Another way to say this, how does lying tell the truth? I don't understand corporations that decide to lie like this.
I noticed Facebook Messenger does this fun thing where you can open it, start to read a message and then it says "BAM--YOU MUST UPDATE". The fact they intentionally designed it this way makes me want to delete Messenger forever.
My disdain for Pinterest is at unrecoverable levels because of this and the fact they display interesting photos without any details or source listed even if logged in. I often wonder the difference between people that become antagonistic for being forced to signup vs people that are persuaded.
Perhaps this could be justified but at least tip off the fellow agents and law enforcement there that there's two men with machine guns approaching. Instead, the FBI agent watched them exit their vehicle, then he fled the scene, was pulled over and almost shot due to how he was dressed. They put a mask over his head and he disappeared. Luckily no one died.
Low interest rates certainly lead to non-optimal housing development. I completely support massive government funding of energy, nuclear, technology and research.
But I don't support the NY Fed and the bank CEOs controlling the open markets, setting the interest rates and flooding dumb "elite" investors with cheap money so they can build bad systems. Having 1 of 12 FRBs dominate the monetary system is a flawed idea, especially when that 1 is Wall Street. Financial engineering is dangerous and antithetical to real research, development and progress.
It’s so extra in its absurdism that I’d rather believe in sinister intent than systemic stupidity.
The delivery address is the smallest possible font hidden behind screens. The endless dinging etc makes no sense. I feel like people designing apps have never actually used them. Or maybe it’s all designed to make one so frustrated as to question the nature of reality.
The world is bad UX which I tend to think is a conspiracy.
For example, the Postmates driver app functions like it was programmed (automated) in a parallel dimension by toddlers in a thousand year future using an analog of Visual Basic. Then ported to iOS and ran via 480 API requests that transverse space, time and logic.
Yet an FBI agent can literally encourage the first ISIS attack in the US and it’s covered on 60 Minutes but no one bats an eye. We’re left just to assume this is the only time it’s happened. While the 3rd terrorist arrested months later assumed the FBI agent died in the attack — which is how involved he was.
You’re right, there are more people outside walking in areas than need to be. Walking in areas where there would be less people or none. People sitting on sidewalks, grass areas etc.
TV news says our city streets are empty — but there’s actually babies, old people, lots of people exercising etc etc everywhere. Farmers markets with huge crowds. Non-essential construction workers all over.
Yet there are a lot of people outside because they have no choice. They are working or surviving. And then yesterday at the grocery store, there are people working there without gloves and without masks. And they’re jovial, walking around carefree.
I seen people preparing food and drinks without gloves and touching lids etc.
I don’t think wealthy people walking around is particularly bad but I understand your sentiment. The worse problem is we just have stupid people everywhere and sadly many are in our government, agencies and so-called elite. And some are critical workers.
In general, it’s a great question: why does it take such extreme overhead to run a digital company that’s like Craigslist with better pictures. I understand it’s more than that but it’s still a valid philosophical question to ask it there’s a way to run it with say 1,200 employees? Or maybe there’s not.
It’s analogous to the size of government and this trend of doing less with more.
Craigslist has 50 employees. I know there’s a ton of counter arguments to minimize my point but surely there’s a third way between 50 and 12,000.
Ok but he’s held very intellectual conversations with physicists so I can only infer he has a basic fundamental knowledge — despite the ego and fantastical colorful language.
And I heard about the 3 generations when I was a freshman in HS in AP physics and I wrote a sci-fi story on it. Obviously it’s a widely known problem, I assumed people would understand me.
I’m defending the public sphere, promoting thoughtful ideas and intellectual adventures. Most people still don’t know who Elon Musk is yet it seems like they would. I want the average person to know the great open questions in physics.
Other professionals, hackers and those with PhDs in mathematical physics can contribute something novel and true to the future of understanding physics. No one owns mystery or the right to explore it.
Even if it’s just an artist or mathematician inspiring a physicist to understand an idea that could lead to something unrelated but true. Or public support to increase scientific funding.
I also work with a physicist who probably would criticize my perspective here. He has analyzed and critiqued pseudoscientific claims for national security reasons. So my experience here isn’t non-existent.
And I’m not a software engineer. I was a hacker. I like to reverse engineer things and understand the world through first principles...
Physicists want to forbid people from exploring ‘philosophies of sciences’ in public? You can only discuss official ideas codified by peer review?
And of course it’s one of the main open problems. Obviously people in the community discuss it and it’s widely known. I meant in general, all the people talking sports, politics, business, finance, technology and reality TV, you know 99% of human communication, never ever discuss any ideas interesting in physics. Maybe because the authoritarians motivate normal people to avoid it thus only charlatans and a few science popularizers drive public awareness.
And I meant some of the math and physics he’s describing are true. I’m not saying his theories are true but not all his perspectives on them are unfounded. He’s had highly intellectual conversations with physicists on his podcast. Including Penrose. And Lisi, whom he strongly criticized.
My point is, he doesn’t need a license to talk and the criticism towards new ideas is wrong. Plus we need more cool ideas in the public sphere, right or wrong.
Regardless if he’s wrong, what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine.
The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact. It’s a curious thing and his theory was at least infinitely better than 99% of the content on the Internet.
I don’t really understand what he said (and a paper won’t help me) but it made me think in different ways.
He conceded he may be wrong, that he may be crazy, but he also has a PhD in mathematical physics. A charlatan typically declares he is right, often by divine right or unreasonable skill level. Eric’s just exploring ideas from his perspective.
I think hyper-criticizing him is more dangerous for intellectual thought than him inspiring millions of potential minds with fantastical descriptions that may be wrong. Some of what he’s saying is undoubtedly true.
I know we’re not supposed to refer to downvotes, but I had cancer and I worked in medicine. My points are valid and downvoting them is analogous is to the collectivist groupthink in medicine.
Cancer’s not one thing but there’s some things you can do to generally improve your odds.
A doctor and an oncologist won’t tell you these things because they’re not even thinking about them. They likely don’t even know how to answer the question “can vitamins help some cancers?” Instead, mine repeated word for word responses about how we get most of our vitamins from a healthy diet. Then said he’d have to look it up.
Ask them about IGF1 levels, fasting, ketogenic diets they mostly won’t know. They simply say there is NOTHING you can do to prevent getting cancer.
It’s the system’s fault, the doctors and surgeons are just human beings who have no incentive to be practical.
I always criticized the idea that “radical technology could exist but the competition buys it up” as a naive conspiracy theory.
It’s pretty remarkable that the government paid for this but somehow the international medical corporation can swoop in, buy the competitor who is threatening their margins, and void the contract.
One of the most absurd consequences of CarPlay is the USB car ports are often 1 amp. So my phone dies faster. Combined with Apple forcing you to use Apple Maps, makes me cynical of basic technology. This is partly what makes it more distracting.
There are super smart people I respect but they accept bad behavior as a form of pragmatism. Like they’ll excuse patent trolls because they’re just working a legal angle and trying to make money like everyone else.
This idea that unethical things are just a consequence of circumstance and survival is flawed. We shouldn’t excuse those aggressively working to increase the surveillance state or corporate profits just because that’s their job —- we can be better than that.
I noticed Facebook Messenger does this fun thing where you can open it, start to read a message and then it says "BAM--YOU MUST UPDATE". The fact they intentionally designed it this way makes me want to delete Messenger forever.