pop8row9

Isn't that what you do?

If you have deals with many strangers do you not expect to get your hands dirty in some way?

This reply seems a little unhinged in comparison to the preceding comment.

I disagree that this is implied by his comment.

The Windows version of Transmission-qt does not allow one to completely disable seeding. Little bellwethers go a long way in identifying poor applications.

Be careful who you tell this to. Or be prepared to vehemently defend yourself from charges of incompetence at the next important political decision you face.

Propaganda based on the intellect can and does happen more routinely than is healthy in any society.

Sorry if this is a downer. I have your best interests in mind.

The Wikipedia article seems very biased in their favor.

You guys can be real dicks to people who express slightly alternate opinions.

I have a serious question: why can't bridges be rebuilt instantaneously, similar to a reset in the diplomatic sphere? If it is within the best interest of all parties involved, it can and should happen... Westphalia comes to mind.

We should keep in mind that fates don't have to be sealed, that redemption is always possible. After all, the goal is peace.

I like the party idea.

I don't think there's anything wrong with refutations of pop-science. Thanks for posting.

> It's just the audience that HN draws.

The content of this thread seems to contradict this claim.

Grace is definitely a factor to consider.

The question I have is: should someone be required to work in order to live reasonably well?

One entrepreneur, JK Rowling, is worth USD 1 bil. She did not require many resources to attain this; a savvier setup could have allowed digital-only publishing. Value can literally be created from the mind.

Given this, should it not be an acceptable profession in society to provide mind-workers the space and time they require to produce works unique to them? Should they not have comforts if required?

Can not any individual create in such capacities, and is it not only our fear and reliance upon the tales of a dark history and historical slogans which keep us from thinking the problem through to completion and from the very consideration that such new ways of working are indeed possible at a civilization scale? Are we afraid of success?

I believe that no one is beyond rehabilitation, with the right conditions. Further, I believe this belief to be fundamental to any functionally human rights-oriented, pan-state democracy.

I also wish to know this

It is unfortunate that large amounts of money are not made available to reform the prison system. It seems that society is on autopilot, with people being led into a meat-grinder. Moral activation seems necessary.

Ethics is changing: living species do have an inherent right to exist, I assert.

The only item which is an absolute good is the end of human killing and torture in all its forms.

This may be a bit of a tangent, but one of my favorite recording artists, Grimes, has said after her breakout album Halfaxa that shutting herself away for 10 days or more without any contact was vital to experiencing the "visions" which gave rise to her music... the recount I heard, did not seem happy, but necessary.

Oh, that the secret does lie within us, and that we must cross a frozen field to arrive at it. Who knows

The Dark Side of Camelot, by Seymour Hersh. A very, very interesting treatment of the Kennedys.

Hear Hear for the Clockwork Society.

For people who live as far West as you can be (politically), bordering the Pacific Ocean, who believe themselves to be at the forefront of a Science Fiction-esque reality that molds the world, this very-impressed ideology makes psychological sense.

Serenity, wealth, agency, and a pioneering spirit. These speak to vitality and placement. Sexual `fitness'... Winners... the psychology writes itself. It will likely be consistent as long as the four factors I've mentioned hold.

Please, could you provide an example of any mutually intelligible comparison which is not forced, and for which there are not 10x contradictions?

I like this very much; it reminds me of Dr. Manhattan.

This is why perception is so important: the same descriptions do practically, historically and in the present, apply to people as well as to clothing and items.

Let's say two men walk together in a market and meet a magistrate. The first man boasts that he bears scars from the building of the republic; the second man says of the first: "he bears the scars of an unpunished crime!" The second man's perception wins out; the first man is taken to prison.

When someone willingly characterizes another person in a negative sense, they turn lab coats into painters' coats. This diminishes not only the capacity of the individual with the changed description, but the capacity of `the republic' as a whole, through social stratificiation and description-based dominance, et. Yet it is frequently the case that the one who dresses his kin in a negative description is viewed as the more noble of the two, though in truth, he has reduced the capacity of another to think and act. We may ask ourselves what crime the first man may have been hiding, but we seldom call the second man to account, even though he has effectively maimed his brethren and his state.

These negative changes in description occur as a matter of course, and as of yet are unchallenged as a mode of social being. Competition is viewed to extend to such matters. We are enslaved by it in practice.

I personally believe the best system would be to take a human rights-dominated system -- that is, one predicated on human rights as sacred -- and spread this philosophy globally, identifying victims of negativism and propping them up. Rinse & repeat until negativists are natural outcasts, and always allow them to join in. Needless to say, prisons, killing in all forms, and torture would need to be abolished worldwide.

Having recently been homeless, and then having achieved a high-paying tech job, I can say that the clothes you wear affect not only you, but also your surroundings, to a great extent.

Before I achieved a good wardrobe, I could literally feel the tension in a room as a result of wearing poor clothing. It is experienced as a vulnerability to social attacks... think the experience you get when your boss frowns at you, but this experience occurring in every room you go into. Without dress comparable to my coworkers, I had to adopt social behaviors which patched the vulnerabilities. (This occurs in the animal kingdom as well, for example, with behaviors such as stotting.) When I had achieved better clothing, I no longer had to worry about such behaviors, and could devote more time, and mind "power", to focusing on my own pursuits.

I am reminded of Virginia Woolf's essay "A Room of One's Own": without some basic necessities one must adopt characteristics to appease the social dynamics around oneself. (I believe Machiavelli writes about this as well, regarding man's relationship to weather, but that's a looser connection.) Now imagine what it must be like to have food, shelter, no problems, good health, and $500,000 in the bank, versus a child in Sy ria. The psychological impact can't be measured.

We must keep in mind that we are all ships at sea, and even the smallest decision can be, and for the majority of individuals on earth is, fundamental to our survival.

tl:dr: When identity in relation to a group matters, unique behaviors sometimes occur to make up for weaknesses in other areas.