tzar

It's an analogy for the second law of thermodynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. The point is that it's “challenging” and that complex events “evade a straightforward explanation”. That “challenge” is our intuitive experience of the directional arrow of entropy. A similar analogy would be to consider the difficulty of un-cracking an egg. Also, imagine comparing one bowl of soup to another bowl which was made just from tasting (or distilling) the first. Intuitively these are not likely to taste the same, otherwise a notable episode of Seinfeld would be invalidated.

–Hello Mike

–Hello Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKfKtXYLG78&t=2m7s

You can make up any number you like! That's what they did.

Isn't the problem, then, that the software doesn't work well enough with dark skin?

The semaphore ploy strikes me as much more rooted in information, thus the description “cyber”. Stealing code is just theft, since the object of theft doesn't generally qualify the act (though it does in some cases).

> Given that the user name says the user has no street cred, it's ironic that people would assume the user is "urban".

I don't think so. If they weren't “urban” it wouldn't be relevant at all—no streets.

No.

An argument like this generalizes into: everybody's free to do anything and there are no problems. At least you included “I don't see”.

“... can't get fooled again.”

Who isn't a terminally ill patient?

Though some of it is, so it's written this way.

You stopped reading too early.

> ...making it seem like it’s entirely out of your control and you need outside help just to survive.

Is this not the case? It seems rather apparent that we all depend on our environment (including one another) for survival.

There are also many examples of people who have survived cancer.

> I just want to say that the comments on this thread are absolutely ridiculous and I expected better. Does anyone actually think the customers would find out at the last minute? That the company would leave its users without any support? It's baseless speculation and my guess is it's totally wrong.

Well, it's their baseless speculation and your guess, so a level playing field. You can make the same point without baiting other commenters—in fact you just make your point without baiting other commenters, that's how.

> I mean that's like saying if a huge percentage of Americans have been arrested...

No, it's not like saying that. It's saying that public shaming might eventually become less damaging. If you want an analogy that expressed the point of the commenter, one was provided:

> A historic parallel of diminishing effect is posting identifiable pictures on the Internet.

This, also, is not like being arrested.

I have a feeling, based on absolutely nothing, that it isn't until later in life that we realize that this is it. As in, you can basically consider what you are doing now to be your life. There really isn't some big shift ahead where finally, all of a sudden you manage to bicker your spouse into who you wish they were. It's just... this.

Life is sort of a joke, but it takes a bloody long time to get.

> How do we fix this bug in human psychology?

My gut feeling is that this sort of thing is cyclical. We oscillate back and forth in countless ways, micro and macro. So the bug fix is to ride the crazy train until we reach the apex and then keep riding it back down to “sanity”, overshoot, then do it all again forever.

Self-centeredness (illustrated here as violence through revenge) is a characteristic most strongly associated with single-cell organisms. Along that axis, humans are characterized by being a complex system embedded in a complex system. We are defined by our internal and external organization, and are always striving in this way. The biggest denial of our humanity is to think of ourselves and our actions as apart from the reality of this systemic functioning.

Probably useless in terms of existing, standard development processes, but it seems to me like this Limbo effort is to come up with a new one (in which we can assume, by the principle of charity, that this is not entirely useless).

I think you may have just brilliantly expressed the human condition...

> I don't understand why the Hawaiians are so negative about scientific progress. I know their land is small, but the 'scope will benefit all of humanity for years to come, along with economic incentives. What's wrong with that?

If you don't understand it's because you don't share their perspective—understandably. I think one of the things the author is suggesting is that we make a better effort to do so. Perhaps your idea of benefiting all of humanity for years to come is different than theirs?

I haven't read the article, but I wonder if it's arguing that there isn't a difference in information quality between the paid sources and the free. Then you might attribute the spending to “FOMO”, but probably it's more meaningful to call it price-value bias, or something!

Perhaps you mean “moral judgement”, or something like that, or I've missed something, because this is exactly a judgement.

More than 8, or more than 9.5? Which is it?

> The key idea was that energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.

This doesn't strike me as so far out there. The concepts of entropy and enthalpy are often used at the molecular and cellular levels, along with statistical mechanics, which definitely interconnect the concepts of energy and structure.

> It seems that all of the problems of development and degeneration can be alleviated by the appropriate use of the energy-protective materials. When we realize that our human nature is problematic, we can begin to explore our best potentials.

This is a strong claim, for sure. But it becomes less quacky if interpreted more plainly: our nature is to degrade under the force of entropy, which can be countered (to a limited extent) by energy.

He also doesn't say such things at all. I haven't decided whether the impossibility of his writing to be read and discussed charitably is primarily his fault or ours, if it even makes sense to think of it that way.

I agree with the cherry-picking, though. A glaring omission in his writing is adaptation (or hormesis), which is surprising for someone who draws such inspiration from Selye.

What reasons do you have to suspect this?

How long have you been smoking daily? From the article:

> Unlike with opioids and stimulants, marijuana dependence tends to develop slowly: Months or years may pass before symptoms begin to affect a dependent user’s life.

The case is similar with alcohol dependence: it can take quite a long time.