I agree with you which is why I got downvoted too. People with nothing better to do in their lives than get paid to downvote on public forums. My solution I guess is to leave this forum and find one that doesn't enable downvote brigades the way this one does.
Supposedly, commentors here have something of value to offer, otherwise it would just be a news headline site without commentors. I am taking whatever value I have to offer and going elsewhere. I suggest you do the same. Sure, HN will turn into a political echo-chamber but it's really that already, right? I had 10% of my karma- whatever that is and whatever it's good for- disappear in an hour when I proferred the opinion that I didn't blame Trump for the virus.
You get a result like that - people telling you that that should NOT be your opinion and here's the punch in the face to teach you that lesson- and you know the forum is already a lost cause.
Gab has a browser plugin that will let you comment on any website, including this one and not be censored. Also there are scrappy alternatives to Reddit, saidit I think is one, where its not a groupthink party.
It's just a period of time we're living through and technology will catch up with it.
Historically, problems had to go on much longer than people reading about them later realize they did before corrective action was taken. This is no different.
For all the busy-beaver downvote-assassins on HN- way to waste the days and hours of the prime of your life, fighting the losing battle against freedom!
At least some of life for some people is luck in the real sense that undeserving people (Joe Biden's son, say, merely to cite one example) are lifted up thanks to who their parents are.
Bad luck is when you're effectively ruined by the age of 5 thanks once again to who your parents were. The only way out for someone that fits this description is to adopt a self-reliant, goal directed attitude.
Self-reliant, goal directed behavior is essentially what people not born lucky or ruined do to improve their position in life.
What society can do to help is communicate clearly that the virtues of persistence, resilency, self-reliance and goal directed behavior are "cool" or in sociological-speak, society's normative values.
Unfortunately, since Rousseau and Marx, we have birthed a counter-culture that is determined to do the opposite. It's determined to place the locus of control over one's life outside of the individual and onto a nepharious "society".
Marx personally was an unhappy, deeply defective, and cruel personality. His philosophy stems directly from this. It attracts people who share his defects- namely people filled with resentment, envy, a desire to extract revenge for perceived slights and a lust for absolute power.
The hope is that eventually, through CRISPR and other techniques, that as a side effect of improving human functioning the well-spring of such people will simply dry up.
Until then, we have to do battle with a philosophy which preaches the diametric opposite of what we know leads to human flourishing and happiness.
How about the future value of dollar spent today? What the best and brightest do is advance science, including the science which later alleviates the issues plaguing the the bottom 1%. This is the whole idea of universal education in the first place. It pays for itself in the long run. The top 1% pay super-extra dividends to everyone.
2). If you include civil war and if you allow that civil war to be a war of factions within the CCP then you're wrong. There will be a new leader of the CCP, call him / her China's Gorbachev (and SARS2 is China's Chernobyl) and this will eventually lead, with assistance, to the de-Communization of China within at most 15 years but possibly just two.
Consumers are expert at detecting what has value for them. Putting the "correct" price on it means locating it on the can-pay / will-pay / will-pirate normal distribution of price vs profit chart you've seen .
If something saves me thousands of hours, I am not likely to both miss that fact and stay in business to be a customer for long.
Sellers have a harder problem figuring out what consumers value. The solutions to that are things like collecting useage data, eating your own dogfood or BYOC (be your own customer), outright feature requests, competitor's decisions ( which are market-proven value assignments) etc.
Also 0.xxx versions serve this purpose- it's partially a pre-market exploration of the value of features before a pricing / version segregation attempt is made .
There's just no way consumers doesn't know what they value when they use it or its not there.
There is a class of things which consumers dont' know they value because they've never had it to value in the first place (Pinterest, Instagram) but that's a different thing than assigning different values to different aggregates of established features.
Someone, a woman, I forget her name, a physicist has lately questioned the parsimonius assumption or more accurately the whole beauty assumption, meaning, roughly, the most beautiful or parsimonious theory is correct. Just a data point to this conversation, not an argument.
Re: Solomonoff, if you're chucking away unnecessaries, which is what I understand Solomonoff to be doing (I had to be reminded what his theory was truthfully) then that's all well and good, let's chuck. But you still are left with the problem of whether the axioms are true. That's a different thing entirely except to the extent we define true operationally, as having predictive power over the things we understand and know about in the way we understand them.
We moderns are all deeply enmeshed with Scientism which is an ism that says logic and reasoning and the scientific method etc. are the only valid tools for aquiring certain (indubitable) knowledge. What if it's just not true ? Then what ?
>>But once we reduce things down to simple logical axioms and constructs, these exist as much as anything can be said to exist.
I agree.
But this assumes logic and at least the principle of non-contradiction: not both A and not A - is how reality "really" is.
We can't get past the idea that it must be this way because only provable nonsense lies on the other side of this assumption. But our brains may be fundamentally unable to process ultimate reality and the nonsense a contradiction represents may be a statement not about reality but our brains, our thinking.
So logical contradictions aren't actually nonsense, they're the sound of us hitting the walls of what our minds can conceive of. All animal have such limits. We assume those limits look like darkness- stuff we can't peer into. What if they look like impossibility instead?
That's the point of view I'm entertaining here. I am not saying this is true. It certainly isn't useful or provable as far as I know, but it is possible.
The practical value of such an exercise, if it has any (and I think it does) is to twofold.
One seems to expand my imagination to the maximum extent pops me out of the assumptions that frame my thinking and this seeps into my thinking about things, technical problems, generally.
Two it confers humility and a certain openess and makes me less judgmental. So that, for example, when I hear or read people with claims to spiritual knowledge I don't automatically blow them off as crazy / bitter / ignorant because what they're saying "makes no sense".
Thinking and talking about Ultimate Reality capital U capital R, ought to fill us all with humility if we're being intellectually honest by our own standards. Yet, I find people totally lack that humility. They make huge pronouncements about Ultimate Reality which they can't really be sure of, and the effect this has on the world, and how we think of each other, and therefore how we treat each other, and even the effect on one's own mind, is one of diminishment generally.
Mea culpa, I was one of those people and I didn't like it.
If you get down to the core of knowledge and how we know something, this is what's really there, and it's good to be reminded of it.
I always hear this back from people, but it's a failure in understanding what's being said. You can't conceive of any future "knowledge" or state of being or most broadly, "configuration of reality" which could retroactively justify or "make right" proven and real human suffering already suffered. That is just not possible to you.
That is what you're saying. It's isomorphic to your argument; it is your argument's essence.
Expressed that way, the issue becomes apparent. We cannot conceive of something; it is inconceivable. But that inconceivability is exactly what the original argument is asserting - it's a thing beyond human conceptualization. Exactly.
All parties to the argument find agreement on this point.
I have a folder named "proofs" on my machine which is just this. About 1500 and counting little programs that demonstrate or prove that something works some way or another. The class name expresses the proven fact. When I find out I am wrong, I change the name of the class to reflect the correct understanding. I read through the names in my IDE when I need to know some detail about something I've forgotten.
This. It is discovered in the same sense that humans "discover" facts about humans via science- we're not born with perfect self-knowledge.
It is "created" because there is no guarantee that our efforts correspond to reality. In that sense we are just playing in the sandbox of what we can conceive.
The fact that mathematics corresponds so "unreasonably" to objective reality is because what we call objective reality is mediated by our brain's own idiosyncrasies and limitations of thinking.
It's no more surprising that external objective reality is mathematically predictable and describable than it is that our eyes can see shapes and some, but not all, light. That's the purpose of eyes and they tell us enough of what we need to know that we can survive.
Our brains are exactly the same thing- they tell us a story in a way which helps us to survive. Actual reality may be beyond our capacity to conceive of or worse, may seem like nonsense to us because it's aggressively illogical or specifically contradictory and reality therefore makes no "sense" to us.
All religions have a mystic branch which describes an awareness , usually transient, of a higher order to reality in which the suffering of people is "redeemed" or put into perspective or somehow negated.
One interesting thing is that the language and imagery used by the mystics of these different and separated religious traditions are often indistinguishable from each other- it's not clear if it was St. John of the Cross or Augustine or Zen Masters Ikkyu or Dogen who is saying them.
On thing they refer to in this transcendent reality is apprehension of "the coincidence of opposites". So for example, the obvious fact that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time is itself contradicted or "resolved". In logic we say "not both A and not A" (or else a contradiction is permitted and from there literally anything can be proven).
If I were a goldfish, no matter how right the math you read to me was, I would not understand it, you or anything it referred to. Even as the atomic bomb it described exploded, I still would not understand the nature of reality which now quite literally impinged itself on my flesh.
What would it feel like to be confronted with that kind of knowledge? Would we recognize some formulation of it but reject it, as in: both A and not A?
Would it be something impossible, existing outside of what appears to us to be exhausted possibilities?
Not A
Not not A
Not both A and not A
Not not both A and not A.
etc?
We can feel the limits of our own thinking when we reach something which is logically impossible. We just can't get our thinking around these things; contraditions seem like an absolute dead end, leading everywhere and nowhere.
Are there things in our lives which we literally experience, like an atomic bomb disntegrating a goldfish, which even as they touch us and we feel them, we simply fail to comprehend the "real" meaning of them? The breeze? A look? A birth? Suffering?
Spirtual insight may be a thing like mathematicqal talent- some people have a talent for it and some people don't. Such a talent may be completely disconnected from normal intelligence. To people who don't have it, it seems like garbage, i.e. self-contradictory, self-pacifying wishful thinking.
Luxottica is an unusual case. Most monopolies aren't that durable and Luxottica has challengers now. Also, the law in the US which says you can't buy glasses unless you have had an eye-exam in the past year is an anomaly amongst nations.
The functionality delivered by products is not screwing people unless you're talking about surveillence capitalism ala Google et.al. Capitalism and the pricing of goods is how we incentivize people to bring things to market and more importantly how we allocate resources. No one, anywhere, through any scheme has ever replaced the market for performing these functions and thereby driving civilization and invention forwards.
People keep believing they can (socialism/Venezuela), or give up on the project entirely after decades of trying (communism/ China / Russia). Maybe one day someone out there qwill have a genuinely new idea which works. Until then you have a right to feel good about contributing, in whatver little customer support / feature adder / managerial capacity you do, to the forward progress of society generally and the amazing, rocket-like increase in wealth absolutely everyone on this earth is experiencing relative to the past 30,000 years.
Not to be cruel, but the preexisting, running total of human suffering and tragedy in this world points to the fact that transcendent reality, the realm of God or a God, must have an alternative interpretation for human events, one which humans cannot fathom.
So for example, the tragedies which occur in your nightmares, after you wake, are given a different interpretation- the interpretation of "non-reality", i.e. it didn't really happen in some basic way that puts them into the category of "life non-tragedy".
From God's (or "a god's", for our dedicated atheists) POV, there is some enclosing context to the events of our lives that makes this mess we call reality "make sense". We don't have that perspective, so we think we suffer, pointlessly.
Along the chain from amoeba to goldfish to humans the understanding of events in our shared environment by each species changes. We think of that change as progressively
achieving a "deeper understanding" of reality. The zinger in this recitation of prosaic facts is: your consciouness is not the last one in the chain.
This is what Christians experience (and think of) as "faith". Faith in the wisdom or sense-making of a transcendent God and His plans.
I find I just can't relate to what you're saying although I can tell you're perfectly sincere and what you say makes sense insofar as its coherent and on topic. I get your point, I just disagree. What you're citing as selective fact presentation is called presenting a coherent point of view, buttressed by facts. If the facts hurt, then that's information to the injured party and information they need to have.
To give an analogy, our court system is adverserial and most debating societies follow the similar rules. The reason for this is because the best arguments are just that- arguments. In a debating society both sides present their cases as strongly as they can and the audience (here readers) decide. Asking someone not to form accurate, relevant, and decisive facts into an argument because the facts themselves will inflame people is, let's just say very Europeanish. It's akin to bannning so called "hate speech", which is nothing but speech that pisses off the people it exposes in some way.
I can't support a platform that has hatespeech moderation built into it.
What is going on is that people who do do what you're saying I am doing, attacking with selectively edited facts which distort reality, are ruining your platform. They suck up mindwidth and attention and litter the place with n-nested, tit-for-tat, lastwordistic threads. They ruin the joint. Then it's not an engaging place to be anymore and the Good People leave. Just so you know I know what you're talking about.
It's your place, not mine and you can do as you see fit. I can't participate as a commenter, that's all. There's just zero chance I'll change my approach, so it's better that I just refrain, which I am happy to do.
Reddit got it right btw, and then it went full totalitarian and those two things aren't unrelated. When you let people develop their ideas fully, using all the means their intelligence and imaginations can muster, then complex issues become clear. When that clarity doesn't favor your preferred narrative, as it didn't favor the narratives of the handful of Reddit mods who run that place, then you're put in the position of hosting your own ideological destruction. Not many Sam Adamses are ever birthed in the first place and certainly not enough to keep Reddit stocked with moderators, so, of course, they shut dissenting subreddits down faster than a kissing booth at the Wuhan county fair.
OK let me get this straight, just so I understand.
It's flamebait to recite the material and relevant facts about the Chinese Communist Party / dictatorship including the fact that they murdered the doctors who were trying to warn them and investigate it, after which this same dicatorship lied to the world about the spread of the disease and permitted tens of thousands of people to leave Wuhan provence, carrying what they knew to was a highly infectious virus with them. And now thousands are dead.
That is nationalism and flamebait and not the mere recitation of known facts ?
Seriously just trying to get my mind around the standards we're held to here at HN. We are supposed to deny or massage reality if it makes psychopathologically murderous and murderously irresponsible regimes look, you know, bad?
If that's not what you're telling me, then please, explain. Cite just one sentence or phrase which I wrote you think misrepresents reality and constitutes "flamebait".
The virus started in China.
The virus spread from China because of of the Communist Chinese Party's denial and lack of response.
Those are, in turn intimately connected to the fact that China is a one-party dictatorship that murdered the doctors who first tried to bring their attention to COVID-19 in the early days of the virus, lest the world forget.
Currently, Chinese epidemological numbers cannot be trusted because the Chinese Communist Party, on top of being a murderer of its own truth-telling scientists, is a pathological liar and manipulator of information, like all Communist regimes.
That's all I said about China; maybe someone said something more, so talk to them.
How many people die, the death rate from COVID-19, is about the same in most nations and mostly a function of age and previously existing health issues.
Aside from these facts, I don't even know what in my post you could be reacting to.
Supposedly, commentors here have something of value to offer, otherwise it would just be a news headline site without commentors. I am taking whatever value I have to offer and going elsewhere. I suggest you do the same. Sure, HN will turn into a political echo-chamber but it's really that already, right? I had 10% of my karma- whatever that is and whatever it's good for- disappear in an hour when I proferred the opinion that I didn't blame Trump for the virus.
You get a result like that - people telling you that that should NOT be your opinion and here's the punch in the face to teach you that lesson- and you know the forum is already a lost cause.
Gab has a browser plugin that will let you comment on any website, including this one and not be censored. Also there are scrappy alternatives to Reddit, saidit I think is one, where its not a groupthink party.
It's just a period of time we're living through and technology will catch up with it.
Historically, problems had to go on much longer than people reading about them later realize they did before corrective action was taken. This is no different.
For all the busy-beaver downvote-assassins on HN- way to waste the days and hours of the prime of your life, fighting the losing battle against freedom!
You go girl!