It's this (and all the bits I haven't mentioned, and am only partially aware of) that makes the difference between why, as a male, the thought of being harrassed in the workplace engenders such a different response than you see in females.
The best example that I've read to try to get to the point where it's closer would be to imagine that you work constantly surrounded by steroid using, weightlifting males. Hyper aggressive. Significantly stronger than you. Now imagine that some of them are sexually attracted to you. And like to 'flirt'. It's all in good fun, right?
How comfortable would you be, in that situation, being sexually harrassed at work? How comfortable would you be with overhearing some of them making sexually provocative statements about you? The model is incomplete, but it tries to add some of the things missing from the 'if I were in that situation' exercise.
Anyone care to explain how personal indiscretions affect his achievements in developing "a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history"?
It doesn't. What it affects is our current decision on whether to laud this person for those achievements and to hold them up as an example.
It is possible to respect someone's achievements while also criticising their manner or behaviour. By only acknowledging the achievements and making no comment on the negative behaviour, once that behaviour has been brought to your attention, then in silence you support that behaviour. Had this award not been rescinded, then the GDC would, at best, be ignoring the problem and at worst would be tacitly supporting the behaviour.
By withdrawing the award, specifically as a response to information about Nolan's behaviour, the GDC is not saying that Nolan wasn't influential or that he didn't achieve what he did. It's saying that his actions outside of those achievements are such that he isn't the person the GDC would like to hold up as a positive example.
---
Nolan's tweet in response is... elegant. 'If' he offended or caused pain, he apologises. He neither confirms nor denies. He praises the actions of the GDC. It's a classy, clever response to an ugly situation. If it's sincere, I don't think you can ask more. If it's not, it's a damn fine piece of spin control.
This sort of argument always assumes that there's only ever 'the government' and the individual.
What of society, or on a smaller scale, community?
They are the ones who will suffer when their members can no longer afford to pay for locally produced goods, and have to purchase from cheaper retailers who import from places with lower standards of living and lower costs. They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.
Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity. When there's too much difference between the haves and have-nots, crime is higher. Higher crime costs society directly in terms of increased need for police, judicial systems, penitentiaries etc. and in less obvious ways by having a portion of your population absent form gainful work, raising and supporting families etc.
Communities do better when there are social programs to support those those who aren't as successful as you; aren't as lucky as you; aren't as well supported by friends and family as you.
You pay either way. More police or more social programs.
If your government is not able to do this effectively, maybe it should be handled at the community level.
In a strongly worded editorial by the state’s news agency, Beijing said the world needed to choose between “two fundamentally different outlooks” which included the Chinese President’s shared future and Mr Trump’s America First policy.
a) it's a news editorial, not an official statement
b) you've really got to be looking for a fight to hear a call away from 'Me and mine first' and towards 'build a community' as a declaration of war.
Whether you believe Xinhua or not, your assertion that a 'declaration of war' is jingoistic.
Late reply, but I wanted to say thank you - my knowledge of the USSR space program is incomplete and mostly from the post-WWII era. It was interesting to read the link you provided and to follow on from there.
I think these comments, and the AC who mentions Tsiolkovsky highlight the problem with trying to point to where something began.
Innovation or invention that doesn't build on the work of others is rare.
I drew a line at 'first man made object in space', but as you have both pointed out, that wouldn't have been possible without the work of those who went before.
It's harder to name something innovative that DIDN'T start here than the reverse
Space travel - first man made object in space was the V2. Early space program in both US and USSR carried on from German rocketry, with German scientists Quantum mechanics - Planck is usually considered to be first. Einstein is German born but a US citizen, then you've got Heisenberg and Born for Germany and Schrodinger from Austria. I'm not arguing Einstein's importance, nor his citizenship, but QM DIDN'T start in the US Nuclear bombs - the US produced the first, but the ideas around fission go back to the 30s and both the USSR and Germany had independent and parallel programs. Not sure that it's innovation if others are doing it and you just beat them to production. Tang - a powdered fruit drink? Powdered milk and instant coffee go back to the late 1800s. I'm not sure that Tang qualifies as innovative (unless there's more to it than I understand)
Of the other examples, some are weak (Commercial space flight is double counting, the innovative part is space flight, commercialising technology is ordinary), others are evolutionary (Google's search engine, the iPhone) which while still innovative are weakly so.
The clearest example you provide is the Internet. While other countries provided some of the early elements (UK and packet switching for eg), the overall concept, development and the majority of the work was all US.
That's not how evidence works. You've got it backward.
In informal settings it's not unusual to reference relatively uncontested positions without providing evidence each time.
That the US has poorer outcomes per person per dollar is well known. Most other OECD countries have similar health outcomes for similar per person expenditure and have similar levels of government involvement in healthcare. Comparing the US to these countries supports the hypothesis that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less".
To the extent that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is accepted as true, then asking that an example that is offered that contradicts this be elaborated _is_ how evidence works.
If you don't consider that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is true or well supported, would you please say so so we can have a discussion around that. Picking points on form doesn't really add anything, here.
No one is claiming _all_ government run health care is better than private, nor that it's flawless. If you'd like to take the example of the collapsed health system that you've had problems with and show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less", I'd be interested.
I'd be even more interested if you could show that the failure of the healthcare system was because it was run by _a_ government, rather than being the result of being run by a government that was failing in other ways.
Late reply, just wanted to acknowledge that the comments that you and @thegarbz (above) made are appreciated. Being shown points I hadn't considered or properly appreciated in a civil manner is refreshing.
I'm curious, what/when was the last 'experience' (do you mean experiment?)?
most successful nation
Not by a lot of metrics; less so than in the past and falling.
Some progressive policies =/= socialism. Some well-regulated and limited social policies =/= socialism. Criticism of the excesses of capitalism =/= socialism. Calling for limitations or regulation of capitalism =/= socialism.
Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism (or the closest approximations that have arisen) work particularly well for anyone but the small group who come to accumulate power. Identifying the areas of society that are best allowed to operate as a (regulated) free market, and those areas that are better run as (limited and well defined) social services is more successful, by a number of measures.
Challenging where to draw those lines is essential to prevent the excesses of an imbalance in either direction, and to that end debate and argument is useful.
Tribalism, partisanship or a refusal to accept any 'dilution' of a position, or compromise with different points of view is not.
No, I'm serious and not trolling. You state that the 'masses' are limiting you. You clearly value the things that "matter" to you above those that matter to the masses, and are using intelligence ("smart[ness]") as the justification. There's a reason that this sort of attitude is treated like a teenager's rant - many people go through this sort of thinking/feeling in their teens, then grow out of it. If you are still experiencing the world in this way, perhaps you are less developed in some areas than others.
Maybe the reason people react to the things you care about as being things that "don't matter" is because of your attitude towards them.
The IQ test includes a test of verbal acuity. If someone who is 'traditionally' intelligent is unable to communicate their "comprehension", then perhaps their verbal intelligence isn't as high as whatever else is providing them with the insight they are trying to communicate. There are good arguments that the three areas tested by the IQ test are far from the only forms of intelligence. Social or emotional intelligence might help prevent someone feeling as though they are being treated with condescension.
While someone who is not intelligent in the IQ sense may make use of modes or forms of intelligence where they are stronger, such as intuition, that doesn't mean that intuitive thinking is the opposite of IQ type intelligence. It's different. Some people are both highly intuitive and highly 'traditionally' intelligent, but that is rarer than someone who has a peak in just one area. Any compounding effect from practice is magnified in people who have a distinct are of expertise, compared to those with a more even spread of ability.
There are some truly incredible mathematicians. Clearly genius plus. Finding someone who is both gifted mathematically who is also a gifted teacher is rare and even more incredible. Same with musicians, martial-artists/athletes and politicians.
The conflict isn't necessarily because of the high vs low IQ. Anyone who is a couple of SD above average in any mode may find it difficult to communicate that forms of insight or experience unless they are _also_ above average (more likely considerably so) in communicating.
A recent article looked at the IQs of US presidents. None are below average, but even in such a large nation finding those who are both high IQ and also able to communicate at multiple levels is rare.
I've done a quick and fairly limited search for a source for this, but everyone seems to be gushing about the rescue.
The boys don't look to be in distress in the drone's footage (in my totally unqualified opinion), and seem perfectly capable of heading to shore once the flotation device is dropped, so your description of events seems plausible. I presume that there are already shark spotting drones in the area, and that this new drone was mistaken as being one of those by the boys.
Some of the greatest advances, and certainly some of the most rapid have happened during the world wars and the Cold War that followed.
You know, where some of the largest governments in the world poured resources into R&D in a way that is anything but capitalist.
Some of the other breakthroughs arose from universities - that were publicly funded. The drive towards short term profit has seen a number of companies that used to see the long term profit of maintaining R&D divisions closing those down, relying on buying startups or ceasing innovation altogether.
I'm not arguing that capitalism hasn't resulted in a great deal of progress, but calling it the 'very thing' is a gross over simplification.
What is it about any criticism of capitalism that is immediately conflated with extreme socialism?
Extremes of both socialism and capitalism are 'bad'* and have failure modes that are remarkably similar. Just as extremes of either right or left wing political parties start to resemble each other. The countries with the highest standards of living for the most people by a number of metrics (education, lifespan, social mobility, lowest delta between poorest and wealthiest) tend to have limited and well-regulated capitalism along with limited and well-regulated social policies.
The hardship you mention is felt to a greater extent by someone who has a life and identity that they would lose or lose access to and who would be forced into a future where they would have little stability, no contact with family, would probably not be able to hold down decent jobs or even poorer jobs for any length of time and may end up resorting to petty crime to get by.
Given that the person in the GPs example is already living that kind of life, I think you are overestimating the disincentive that being a fugitive might be.
A person with a stable life, supportive family and/or friends is likely to be able to rebuild/recover after a conviction. Someone living more marginally is less likely to be able to do so, so the decision to stay or flee isn't evenly weighted.
That sort of life doesn't lend itself to teaching someone the value of long term planning nor provide much opportunity to practice the sort of reasoning needed to see that copping the conviction is probably a better outcome than fleeing prosecution.
So while the choice may be simple and clear for you, I don't think _you've_ made much effort to model the position of the person the GP described.
Glued in batteries, soldered down RAM and flash storage are all complicit in the prime example of planned obsolescence.
Or a recognition that the need to constantly upgrade CPU/RAM/storage has slowed to the point where a decently specced laptop can remain useful for years without needing anything upgraded.
Most people do not open their laptops to upgrade anything. Of those that do, most will only do so to add RAM and even then will not do it themselves. Those who want or need a machine that they can maintain themselves are a small niche that's growing smaller, even if we've been around longer than what is now the majority - people who want a laptop as an appliance.
The Air is not aimed at you. Or me. Or a bunch of folk on this site. But there's a large chunk of people for whom it's ideal and very well designed for _their_ needs. Serviceability is not a priority to that market segment and that has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.
They're providing cheaper transportation fares despite gov't regulations that protect entrenched taxi companies from upstart competitors
While avoiding paying taxes and paying their 'workers' less than labour laws require.
They aren't shouldering a share of the costs of the community/society from which they are making money and they aren't paying enough to their workers to meet the requirements of the law. If the labour laws are poor, incomplete or even corrupt - change them. But a company making an end-run around them is not a useful solution.
Government created/protected monopolies exist (ideally) in industries where competition would be harmful to the industry and/or society. Taxis are a good example of this. Unregulated competition creates a race to the bottom with desperate drivers in cars that are barely roadworthy competing to find a fare, then having to find a way to milk that fare to cover costs.
However, these monopolies must be regularly challenged and scrutinised to prevent the sort of entrenched corruption that becomes almost inevitable. To that extent, I think start-ups that challenge monopolies are fantastic. But that becomes a fig leaf when the company is simply exploiting the community (no/low tax) and their workers (avoiding labour laws). The potential benefit of shaking up an entrenched player does not justify breaking the law, nor the sort of exploitation that the regulation/monopoly was created to prevent.
Fixed point stereoscopic vision adds very, very little to our sense of depth at considerable overhead (glasses, reduced brightness, lower frame rate) and with some people finding the mismatch between individual image and eye position actually detracts from the sense of 'realism'.
Like any new film technique it's in the 'novelty' stage and suffers from over-use and a lack of audience familiarity (so that it can be ignored and become just one more transparent mechanism for story telling). It doesn't offer enough benefit to get past this stage (as it hasn't in each of the previous incarnations) and interferes with existing techniques (use of changing focus to direct attention).
Only you think so, and that's only because you cannot read and ignore the points that are made. You've addressed nothing in my posts, just repeated your usual claims.
The speedup of resolving a name via a hosts whitelist vs DNS cache is below human perception in most cases. The difference between operating in kernelmode vs usermode is imperceptible in most cases. You keep ignoring the fact that your big selling point - increased efficiency and speed is trivial for most users these days. It's unnoticeable. It's a couple of percent of system resources, or less. It's technically faster, but it _just_ _doesn't_ _matter_. Did you read that? Do you understand what I am saying? Feel free to disagree. Reason with me. Present a counter argument, or examples where it does matter. Or ignore this and concede the point. Again.
Your program updates automatically, but the host file does not. I would have to launch your program to edit the file each time I want to browse. Add ons not only update each time I open my browser, they also update their lists. Even while I am browsing. I don't have to do anything. That's me having to do 'less'. Win to add ons.
Hostfiles do not stop scripts for sites you want to visit and hence haven't blocked. It cannot stop a script from a site that you have not yet added as being bad. A script blocker will stop both. You admit that your browser is set to stop scripts. This is the fundamental difference between whitelisting and blacklisting and is another thing you refuse to address. Blacklisting, alone, is not enough. Please address this, or concede the point. Again.
Few run their own ads!
Hooray, I'm nearly safe.
My program backup's @ end run. Don't restart it FINALHOSTS.TXT is it. A restart erases it
So you can check when a particular entry was added? No? Didn't think so. Having a single copy that is overwritten on use is not a 'backup' in any but the most trivial of definitions.
Don't put words in my mouth
I think you are using phrases you don't quite understand, again.
YOU TRYING TO TELL US
There is no 'us', APK. I'm talking to you. Cheap rhetoric. Appeal to popularity by association.
addons = BETTER
Yes. Your 'more' is misleading, your 'less' is trivial.
You have a double standard. You obsessively list every minor advantage that your solution has over browser extensions but keep ignoring the things they do that a cannot. That's how you keep coming up with 'more'. It's not more, it's different. The things that extensions allow me to do are more useful to me than the things they cannot do that a hostfile can. I argue that this is also true for most users, as 'most' approaches 'all'.
The additional resources that are used to achieve this are literally unnoticeable they are so slight, so the fact that your solution uses even 'less' is moot.
This is the argument. The 'less' you claim is meaningless in use and the 'more' only exists if you ignore the things add ons can do that a host file cannot. So, can you actually stop chanting your pet phrases and address these points, or are you, once again, going to -
a) fall back on claiming some really cool people think that you are right; b) repeating yourself while claiming you are 'dismantling' my arguments; or c) ignoring me, and moving straight to insulting me and claiming victory.
clinical depression, which is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.
And genetics, epigenetics, different physical structures in the brain, environment, and cognition. And given the brain's plasticity, a lot of those can arise or be reinforced by feedback from other systems.
It has little to do with external factors
Hmm. The importance of external factors has certainly shifted from the assumption that everyone has the same brain and that nurture gives rise to variation, but stress is still strongly linked to developing depression, even if those with a genetic predisposition are more likely to develop depression and/or more likely to develop depression, sooner. Chronic depression is linked to people who suffer from PTSD, chronic pain etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that you are replying to me ...
And here is the problem with SJW's
I answered the GP assuming a genuine question and without pejoratives. If you disagree with what I say, please criticise it, don't claim that my argument makes me a member of a group, then go on to create a straw man and attack that.
I have never heard of this organization, nor the guy who the award was taken from, nor have I played any of the games he made
And yet you seem to feel you are qualified to comment on this situation.
I DO know that a mere accusation without proof is not sufficient for me to pass judgement
Do excerpts from biographies written about Nolan qualify? This isn't 'he said/she said'. This is people pointing at well-documented behaviour and objecting to someone who engaged in it being honoured.
Given that this is some decades old story about a bunch of people I've never heard of, it's unlikely I will do the required research to develop an informed opinion
Not even reading the linked article, it seems.
but I don't have the facts to comment on it either.
and yet, here you are accusing those who have of belonging to some group you wish to vilify and of engaging in behaviour that only superficially matches the one you are ranting about.
How about you go live your life in the way you see fit, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone to do the same.
A question was asked. I offered an explanation. You've seized on that to declare your ignorance on the topic, label me an SJW and make some implications about the quality and/or lack of evidence.
I'm using a 'tactic'. I'm using reason, evidence and argument. I'm not trying to persuade you - you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in information; that you are happy in your ignorance. I'm using this opportunity to try to highlight some of the problems with your position in the hope that other people reading this can engage in a better class of discussion.
and leave the rest of us
Appeal to popularity. You responded to me. I'm responding to you. There's no 'us' and your position isn't improved by appealing to it.
To summarise - you are ignorant, happy in your ignorance and from a position of ignorance think to argue against a straw man of 'SJW tactics' that you seem to object to.
I look forward to your reasoned and considered response.
It seems to me like absolutely zero male corporate executives, or basically anyone in a position of power, is going to escape this.
Many, even most. But not all.
Ideally the current ability for past behaviour to be exposed, for patterns of behaviour to be demonstrated, for victims to discover that they are not alone and to share their experiences will result in slimebags not being as successful as they have been. Maybe then people who aren't slimebags will rise to more senior positions and we'll see less sociopathic behaviour at the executive level. I doubt that this will be the case, but at least there's now more scrutiny and more pressure to behave, and more avenues to charge those who don't.
I do wonder one thing...would men complain if the situation were reversed? I don't know if I would.
This view is something that comes up a fair bit, and results from some things being very, very different to experience as a male than as a female.
The reason you'd react differently is that you aren't constantly bombarded with unwanted sexual contact; of having to constantly check and guard to make sure that something you say, or do, or fail to say or fail to do might be construed as an invitation. Of being told that when something does happen that maybe you invited it, even unconsciously. You aren't physically weaker than many (most? all?) of the people hitting on you; you aren't likely to be physically forced, or to have to choose to submit to something you _do_not_want_ for fear of something even worse (rape vs rape-after-being-beaten-into-submission).
Talk to some of your female friends and relatives. So much is just assumed it's rarely talked about. It's so constant and so pervasive that it's taught and passed on from childhood. It's this (and all the bits I haven't mentioned, and am only partially aware of) that makes the difference between why, as a male, the thought of being harrassed in the workplace engenders such a different response than you see in females.
The best example that I've read to try to get to the point where it's closer would be to imagine that you work constantly surrounded by steroid using, weightlifting males. Hyper aggressive. Significantly stronger than you. Now imagine that some of them are sexually attracted to you. And like to 'flirt'. It's all in good fun, right?
How comfortable would you be, in that situation, being sexually harrassed at work? How comfortable would you be with overhearing some of them making sexually provocative statements about you? The model is incomplete, but it tries to add some of the things missing from the 'if I were in that situation' exercise.
Anyone care to explain how personal indiscretions affect his achievements in developing "a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history"?
It doesn't. What it affects is our current decision on whether to laud this person for those achievements and to hold them up as an example.
It is possible to respect someone's achievements while also criticising their manner or behaviour. By only acknowledging the achievements and making no comment on the negative behaviour, once that behaviour has been brought to your attention, then in silence you support that behaviour. Had this award not been rescinded, then the GDC would, at best, be ignoring the problem and at worst would be tacitly supporting the behaviour.
By withdrawing the award, specifically as a response to information about Nolan's behaviour, the GDC is not saying that Nolan wasn't influential or that he didn't achieve what he did. It's saying that his actions outside of those achievements are such that he isn't the person the GDC would like to hold up as a positive example.
---
Nolan's tweet in response is ... elegant. 'If' he offended or caused pain, he apologises. He neither confirms nor denies. He praises the actions of the GDC. It's a classy, clever response to an ugly situation. If it's sincere, I don't think you can ask more. If it's not, it's a damn fine piece of spin control.
This sort of argument always assumes that there's only ever 'the government' and the individual.
What of society, or on a smaller scale, community?
They are the ones who will suffer when their members can no longer afford to pay for locally produced goods, and have to purchase from cheaper retailers who import from places with lower standards of living and lower costs. They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.
Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity. When there's too much difference between the haves and have-nots, crime is higher.
Higher crime costs society directly in terms of increased need for police, judicial systems, penitentiaries etc. and in less obvious ways by having a portion of your population absent form gainful work, raising and supporting families etc.
Communities do better when there are social programs to support those those who aren't as successful as you; aren't as lucky as you; aren't as well supported by friends and family as you.
You pay either way. More police or more social programs.
If your government is not able to do this effectively, maybe it should be handled at the community level.
Did you actually read the article you link to?
In a strongly worded editorial by the state’s news agency, Beijing said the world needed to choose between “two fundamentally different outlooks” which included the Chinese President’s shared future and Mr Trump’s America First policy.
a) it's a news editorial, not an official statement
b) you've really got to be looking for a fight to hear a call away from 'Me and mine first' and towards 'build a community' as a declaration of war.
Whether you believe Xinhua or not, your assertion that a 'declaration of war' is jingoistic.
Late reply, but I wanted to say thank you - my knowledge of the USSR space program is incomplete and mostly from the post-WWII era. It was interesting to read the link you provided and to follow on from there.
I think these comments, and the AC who mentions Tsiolkovsky highlight the problem with trying to point to where something began.
Innovation or invention that doesn't build on the work of others is rare.
I drew a line at 'first man made object in space', but as you have both pointed out, that wouldn't have been possible without the work of those who went before.
It's harder to name something innovative that DIDN'T start here than the reverse
Space travel - first man made object in space was the V2. Early space program in both US and USSR carried on from German rocketry, with German scientists
Quantum mechanics - Planck is usually considered to be first. Einstein is German born but a US citizen, then you've got Heisenberg and Born for Germany and Schrodinger from Austria. I'm not arguing Einstein's importance, nor his citizenship, but QM DIDN'T start in the US
Nuclear bombs - the US produced the first, but the ideas around fission go back to the 30s and both the USSR and Germany had independent and parallel programs. Not sure that it's innovation if others are doing it and you just beat them to production.
Tang - a powdered fruit drink? Powdered milk and instant coffee go back to the late 1800s. I'm not sure that Tang qualifies as innovative (unless there's more to it than I understand)
Of the other examples, some are weak (Commercial space flight is double counting, the innovative part is space flight, commercialising technology is ordinary), others are evolutionary (Google's search engine, the iPhone) which while still innovative are weakly so.
The clearest example you provide is the Internet. While other countries provided some of the early elements (UK and packet switching for eg), the overall concept, development and the majority of the work was all US.
That's not how evidence works. You've got it backward.
In informal settings it's not unusual to reference relatively uncontested positions without providing evidence each time.
That the US has poorer outcomes per person per dollar is well known. Most other OECD countries have similar health outcomes for similar per person expenditure and have similar levels of government involvement in healthcare. Comparing the US to these countries supports the hypothesis that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less".
To the extent that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is accepted as true, then asking that an example that is offered that contradicts this be elaborated _is_ how evidence works.
If you don't consider that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is true or well supported, would you please say so so we can have a discussion around that. Picking points on form doesn't really add anything, here.
Anecdote =/= data.
No one is claiming _all_ government run health care is better than private, nor that it's flawless. If you'd like to take the example of the collapsed health system that you've had problems with and show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less", I'd be interested.
I'd be even more interested if you could show that the failure of the healthcare system was because it was run by _a_ government, rather than being the result of being run by a government that was failing in other ways.
Late reply, just wanted to acknowledge that the comments that you and @thegarbz (above) made are appreciated. Being shown points I hadn't considered or properly appreciated in a civil manner is refreshing.
Fair and reasonable comments, all.
I realise that I'm coming back to this a couple of days later, but on the chance you see this - thanks.
failed socialist experience to again
(emphasis mine)
I'm curious, what/when was the last 'experience' (do you mean experiment?)?
most successful nation
Not by a lot of metrics; less so than in the past and falling.
Some progressive policies =/= socialism. Some well-regulated and limited social policies =/= socialism. Criticism of the excesses of capitalism =/= socialism. Calling for limitations or regulation of capitalism =/= socialism.
Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism (or the closest approximations that have arisen) work particularly well for anyone but the small group who come to accumulate power. Identifying the areas of society that are best allowed to operate as a (regulated) free market, and those areas that are better run as (limited and well defined) social services is more successful, by a number of measures.
Challenging where to draw those lines is essential to prevent the excesses of an imbalance in either direction, and to that end debate and argument is useful.
Tribalism, partisanship or a refusal to accept any 'dilution' of a position, or compromise with different points of view is not.
Perhaps with other narcissists.
No, I'm serious and not trolling. You state that the 'masses' are limiting you. You clearly value the things that "matter" to you above those that matter to the masses, and are using intelligence ("smart[ness]") as the justification. There's a reason that this sort of attitude is treated like a teenager's rant - many people go through this sort of thinking/feeling in their teens, then grow out of it. If you are still experiencing the world in this way, perhaps you are less developed in some areas than others.
Maybe the reason people react to the things you care about as being things that "don't matter" is because of your attitude towards them.
The IQ test includes a test of verbal acuity. If someone who is 'traditionally' intelligent is unable to communicate their "comprehension", then perhaps their verbal intelligence isn't as high as whatever else is providing them with the insight they are trying to communicate. There are good arguments that the three areas tested by the IQ test are far from the only forms of intelligence. Social or emotional intelligence might help prevent someone feeling as though they are being treated with condescension.
While someone who is not intelligent in the IQ sense may make use of modes or forms of intelligence where they are stronger, such as intuition, that doesn't mean that intuitive thinking is the opposite of IQ type intelligence. It's different. Some people are both highly intuitive and highly 'traditionally' intelligent, but that is rarer than someone who has a peak in just one area. Any compounding effect from practice is magnified in people who have a distinct are of expertise, compared to those with a more even spread of ability.
There are some truly incredible mathematicians. Clearly genius plus. Finding someone who is both gifted mathematically who is also a gifted teacher is rare and even more incredible. Same with musicians, martial-artists/athletes and politicians.
The conflict isn't necessarily because of the high vs low IQ. Anyone who is a couple of SD above average in any mode may find it difficult to communicate that forms of insight or experience unless they are _also_ above average (more likely considerably so) in communicating.
A recent article looked at the IQs of US presidents. None are below average, but even in such a large nation finding those who are both high IQ and also able to communicate at multiple levels is rare.
I've done a quick and fairly limited search for a source for this, but everyone seems to be gushing about the rescue.
The boys don't look to be in distress in the drone's footage (in my totally unqualified opinion), and seem perfectly capable of heading to shore once the flotation device is dropped, so your description of events seems plausible. I presume that there are already shark spotting drones in the area, and that this new drone was mistaken as being one of those by the boys.
Where did you find/see the interview?
Some of the greatest advances, and certainly some of the most rapid have happened during the world wars and the Cold War that followed.
You know, where some of the largest governments in the world poured resources into R&D in a way that is anything but capitalist.
Some of the other breakthroughs arose from universities - that were publicly funded. The drive towards short term profit has seen a number of companies that used to see the long term profit of maintaining R&D divisions closing those down, relying on buying startups or ceasing innovation altogether.
I'm not arguing that capitalism hasn't resulted in a great deal of progress, but calling it the 'very thing' is a gross over simplification.
What is it about any criticism of capitalism that is immediately conflated with extreme socialism?
Extremes of both socialism and capitalism are 'bad'* and have failure modes that are remarkably similar. Just as extremes of either right or left wing political parties start to resemble each other. The countries with the highest standards of living for the most people by a number of metrics (education, lifespan, social mobility, lowest delta between poorest and wealthiest) tend to have limited and well-regulated capitalism along with limited and well-regulated social policies.
*Yeah, my version of 'bad' may differ from yours.
The hardship you mention is felt to a greater extent by someone who has a life and identity that they would lose or lose access to and who would be forced into a future where they would have little stability, no contact with family, would probably not be able to hold down decent jobs or even poorer jobs for any length of time and may end up resorting to petty crime to get by.
Given that the person in the GPs example is already living that kind of life, I think you are overestimating the disincentive that being a fugitive might be.
A person with a stable life, supportive family and/or friends is likely to be able to rebuild/recover after a conviction. Someone living more marginally is less likely to be able to do so, so the decision to stay or flee isn't evenly weighted.
That sort of life doesn't lend itself to teaching someone the value of long term planning nor provide much opportunity to practice the sort of reasoning needed to see that copping the conviction is probably a better outcome than fleeing prosecution.
So while the choice may be simple and clear for you, I don't think _you've_ made much effort to model the position of the person the GP described.
Glued in batteries, soldered down RAM and flash storage are all complicit in the prime example of planned obsolescence.
Or a recognition that the need to constantly upgrade CPU/RAM/storage has slowed to the point where a decently specced laptop can remain useful for years without needing anything upgraded.
Most people do not open their laptops to upgrade anything. Of those that do, most will only do so to add RAM and even then will not do it themselves. Those who want or need a machine that they can maintain themselves are a small niche that's growing smaller, even if we've been around longer than what is now the majority - people who want a laptop as an appliance.
The Air is not aimed at you. Or me. Or a bunch of folk on this site. But there's a large chunk of people for whom it's ideal and very well designed for _their_ needs. Serviceability is not a priority to that market segment and that has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.
They're providing cheaper transportation fares despite gov't regulations that protect entrenched taxi companies from upstart competitors
While avoiding paying taxes and paying their 'workers' less than labour laws require.
They aren't shouldering a share of the costs of the community/society from which they are making money and they aren't paying enough to their workers to meet the requirements of the law. If the labour laws are poor, incomplete or even corrupt - change them. But a company making an end-run around them is not a useful solution.
Government created/protected monopolies exist (ideally) in industries where competition would be harmful to the industry and/or society. Taxis are a good example of this. Unregulated competition creates a race to the bottom with desperate drivers in cars that are barely roadworthy competing to find a fare, then having to find a way to milk that fare to cover costs.
However, these monopolies must be regularly challenged and scrutinised to prevent the sort of entrenched corruption that becomes almost inevitable. To that extent, I think start-ups that challenge monopolies are fantastic. But that becomes a fig leaf when the company is simply exploiting the community (no/low tax) and their workers (avoiding labour laws). The potential benefit of shaking up an entrenched player does not justify breaking the law, nor the sort of exploitation that the regulation/monopoly was created to prevent.
Not always. And when I do, it isn't always me.
We use a lot of visual cues to determine the distance to an object.
Fixed point stereoscopic vision adds very, very little to our sense of depth at considerable overhead (glasses, reduced brightness, lower frame rate) and with some people finding the mismatch between individual image and eye position actually detracts from the sense of 'realism'.
Like any new film technique it's in the 'novelty' stage and suffers from over-use and a lack of audience familiarity (so that it can be ignored and become just one more transparent mechanism for story telling). It doesn't offer enough benefit to get past this stage (as it hasn't in each of the previous incarnations) and interferes with existing techniques (use of changing focus to direct attention).
You're dismantling yourself YETI
Only you think so, and that's only because you cannot read and ignore the points that are made. You've addressed nothing in my posts, just repeated your usual claims.
The speedup of resolving a name via a hosts whitelist vs DNS cache is below human perception in most cases. The difference between operating in kernelmode vs usermode is imperceptible in most cases. You keep ignoring the fact that your big selling point - increased efficiency and speed is trivial for most users these days. It's unnoticeable. It's a couple of percent of system resources, or less. It's technically faster, but it _just_ _doesn't_ _matter_. Did you read that? Do you understand what I am saying? Feel free to disagree. Reason with me. Present a counter argument, or examples where it does matter. Or ignore this and concede the point. Again.
Your program updates automatically, but the host file does not. I would have to launch your program to edit the file each time I want to browse. Add ons not only update each time I open my browser, they also update their lists. Even while I am browsing. I don't have to do anything. That's me having to do 'less'. Win to add ons.
Hostfiles do not stop scripts for sites you want to visit and hence haven't blocked. It cannot stop a script from a site that you have not yet added as being bad. A script blocker will stop both. You admit that your browser is set to stop scripts. This is the fundamental difference between whitelisting and blacklisting and is another thing you refuse to address. Blacklisting, alone, is not enough. Please address this, or concede the point. Again.
Few run their own ads!
Hooray, I'm nearly safe.
My program backup's @ end run. Don't restart it FINALHOSTS.TXT is it. A restart erases it
So you can check when a particular entry was added? No? Didn't think so. Having a single copy that is overwritten on use is not a 'backup' in any but the most trivial of definitions.
Don't put words in my mouth
I think you are using phrases you don't quite understand, again.
YOU TRYING TO TELL US
There is no 'us', APK. I'm talking to you. Cheap rhetoric. Appeal to popularity by association.
addons = BETTER
Yes. Your 'more' is misleading, your 'less' is trivial.
You have a double standard. You obsessively list every minor advantage that your solution has over browser extensions but keep ignoring the things they do that a cannot. That's how you keep coming up with 'more'. It's not more, it's different. The things that extensions allow me to do are more useful to me than the things they cannot do that a hostfile can. I argue that this is also true for most users, as 'most' approaches 'all'.
The additional resources that are used to achieve this are literally unnoticeable they are so slight, so the fact that your solution uses even 'less' is moot.
This is the argument. The 'less' you claim is meaningless in use and the 'more' only exists if you ignore the things add ons can do that a host file cannot. So, can you actually stop chanting your pet phrases and address these points, or are you, once again, going to -
a) fall back on claiming some really cool people think that you are right;
b) repeating yourself while claiming you are 'dismantling' my arguments;
or
c) ignoring me, and moving straight to insulting me and claiming victory.
I wait with bated breath,
YT
clinical depression, which is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.
And genetics, epigenetics, different physical structures in the brain, environment, and cognition. And given the brain's plasticity, a lot of those can arise or be reinforced by feedback from other systems.
It has little to do with external factors
Hmm. The importance of external factors has certainly shifted from the assumption that everyone has the same brain and that nurture gives rise to variation, but stress is still strongly linked to developing depression, even if those with a genetic predisposition are more likely to develop depression and/or more likely to develop depression, sooner. Chronic depression is linked to people who suffer from PTSD, chronic pain etc.