GavinMcG

64 ms·

691.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Can you explain how? The study "compared the MRI scans of people who said they 'often' feel lonely with the scans of people do not report feeling that way" and didn't seem to make any reference to aloneness.
692.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
You misread Steve Yegge's post and you're accusing me of a bait and switch. Just read the post. > as in we need to take professionally trained philosophy graduates more seriously and bring them into the software industry so the
693.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
I think it's entirely in the original spirit. Read the conclusion of the post: > The lesson is that they are you . Whenever you hear someone ranting about something you take for granted as wonderful and praiseworthy, and you&#x27
694.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
You seem to be talking about/dismissing philosophy as though it's stuck in its very earliest days, one step away intuition.
695.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
You're talking about whether philosophers discovered facts . Let's assume they didn't. The point of the post is that philosophers work on how to talk about facts. > When people say spare me the philosophy, they mean the
696.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
The comment I replied to said: > If you can identify an overlooked segment of founders, you can invest in that group and get industry beating returns. I described a way that might be false. I did not make any moral claim, and certainly d
697.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Only if their being overlooked is orthogonal to the forces that determine their success. If sexism does make it harder for them to succeed then maybe that's priced in accurately.
698.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
I think that's wrong in a way that's kind of subtle. It seems to equate the system being created by intentional minds with the system being an intentionally-created one. But intentional people can still be non-intentional particip
699.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Oh come on . Critics have been around forever. Please show some examples of this new phenomenon.
700.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Awesome to hear!
701.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
The two things aren't different if Musk actually doesn't set foot in California, just like the employees of your company. I'd imagine the commenter that said he'd still have to pay income tax in California assumed that M
702.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
But there you go: you yourself just distinguished it, acknowledging that the address itself isn't what needs to be published in order to preserve society's interest in free publication about corruption.
703.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
That's because they're working in that state. They're not paying California income tax because they're not working in California.
704.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Only 17 states have those, California and Texas don't, and even if they did they're limited to specific other states. It's simply not accurate to make the general statement that state personal income taxes are based on your d
705.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
No, state personal income taxes are based on personal income you earn in the state . If you work in multiple states, you file in multiple states.
706.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
She is not some random person to me. She is someone I have granted (through my government) a position of power and trust, which exposes her to certain risks which I want to protect her from, because being scared for one's life is not a
707.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Should we deprive emergency room doctors of N95 masks, just because I can't buy any on store shelves?
708.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
You're being disingenuous. There are different ways of measuring value, so when someone says "yes" you pounce on that even though that particular equivalency/measurement isn't the whole story when it comes to how we
709.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Go ahead and say anything you like about them. Your political opinions are entitled to the highest order of protection under the 1st Amendment. There's little reason to say that "X judge lives at Y address" is equivalently de
710.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Because your premise is all wrong. Their life is more important to protect from particular threats than everyone else's, because they're in a position where we expect them to make rulings based on their expertise and judgment
711.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
The comment said that it is without any question speech protected by the 1st Amendment. My comment is obviously following up on that. I do not think it is clear that publishing a judge's address is the kind of speech that is necessar
712.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
How much First Amendment history and jurisprudence do you know? There's a naive view that speech is speech, and it's all protected, but that is an absolutely radical view compared to what "free speech" has meant for mo
713.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
But it probably doesn't have to. The finder could file anonymously to be joined as a party, and could request that the case be sealed.
714.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
It's unfortunate. I'm surprised he couldn't hire a lawyer to respond to the lawsuit anonymously. The public has an interest in knowing about ongoing litigation, but maybe not before a chance to dismiss suits that are nuisance
715.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Online digital content, like paid courses or an author selling their own books, may come close once a sufficient amount of marketing material is out there. Email funnels can be automated, blog posts can be scheduled (and recycled), payment
716.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
An anonymous person on the internet is not credible . That's fine when the things anonymous people are posting here can be verified elsewhere, or are philosophical arguments that can be evaluated on their own merits, for example. It&#
717.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Go ahead and have conversations. Posting gossip and rumor on a public site isn't that, and should wait for credible sourcing so that it can be distinguished as true.
718.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
"Sharing hard truths" without credible backup should be flagged when it's personal information like that. Gossip and tawdry accusations don't have a place in a community devoted to responsible discourse, especially bec
719.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
This is unfortunately pretty amateurish and circular. > However, these were not real property rights, because the King or other political body almost always reserved the power to trample peoples’ property rights when it was politically e
720.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Well, you can give up and not read anything you don't already understand, I suppose.

More ›