TruthIsHeresy

Right? Musk is basically a fascist dictator. Only Nazis would want want to work for him.

I wonder what percentage of Americans don’t know how to spell “delusional.”

This is your brain on DEI. These mindless regurgitations of “facts” come across like religious mantras at this point.

It’s amazing how well the media is able to reprogram the minds of the masses into mindlessly regurgitating its talking points. “Crypto bad” seems to be a big one for 2022.

I learned sales by selling weed in college.

Stop reading/watching the “news” and this will go away.

The lack of notifications on HN is intentional to promote higher quality discussion and to discourage flame wars [1].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29969399

Nice practice project but nobody is going to pay for this.

This is insanity. You cannot protect children forever. What will you do if your kids go to a friend’s house and have access to devices which are not heavily restricted? What if a friend comes over with their own similar device? As a child of parents who did similar things as you are doing, I can say confidently that it did not protect me, it created a resentment towards my parents, and it increased my motivation to break rules in general.

>The vast majority of regulation is there to protect market participants.

Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true.

>Crypto fans get mad when deregulated finance is comically unfair.

I’m curious as to where you’ve seen this sentiment from crypto fans? It seems most of the people getting angry about this are people who already disliked crypto and are using this event to add more fuel to the flames.

Plex also has DLNA support [1].

[1]: https://support.plex.tv/articles/200350536-dlna/

As someone who has received a tremendous amount of healing and comfort from psychedelics (in particular psilocybin mushrooms), I sincerely hope that legal psychedelic treatment becomes available before it’s too late for the depressed, anxious, and law abiding loved ones in my life. My Dad has a lot of health issues and struggles with depression and anxiety that becomes quite crippling at times. It has caused a great deal of pain for my family and I over the years. I’ve always thought that he would be an excellent candidate for psychedelic treatments but the legality and negative stigma attached ensures he will never become one.

A (better in my opinion) source on this: https://web.archive.org/web/20220328142448/https://www.reute...

One important aspect of this system needs to be the ability for communities, not other mods or admins, to have the ability to vote to add/remove moderators of their respective communities. Otherwise, power will concentrate amongst the moderators of popular communities which will undoubtedly lead to abuse, as we have seen on Reddit.

What happens when human adaptivity outpaces our species’ ability to accurately perceive and adequately understand the impact of our own adaptivity?

We seem to be becoming increasingly reliant upon technology which is increasingly untested to solve problems that are increasingly a result of this adaptivity. It’s a vicious cycle in which humans identify a problem but lack the necessary perspective to identify and solve the root cause of the problem so we end up with inadequate solutions that mostly prolong and exacerbate the original problem rather than actually solving it. Adaptivity aside, I just don’t think humans are at a point in which we possess the necessary perspective for us to safely engage in large scale commercial genetic modification of life without it backfiring on us in some horribly spectacular way.

This probably isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but optimal stopping theory [1] might be related/helpful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_stopping

> However, everyone who tries to affect change in bureaucratic organizations knows that the worst things are not the word ‘no’ but complete silence.

Sounds like the issue is the bureaucratic organizations, not the people who choose to be silent about certain issues/topics.

Why are you attacking the author’s character rather than refuting the author’s words? Seems like a dishonest way to undermine another person’s opinion.

I just graduated from an Ivy League law school and I found the article spot-on. So which of us is wrong?