The average person is consuming, not inventing. Human superiority is based on collective intelligence, inventions made by a few exceptional people, e.g. the top 2%. The other 98% are just riding along, not adding anything useful. Take a look at the state of the earth and tell me that's how a supposedly intelligent species acts. The one fighting wars against itself to impose domination, the one justifying most cruel acts with the will of some higher power that is just another invention of mankind's mind. I could go on and on.
It's human nature to think they are superior to anyone and anything.
It used to be that the difference between humans and animals was one is self-aware, the other is not. Then science has proven that to be untrue and humans craved for other reasons to distinct themselves from their animal origin, which one by one are disproved as well.
Claiming something that hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to be true doesn't make it true. It's a thesis that could work out either way. There are plenty of humans that think with a firm believe that earth is the only planet in the universe with life on it. Then there are scientists that think living organisms need water to exist, despite there being organisms on this very planet for which that does not hold true. Water is required for life the way we know it to develop. Outright dismissing it as the only option is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence. The first counter-example would be Artificial General Intelligence, which is estimated to arrive within the next three decades.
Dismissing the possibility of something outright because it doesn't fit into ones thesis or world-view is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence.
It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn.
Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist, 1860
Trying to teach them human inventions that are developed by and for humans and then calling them inferior when they don't succeed in using them to the fullest extent is pretty short-sighted. You can't teach every human every invention we ever made either. Some people suck at math, others excel at it. Are the people that suck at it now intellectually inferior to those that excel at math?
I also wrote taking it away, implying humans, not giving it to animals. Educate a dolphin all you want, I don't think you're going to get very far.
What you are describing is called education and technological superiority. Take one of those away and see what happens.
And whether the extinction of neanderthals and other species close to ours is due to intelligence or other influences can't be reliably proven. It's just the way nature evolved and it could have gone any other way as well.
Think about how dumb the average human is and then realize half of them are dumber than that.
Humans have become the dominant species for two reasons:
1. Our ability to reason
2. Our technological superiority
Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human, but due to the fact that they're seen as "just animals" and that they can't communicate with us in a matter we understand (nor care about doing it) makes humans think they are superior in every way.
Then, whenever scientific progression proves that animals aren't as dumb as they look, humans have to come up with new arguments to separate themselves from other species.
It's the typical arrogant and limited view of the common homo sapiens.
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Eagleson's Law:
Any code of your own that you haven't looked at for six or more months, might as well have been written by someone else. (Eagleson is an optimist, the real number is more like three weeks.)
Writing documentation isn't so much a "how" problem, but a "why" problem. Most people writing code in their own time can't be bothered also writing documentation for it.
Writing code is fun (mostly). Writing documentation is not.
Their own ads of course fit the "standards" that they themselves designed.
Any other way and they'd only harm their own business model. This is a defensive move against full-scale ad-blockers, nothing more.
There are other ways to monetize without (intrusive) ads.
Produce quality content and people will be happy to support it. If your entire business model only revolves around ad-driven revenue and it doesn't work any other way, then perhaps that business model simply offers nothing of value.
I think you're wildly overestimating the intelligence and awareness of the general population.
The media is and has been doing this for decades. If they do it in a totally obvious and outright manner, then yeah, everyone's going to notice, but if they do it in a more subtle way and push their agenda over a longer timeframe, most people won't notice that, or they'll only notice it when it's too late.
It's not about brainwashing everyone. All you need is a critical mass and once you're there, you've basically won.
Most people lack critical thinking abilities and they're rather contend with having other people think for them. You don't notice this here on HN because the readers and commenters here are far smarter than the average person is.
Yes, but the number of species extinctions skyrocketed due to human behavior. Natural habitats are being chopped down, nature is being forcefully controlled and developed in certain ways and global problems like man-made climate change are threatening a vast amount of species on this planet.
Humans aren't the only species destroying other animals' habitats for their own goals, but they're the most destructive one by a great margin. To make matters worse, humans possess the means and should have the common intelligence to find a better way. But instead of working together and saving the planet with all living creatures on it, humans are too busy fighting wars in an attempt at imposing domination on others.
> If you mean humans, we don't destroy our habitat.
Right, we only extinguish species after species living on this planet along with us. Mass genocide of hundreds of billions of living beings.
And why? Because there are only few humans that are comfortable with the idea that other species may be as important and capable as they are.
> What if most jobs are automated and people everywhere turn to violence to keep themselves occupied?
This will be a slow, step-by-step process where the media will be working against the general population.
Truckers are going to be among the first ones to be replaced with self-driving vehicles.
Quoted from The Second Intelligent Species: How Humans Will Become as Irrelevant as Cockroaches (Marshall Brain)
In addition, the mainstream media outlets will not cover the protests of truckers, or the force used against them, to any great extent. To the general, TV-watching public, any attempt at a trucker riot will be largely invisible, or will be marginalized as a nuisance. And any truck drivers who do appear in the media will tend to be selected to be the loudest, most extreme people possible. Therefore, when the general public looks at these extremists, teamsters will appear to be crazy. All truck drivers will be stereotyped with this “crazy” label, and the truckers will lose public support.
This is going to repeat itself until there are almost no human jobs left, if any. The rich will get richer and the poor will be stowed away, out of sight.
Every time I try to educate friends or family about it, I get the tinfoil look and they call me paranoid. Same with strangers when the topic comes up.
The most common (pretty much only) answers I get are that I'm nuts or that they don't care. And this is in Germany, a country where data protection laws and privacy are usually valued and cared about. But recent development over the last few years has shown that it's really just a small subset of the population that cares.
Android is not FOSS.
The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is, but that excludes all the closed Google apps upon which more and more Android apps rely on.
Almost every smartphone ships with Android, not AOSP, therefor there really isn't a FOSS smartphone market.
Do you really believe that?
The way I see it, most people just don't care. At all. Else they wouldn't sell their souls to private companies (e.g. Facebook and Google) without a second thought and we'd see more outrage against government surveillance that's being pushed in nearly every country all over the world.
Firefox is unlikely to gain much of a market share with only privacy-focused changes. People care about ease of use and especially performance. FF lost a lot of market share due to its horrible performance, compared to Chrome.
It's human nature to think they are superior to anyone and anything.
It used to be that the difference between humans and animals was one is self-aware, the other is not. Then science has proven that to be untrue and humans craved for other reasons to distinct themselves from their animal origin, which one by one are disproved as well.
Claiming something that hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to be true doesn't make it true. It's a thesis that could work out either way. There are plenty of humans that think with a firm believe that earth is the only planet in the universe with life on it. Then there are scientists that think living organisms need water to exist, despite there being organisms on this very planet for which that does not hold true. Water is required for life the way we know it to develop. Outright dismissing it as the only option is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence. The first counter-example would be Artificial General Intelligence, which is estimated to arrive within the next three decades.
Dismissing the possibility of something outright because it doesn't fit into ones thesis or world-view is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence.
It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn. Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist, 1860