Just stumbled across BeForU's 'Break Down', which I haven't heard in years. Been listening to their discography for the past couple days.

Yea, I apologize for that first comment. It was more of a snarky knee-jerk response of running across an anti-capitalism article when I just wanted to read cool stuff about the internet and the pirate bay guys.

I mean, it's pretty obvious they're anti-capitalism, but still. By "win this fight for the internet" I imagined they were talking about the rampant DMCA shit, random government takedowns of websites, etc. Not "ahh! people want to use capitalism on the internet!"

Obviously the internet itself is more in line with communism ideals, and indeed we see a natural push that way just in terms of how things function here. The problem is that it doesn't jive with modern society, and that capitalism is useful for getting to a state where communism can take over.

Capitalism doesn't work 'late game' but communism doesn't really work 'early game'. You need to make the switch at some point. And certainly the internet and automation will greatly help with that.

But to write off capitalism as evil and bad for the internet is silly. Most of the internet is literally piggybacking off of capitalism.

I have nothing against it. I'm just saying it won't work without either a complete dictatorship where there's not much freedom, or a society where people aren't required to work (aka a fully automated society).

In a post-singularity society, it works great. And the idea/appeal of it is great.

But either way my comment was more of pointing out that the article doesn't have much to do with the internet itself as it does hating capitalism. I clicked for an article on the internet, not communism.

Wait. You say Trump and Sanders aren't going to get elected? So you're saying it's gonna be Hilary?

Trumps the leading candidate on the right. If it's not him, none of the rest are going to make it. And for the left, it's just Bernie and Hilary.

TL;DR: The guy hates capitalism, blames it for all the problems in the world, and suggests an alternative model that doesn't reward progress in hopes that "robots will take care of everything".

Lol.

That's emoji, not emoticons. UTF-8 has them built in.

Nope. Because technically: 1. The measure of the spin of an electron may or may not be deterministic (depending on how things go). and 2. A "truly random event" is not willed, it's random.

I hold the position that free will is logistically impossible. Either it's free, which means it can't be willed. Or it's willed, which is inherently deterministic.

In order to have free will you must have a mechanism that functions based off the will of an agent. Meaning you'd need something external to physical reality, that then influences physical reality in a nondeterministic (that's also not random) way.

As I said, you have to defy physical determinism. But in the mean time, you need it to actually be willed.

It's very clear why free will can't be a thing. Will can be a thing. And certainly free will in terms of psychological agency over a body exists. But that 'free will' would be deterministic. Or perhaps random (but then it wouldn't be willed).

You seem to think the term "free will " refers to some other concept. What do you think free will is?

The defying of physical determinism. That is, when presented with an option, there is no way to predict what the individual will choose (given the choice is free and the user wills something). If there's a way to predict, the choice was never free to begin with and thus is not free will.

What's being talked about here is psychological will, which is indeed deterministic.

You do the same thing as the human does: follow the damn rules of the road.

Why not free market with opt-in safety agencies? Have it so people can sell/buy them freely if they know what's up, and distributors can pay to have safety checks on their products which is then shown to the consumer.

Because as it stands, a lot of people just illegally buy the drugs from other countries where it's cheaper.

Best of both worlds, really.

It's called Halloween. Most people just opt for treats though. :P

Have you ever tried taking a picture at night with an iPhone?

I don't have an iPhone. As far as night pictures go, they tend to vary. I don't take pictures at night though, no need.

Does that look remotely close to what you're seeing with your eyes? If so, your eyes are pretty shit.

My vision at night sucks. But no, I haven't seen any camera be able to replicate what I see at night or at day. It's always a lot of fiddling and it's still off.

I've never seen someone have such a negative view towards something, and also be on the exact opposite position as I.

IMO, photos are a useless waste of time. No point in ever taking one, besides for practical purposes: to have a photo of the thing you need a picture of, whether it be to distribute it electronically, or to provide a memory keepsake to remind yourself of the past. Outside of these two uses, I don't see any point for wasting $400 on a dedicated picture taking machine. My multi-function phone and iPod both easily take pictures.

That said, I see massive appeal in 'life logging'. And having something auto-take a POV shot every 30 seconds seems like an easy way to get visuals for a journal or to simply share what you've been up to without having to lug around a camera and spend forever learning to fine tune it and get "that perfect shot".

I'd much rather have a device that auto-grabbed visual memories for me than something I have to fiddle around with to effectively do the same thing.

As it stands now, every single photo I've ever taken had a practical purpose behind it. Be it logging visual progress (hair regrowth), providing a visual for a journal, or sending visual information to someone across the internet. Not once has it ever been for art.

IMO, pictures should match what I see. Nothing more, nothing less. If I could just rip images from my eyes and upload them, I would. Why waste time with anything else?

Probably because it's a mental thing. I guarantee that the women in the study all are feminists who think about gender constructs daily while the men are just random guys who don't care.

If it were legit influencing, I'd imagine that the female prompt would hurt men's scores much more than the male prompt would improve female scores. Simply because it's much less socially acceptable for men to appear feminine than for women to appear masculine.

Just a few thoughts:

1. The title exercise is depressing. Kind of like real hell, sort of...

2. She doesn't mention trans people anywhere in the article... Do MtF trans people score like the women or men? Do FtM score like the men or the women? I can imagine MtF scores going up when primed with the female text.

3. The 'minority in the class' thing is way off and is clearly just some sort of weird internalized fear that has no bearing in reality. Given I'm a minority every day: Left-handed, trans, and white in a school of asians. I had no "minority existential crises".

4. IIRC, the spatial reasoning thing has been well debunked. There's no real difference between men and women, only between individuals.

Meyers-Briggs think I'm an unassuming, generous and kind individual.

What's that got to do with MBTI at all?

Do they have Mamyukka or -LostFairy- yet? Probably not. Because fuck Japanese music, right?

But yea, every time I find an artist I like it takes forever to figure out where to listen to them. Shit seriously needs to be more streamlined. I hate that the music industry is so technophobic.

Can't stream the shit I listen to. And gotta have that high-quality anyway.

Mostly I just listen to the same few bands that continually release new content. Not many artists in the genre I listen to, so I get to all of them more or less (besides the ones I've trialed and am not interested in).

I was always into video games. I mean, I don’t feel the urge to do that with this, but it would be fun. You know, so the one block thing is okay. I kind of lied though and I’m nervous about going back.

Even I could tell you there's something wrong with that series of sentences... It's a bundle of gibberish.

Why? Why do you make me dig this up again? Pretty much a punch in the gut with nostalgia. Lots of memories with that game. I'm pretty sure a good half of my life has been eaten up by it. And what do I have now? Some memories, a couple screenshots, and a bunch of nostalgia.

I don't see why this is a difficult topic, or why they're trying to push transgender issues on top of intersex issues.

Is there a problem with the genitalia that needs to be addressed in order to function without infection/disease/problems? If so, fix it. If not, leave it the fuck alone until the person can decide for themselves what they want done about it.

Same goes for any sort of medical stuff for children and infants. Is it critical that it needs to be done now? If so, do what you need to do to ensure the person can live. If not, wait until they can decide for themselves. Is that so hard?

If it's an issue like the individual mentioned in the article, just make a note of it in the medical records, in case some sex specific thing is to come up (do men/women/intersex get different treatments anyway?)

I always thought that the "funnel profits back into R&D where there's not necessarily a guaranteed product" is a good thing. Since not everything that's needed is profitable. And a lot of things have significant startup costs.

Look at space travel. No guaranteed returns, no guaranteed timeline, massive startup costs, etc. But it's going to be needed in the future, and no one's working on it except a few groups with burnable cash.

How the fuck are you supposed to enter the market of some expensive complicated field (like smartphones, cars, image search, or some other advanced tech field) if you can't rely on existing funds and profit?

Yup, this is my problem with reddit. Says one thing and does another. And they pretty much just react based on news/articles/advertising, rather than supporting the idea that made everyone use and like it in the first place. It's one thing to explicitly ban something from the get go, making it clear it isn't tolerated. It's another to just up and ban a collection of established communities after a knee-jerk reaction to news.