DanielGee
It's a term used by both the left and the right. By politicians and the media.
> In the doubt I changed the wording. I did not expect the term to be political.
You shouldn't have. Who cares if it is political. You are the author and you should express yourself the way you want.
Why do you think everyone deserves respect?
I prefer the brutal honesty of the internet rather than the fake civility you advocate for. It cuts through the static and gets to the core issue. My experience has been that people dislike harsh comments because many times it contains the truth and they don't want to be confronted by the truth.
Also, instead of crying that the world is harsh, why not toughen up? When did it become fashionable to be so soft and weakminded? Especially over something so silly as github comments?
Personally, I feel the people who are turning the internet into a toxic mess are people like you who attack speech. If you don't like harsh comments, don't read them. What's so hard about that?
Besides, everyone has different levels on what they consider toxic. I and nobody I know considers "jerks" a toxic word. Why should everyone lower themselves to your definition of toxic?
There was a time when doctors were paid to push cigarettes by cigarette companies.
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/throwback-thursday-wh...
And of course in recent times, pharma was able to convince doctors to push addictive painkillers to patients.
A healthy skepticism is a good thing in science.
If you equate celebrity with making it rain in clubs, then I guess carter is "un-celebrity". But the guy has been the most visible ex-president in media. Think that makes him the most celebrity ex-president in history.
People aren't great in and of themselves. They are great within an environment.
So everyone is a "victim" of externalities.
If rivers have rights does it also has responsibility and culpability? What happens if a river overflows and few people drown? Do we punish the river?
A question in the title aside, I love the advocacy embedded in the title. "A growing movement"? From what to what? 2 to 3 people? The article is trying to grow the movement, it isn't reporting on a growing movement.
The only way to give rivers rights is to give it personhood rights in the same vein as corporations. But that means that rivers become privately owned entities. Do we want rivers to be owned by shareholders?
Rivers, like animals, are natural resources. Nations and states are stewards of it.
I'd even put george washington and Vo Nguyen Giap above napoleon.
The amount of undeserved praise napoleon gets irks me. He was handed the largest empire ( french empire ) with the greatest army and destroyed it in a few years. He is the architect of a few of the military history's greatest follies. The invasion of egypt, the invasion of russia, the continental blockade, amongst others. Every major military endeavor of his was a colossal failure.
Were it not for the artificial propaganda and myth around the guy, he'd be viewed as one of history's greatest military laughingstocks.
Napoleon's greatness wasn't in the military sphere. His genius was in the bureaucratic and legal spheres.
Ethical considerations are preventing us or at the very least limiting the speed of development. But mostly our lack of knowledge of the brain was what stopped us. Now that we are advancing on all fronts, I think we are going to be forced to deal with the ethics of neural/brain creation/destruction/experimentation.
If scientists are able to keep disembodied brains "alive", then it will open up avenues for experimentation and ethical issues.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924764
There are even ethical issues of hybrid organ growth ( starting from the embryonic level ) where human organs are grown in pigs. The question is whether human cells can travel to pig's brains and cause pigs to be "more conscious".
https://www.newsweek.com/it-ethical-grow-human-organs-pigs-4...
Maybe an objective, honest and non-clickbait "Current State of AI" would mean they wouldn't have to swing from one extreme to the other every few months.
However you define "smart", currently AI is mostly domain-specific "smart". Though there have been advances in general AI (non-domain specific AI), but we are nowhere close an autonomous generalized AI.
I would think that numbers, knowledge, technology and goods from the east had more to do with changing european society than a population decrease.
What do you think impacted korea more? The deaths during the korean war or trade with the west? What impacted european wages more? The deaths during WW2 or the american-led trade system?
Also, throughout history, there have been quite a few plagues ( not to mention mass killings ). Those didn't lift wages. China's wages didn't rise after tens of millions of people died during the taiping rebellion. But you are free to believe what you want.
The black death didn't cause rises in wages. What caused wages to rises was trade. There as something called the mongol empire ( you might have heard of it ) which allowed europe to trade directly with china, india and the rest of asia. The mongol empire ( particularly the golden horde ) was central to european wealth generation. So much so that when it finally fell in 1480, wealthy merchants were desperately seeking another trade route to the east. A few years later, you have columbus ( you might have heard of him as well ).
The idea that death caused wage rises is ludicrous when you think about it for a second. If population decline causes wage increases then japan would be seeing a huge rise in income. Russia in the 90s should have seen a ridiculous rise in income.
What increases wages are increasing population and increasing trade.
Why is the assumption that when given a "binary choice", entities like China, EU, etc would give in to tech companies? Especially when these companies so easily succumbed to US government/media pressure at home where we have a strong tradition of free speech? When a binary choice is created, it's the companies that have given in, not the state.
Why are these tech companies being portrayed as being on the side of "good", while nations are portrayed as being on the side of "bad". The idea that AMZN, GOOG and MSFT have chinese, european or anyone else's best interest at heart while the PRC, EU or any other state doesn't. Did the british east india company have india's best interest at heart compared to mughal india? Considering how suspiciously we view foreign companies ( especially chinese tech companies ), it's odd that we view our own so highly.
Set up a small network at home. Go crazy with nmap. Set up a few VMs. Go crazy with gdb or windbg. The best way to learn is to break things.
If you have an old application or game with serial #. Try to crack it.
Set up an webserver + sql backend, try injections or other exploits. Profile/audit it to see what is happening.
There are websites that document OS, Database, Webserver, etc vulnerabilities. Install older versions and try these vulnerabilities.
Then you can look into worms, trojans, etc. See their code and how they work. And see if you can come up with ways to stop it. Then see how you would bypass your fix.
You can also look at security ( white hate/black hat ) software that audit, pentest, etc. If it is open source, read the source.
The only reason to shell out the $10K is if you are looking for a job.
The highest suicide rates exist in countries without gun rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
Why is it people need to attack the US at every turn? Also, if she was in england, she wouldn't have had this opportunity because we lead the world in medical care.
No. It's a matter of fact. He works for bloomberg. He gets paid by bloomberg. Hence it is bloomberg. Now if it was an non-bloomberg employee wrote an op-ed piece for bloomberg, nytimes or any other publication, then you would be correct.
> But unless you do, I'll stick with the definition of an oped[1], and that Matt Levine himself took the job because Bloomberg gave him the creative freedom to write what he'd like to write in the manner that he likes to write.
Right. He works for bloomberg. He represents bloomberg. He is a bloomberg employee.
> [1]"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board." (wiki)
That's my point. Matt Levine is affiliated with the editorial board. He is affiliated with the founder of bloomberg itself - michael bloomberg, who pretty much handpicked his op-ed staff. You do realize that michael bloomberg himself writes op-eds for bloombergview right? Are you saying that doesn't represent bloomberg?
Yes. If an op-ed is written by Dimon or Tim Cook or anyone not affiliated with bloomberg, then you are right. It isn't bloomberg. But someone who works for bloomberg writing an op-ed is bloomberg.
Hope that clears it up for you.
For example, a company can give you options to purchase X amount of shares at a ridiculously cheap price ( like $0.0005 per share ). Many startups do this. Sometime in the future, you can exercise the option and get X amount of shares. If you don't exercise the option, then you don't get to buy shares at the agreed at price.
What defense does FB or tech companies have against people who say they consider atheism or gay rights to be immoral or offensive? None.
What happens when criticizing a religion is considered hate speech? Wouldn't we have to ban atheism? What happens when people say they find content about gay marriage offensive?
Moral-based censorship opens the floodgates to unlimited censorship.
Maybe we should stop putting tech companies and tech leaders on a pedestal.
This is a classic case of the race to the lowest common denominator. When the "community" is so large and diverse and often in opposition to each other, there can be no good standard other than free speech. This is why we had such strange issues of white supremacist content along with gay rights and atheist content being censored. If you censor one group because some people are offended by it what are these tech companies going to do when pressured by china, saudi arabia, israel, europe, etc to ban content they find offensive. They would ultimately have no choice but to simply ban everything that everyone finds offensive or lose market share.
Sadly, I think this is just the beginning of the censorship wars. Tech companies have set precedent the past few years which is going to cause them a lot of problems in the future. Usually the young "liberal" people lead the way in tech but they are usually followed by the much larger religious and conservative groups. The tech companies might agree with the censorship requests of today, but I doubt they'll like the censorship requetss of tomorrow. An organized conservative/religious censorship movement that mimics the recent liberal censorship movement can't be that far off.
My favorite is the yearly "end of china" report by gordon chang. I remember the guy talking about china's collapse in the 90s and he's been wrong since.