These are pretty common criteria for any kind of addiction...
No they aren't. Those are symptoms of psychological dependence.
Addiction requires a *physical* dependence which causes *physical* withdrawal symptoms. Without those, it's just psychological dependence, which can be for anything.
For many topics, or behaviors, or beliefs, any criticism or even simple rejection is being punished as 'hate speech'. You cannot disagree with a wide variety of opinions without being shadowbanned or redirected, deplatformed, or simple filtered out, and the entities doing that may ignore your requests for explanation.
Right, and *right now* those same people are perfectly OK with censoring things they disagree with as "against common decency" because "common decency" aligns with their beliefs and they are utterly incapable of considering the possibility that social norms may change, and they're totally ignorant of what the consequences of such a policy would be should social norms become misaligned with their own beliefs.
I'm trying to point out that social norms can and do change, and that if the norms should swing "against" their beliefs, they would no longer be in support of said policy - because they're hypocrites
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
Yeah, but if allow people to speak and expose their atrocious ideas, then the SJWs will no longer simply be able to decide in advance for the rest of us who the nazis are...
By letting people speak, you are infringing on the rights of the SJWs to arbitrarily decide who the "bad guys" are
...and decides that things like "homosexuality", "pre-marital sex" and "mixed marriages" are "against the common decency" - then it's perfectly ok for any matching content to be removed from the internet, right? RIGHT?
Spoken like a true and proper douche who has never left their own town. Is it really any wonder why there's a strong anti-europe sentiment in the US when there's people as condescending as yourself?
Wow. You really are an idiot.
I'm Canadian, moron. Also, the only douches here are the ones posting AC LOL...
Realistically, I can take any socialized health care system and point out to a way that it's inferior to the US system.
No, you can't, because they aren't. The US has the worst health care in the developed world; Mexico and Cuba are better.
The thing people as naive as yourself don't realize is every system has its positives and every system has its negatives.
Nope. The thing USians don't realize - because they've deliberately lobotomized their educational system, and therefore have a hopelessly parochial and myopic view of the world - is that health care is better just about ANYWHERE in the world that isn't a third-world banana republic, and even some of THOSE have better health care!
Honestly, I don't know what else to expect from a degenerate culture that uses their own children for target practice though...
That one's easy. When you say "in the hospital", the use of the definitive article "the" implies that it is a *specific* hospital they are in (usually with some understanding that the reader/listener is already aware of which *specific* hospital is under discussion).
When you say someone is "in hospital" it is a more general statement, saying that they are in a hospital somewhere receiving medical treatment, but does not imply that the *specific* hospital in question is already shared knowledge with the listener.
USians tend to use "in the hospital" for the most part because their health care system sucks balls and in most places there is only ONE local hospital which you could be referring to.
In other countries with proper healthcare, there are multiple possible hospitals, and the specific hospital can't be assumed by context.
This is where capitalism fails. Sensationalism makes more money than real news, just as a fast food hamburger makes more money than a nutritious salad. Until capitalism is brought to bear on the things humans actually need rather than the things they want, nothing will change.
This is where crony capitalism fails. A true free market would include the externalized costs of such things, but the whole reason those costs have been "externalized" in the first place was for the individual entity to avoid paying them by foisting the cost onto the general public.
Nothing will change until the public stands up and says "no we're not going to pay these extra costs for you", then the free market will take care of stabilizing the rest...
BS. without an unlimited number of sellers, monopolies and oligarchies will happen. Few buyers would create an equally unbalanced system.
That is not how this works. Unlimited sellers is only a requirement if your system is corrupt and requires endless growth to avoid going out of business, but then, that WOULDN'T be "capitalism". Also, there's a big difference between "infinite" and "few"
Your position that the free market requires infinities to work is patently silly (probably why you are AC!). All the free market requires to work is protection from manipulation of it's essentials.
>(Remember: Only about 6 Bitcoin transactions per second are possible in the entire world - nobody will be able to sell:-) )
This is the biggest problem with Bitcoin, and I haven't seen many people point it out. VISA does like millions of transactions a second.
The whole point of buying Bitcoin as a speculative commodity is dependent on that commodity (Bitcoin) having some intrinsic value that people will buy/consume it for. For Bitcoin, that value only derives from it's utility as a currency, which, to be blunt, it's basically useless at.
So all these Bitcoin speculators are just buying from each other and blindly hoping no one notices the things itself is useless.
It IS a requirement of "crony-capitalism", which causes inflation and results in a never-ending need for "growth"; which is impossible to achieve in a closed system.
They also haven't lived in a (real) capitalist country either.
Capitalism as practiced in the US and most of the west is "crony-capitalism", where power interests that control the money artificially manipulate supply, demand and market information.
To have true capitalism, the essential aspects of the free market: supply, demand and transparent market info; must be protected from manipulation by those with the means to do so.
The US is not a "capitalist democracy", it's a oligarchical republic.
The complexity of software comes from the complexity of the underlying problem....needs to understand that complexity to create working software for it....
Lay people, especially managers, like to think "if we just used library X" that could take care of all the hard stuff. The reality is, using library X now becomes the hard part.
Exactly! The problem with all these frameworks and libraries and that supposedly make things "easier" and "more accessible" is that they've done it by trying to predict all the use cases that might be needed, and moving the complexity for said cases inside the "black box".
It works great for the simple problems the authors predicted, but the moment your problem is more complicated and "outside" of their predictions - suddenly the problem IS the library/framework, which now presents a barrier to development
Trivial solutions work for trivial problems, but multiply the complexity of real world problems.
It wasn't always this way, Edwards notes, citing spreadsheets, HyperCard, and the many incarnations of Basic as examples of how programming technology can be vastly easier and more accessible.
I've seen many of these "technologies" which are supposed to make programming easier and more accessible, from the ones cited to things like true visual programming (e.g. LabView...) and the by far the biggest problem these "solutions" have is that they are only really applicable to trivial problems, and when you try to apply them to large real-life problems, they quickly become unusable and WAY more complicated than traditional approaches.
Sure, it might be easier to write "Hello World" with some of these, but try writing an enterprise app that has to handle hundreds of thousands of users with them: you're either not going to be able to or it's going to be a LOT more complicated than doing it the normal way.
TL;DR
Trivial solutions only work for trivial problems, and most real life problems are NOT trivial.
Tackling today's biggest social and technological challenges requires the ability to think critically about their human context, which is something that humanities graduates happen to be best trained to do.
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the content of modern humanities courses?
They are so full of "pomo, deconstructionist, everything is a social construct" BS that humanities grads are the very LEAST qualified people to be able to think critically, of any humans.
Slashdot Mirror
These are pretty common criteria for any kind of addiction...
No they aren't. Those are symptoms of psychological dependence.
Addiction requires a *physical* dependence which causes *physical* withdrawal symptoms. Without those, it's just psychological dependence, which can be for anything.
...you missed the point he was making that SJWs see "hate" anywhere and everywhere it isnt.
And thus proved my damn point LOL
Funny how hate-tinged your free speech advocacy is.
???
Please quote the segment of my post which you think it "hate-tinged"
Nazi.
SJW
But that's not happening.
Obviously
Indeed, something of the opposite is happening.
Exactly
For many topics, or behaviors, or beliefs, any criticism or even simple rejection is being punished as 'hate speech'. You cannot disagree with a wide variety of opinions without being shadowbanned or redirected, deplatformed, or simple filtered out, and the entities doing that may ignore your requests for explanation.
Right, and *right now* those same people are perfectly OK with censoring things they disagree with as "against common decency" because "common decency" aligns with their beliefs and they are utterly incapable of considering the possibility that social norms may change, and they're totally ignorant of what the consequences of such a policy would be should social norms become misaligned with their own beliefs.
I'm trying to point out that social norms can and do change, and that if the norms should swing "against" their beliefs, they would no longer be in support of said policy - because they're hypocrites
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
Yeah, but if allow people to speak and expose their atrocious ideas, then the SJWs will no longer simply be able to decide in advance for the rest of us who the nazis are...
By letting people speak, you are infringing on the rights of the SJWs to arbitrarily decide who the "bad guys" are
go on, define it
OK: "stuff I don't like"
...and decides that things like "homosexuality", "pre-marital sex" and "mixed marriages" are "against the common decency" - then it's perfectly ok for any matching content to be removed from the internet, right? RIGHT?
Because THAT'S what this is saying...
Why would you say "I am going to hospital"?
I wouldn't, because that's not how this works, nobody says that.
But, as USians, I realize you like to do things like "go on the vacation", "head to the work", "get in the bed" etc...
https://xkcd.com/538/
Doubtful, since I still understand you
Spoken like a true and proper douche who has never left their own town. Is it really any wonder why there's a strong anti-europe sentiment in the US when there's people as condescending as yourself?
Wow. You really are an idiot.
I'm Canadian, moron. Also, the only douches here are the ones posting AC LOL...
Realistically, I can take any socialized health care system and point out to a way that it's inferior to the US system.
No, you can't, because they aren't. The US has the worst health care in the developed world; Mexico and Cuba are better.
The thing people as naive as yourself don't realize is every system has its positives and every system has its negatives.
Nope. The thing USians don't realize - because they've deliberately lobotomized their educational system, and therefore have a hopelessly parochial and myopic view of the world - is that health care is better just about ANYWHERE in the world that isn't a third-world banana republic, and even some of THOSE have better health care!
Honestly, I don't know what else to expect from a degenerate culture that uses their own children for target practice though...
That one's easy. When you say "in the hospital", the use of the definitive article "the" implies that it is a *specific* hospital they are in (usually with some understanding that the reader/listener is already aware of which *specific* hospital is under discussion).
When you say someone is "in hospital" it is a more general statement, saying that they are in a hospital somewhere receiving medical treatment, but does not imply that the *specific* hospital in question is already shared knowledge with the listener.
USians tend to use "in the hospital" for the most part because their health care system sucks balls and in most places there is only ONE local hospital which you could be referring to.
In other countries with proper healthcare, there are multiple possible hospitals, and the specific hospital can't be assumed by context.
Are you so dumb you wouldn't understand the second? No? Then who TF cares?!?!
They participate in inane meaningless debates like "is data plural or singular"?, while the rest of the world just laughs at them and keeps on.
...offloads/externalizes as much of their costs as they possible can onto the public.
That's how capitalism works!
Americans Really Really Want Platforms To Do All Their Thinking For Them
"Like, why do I have to think for myself like some chump?" - said Joe Blow from White Trash, Florida
This is where capitalism fails. Sensationalism makes more money than real news, just as a fast food hamburger makes more money than a nutritious salad. Until capitalism is brought to bear on the things humans actually need rather than the things they want, nothing will change.
This is where crony capitalism fails. A true free market would include the externalized costs of such things, but the whole reason those costs have been "externalized" in the first place was for the individual entity to avoid paying them by foisting the cost onto the general public.
Nothing will change until the public stands up and says "no we're not going to pay these extra costs for you", then the free market will take care of stabilizing the rest...
BS. without an unlimited number of sellers, monopolies and oligarchies will happen. Few buyers would create an equally unbalanced system.
That is not how this works. Unlimited sellers is only a requirement if your system is corrupt and requires endless growth to avoid going out of business, but then, that WOULDN'T be "capitalism". Also, there's a big difference between "infinite" and "few"
Your position that the free market requires infinities to work is patently silly (probably why you are AC!). All the free market requires to work is protection from manipulation of it's essentials.
>(Remember: Only about 6 Bitcoin transactions per second are possible in the entire world - nobody will be able to sell :-) )
This is the biggest problem with Bitcoin, and I haven't seen many people point it out. VISA does like millions of transactions a second.
The whole point of buying Bitcoin as a speculative commodity is dependent on that commodity (Bitcoin) having some intrinsic value that people will buy/consume it for. For Bitcoin, that value only derives from it's utility as a currency, which, to be blunt, it's basically useless at.
So all these Bitcoin speculators are just buying from each other and blindly hoping no one notices the things itself is useless.
... an unlimited number of buyers and sellers.
That is not actually a requirement of capitalism.
It IS a requirement of "crony-capitalism", which causes inflation and results in a never-ending need for "growth"; which is impossible to achieve in a closed system.
they haven't lived in a (real) socialist country.
They also haven't lived in a (real) capitalist country either.
Capitalism as practiced in the US and most of the west is "crony-capitalism", where power interests that control the money artificially manipulate supply, demand and market information.
To have true capitalism, the essential aspects of the free market: supply, demand and transparent market info; must be protected from manipulation by those with the means to do so.
The US is not a "capitalist democracy", it's a oligarchical republic.
The complexity of software comes from the complexity of the underlying problem. ...needs to understand that complexity to create working software for it. ...
Lay people, especially managers, like to think "if we just used library X" that could take care of all the hard stuff. The reality is, using library X now becomes the hard part.
Exactly! The problem with all these frameworks and libraries and that supposedly make things "easier" and "more accessible" is that they've done it by trying to predict all the use cases that might be needed, and moving the complexity for said cases inside the "black box".
It works great for the simple problems the authors predicted, but the moment your problem is more complicated and "outside" of their predictions - suddenly the problem IS the library/framework, which now presents a barrier to development
Trivial solutions work for trivial problems, but multiply the complexity of real world problems.
It wasn't always this way, Edwards notes, citing spreadsheets, HyperCard, and the many incarnations of Basic as examples of how programming technology can be vastly easier and more accessible.
I've seen many of these "technologies" which are supposed to make programming easier and more accessible, from the ones cited to things like true visual programming (e.g. LabView...) and the by far the biggest problem these "solutions" have is that they are only really applicable to trivial problems, and when you try to apply them to large real-life problems, they quickly become unusable and WAY more complicated than traditional approaches.
Sure, it might be easier to write "Hello World" with some of these, but try writing an enterprise app that has to handle hundreds of thousands of users with them: you're either not going to be able to or it's going to be a LOT more complicated than doing it the normal way.
TL;DR
Trivial solutions only work for trivial problems, and most real life problems are NOT trivial.
Tackling today's biggest social and technological challenges requires the ability to think critically about their human context, which is something that humanities graduates happen to be best trained to do.
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the content of modern humanities courses?
They are so full of "pomo, deconstructionist, everything is a social construct" BS that humanities grads are the very LEAST qualified people to be able to think critically, of any humans.