alexandercrohde

68 ms·

1. 631.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I think this article is fundamentally correct, and speaking about an unacknowledged but universal force. I remember when I was young, a lot of guys I knew didn't openly support gay-marriage because they were afraid that other people wo
2. 632.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I found this aside really interesting, it helped me understand other perspectives: "Everyone hates the political class who they see (in my opinion, quite rightly) as basically a bunch of crooks. But all the other resentments make it ve
3. 633.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I don't understand. Do you mean "listen to" as in "hear the opinion of" or as in "obey"?
4. 634.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   Meh, I don't know what to make of this. I don't think equal proportion of gender talking is a meaningful goal, and the more I think about it the less sense it makes to me. I think about it and start to ask should all shows need to
5. 635.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I wonder what other pesticides are associated with autism? You'd of course hope the FDA/EPA would research this [autism risk] before making a pesticide legal, but how could they? In actuality, they give a very high dose to rats&#x
6. 636.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   Did you read the article? The author cites several published cases asking for just this, including in the Washington Post.
7. 637.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I reject the notion that this problem is even remotely unsolvable. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm not saying it'd be profitable, but it's not that hard. The reason it feels hard is that it gets politicized and PC&#
8. 638.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   Just as a casual reader of this comment, a few tips: - The rhetoric about the world grinding to a halt isn't really pertinent and makes you look unreliable. Also, no, not "literally." I think what you're getting at is th
9. 639.▲
   by alexandercrohde 8y ago

   I have no idea why this is downvoted, I think this is pretty profound. AI, or even sentiment analysis, could easily filter non-factual posturing from statements of objective fact. Of course, people can filter it too, you never see this type
10. 640.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I think the central premise is that faith in the American Dream is dying. I think its goal is to appeal to emotion, and it clearly succeed at it. Perhaps you yourself would be more persuaded by facts and figures, but that's a persona
11. 641.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    tl; dr: 1. States that there is a common modern fear that this is a moment of unprecedented ignorance of reality (i.e. people worry about "post-truth") 2. Counters this premise by reviewing the history of very wide-reaching and fu
12. 642.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    He just uses the word myth to mean "social construct," (which he explains in the book). Social constructs are those things we all pretend are real, but aren't objectively real in the scientific sense (e.g. a country). He prob
13. 643.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    Oh, I thought you were purporting to be an advocate of science. Should we not use the scientific method to measure what percentage of the time medical diagnoses are wrong, medicines are withdrawn after being prescribed, and health outcomes
14. 644.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    >> Historically, particularly in recent times, medicine has been more right than wrong when giving out advice. Source?
15. 645.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    Wait, are you saying you're such a person? You weren't able to get the MMR vaccine?
16. 646.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I'm not dismissing anything. I didn't say the science is or isn't true, I didn't say I would or wouldn't vaccinate. What I'm pointing out is that the side that says it knows, historically, has been wrong a lot
17. 647.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I find it hard to get as outraged about this as everybody else does. Part of this stems from the fact that I think the history of forcible medical interventions has been over-aggressive as often as it has been under-aggressive. For example,
18. 648.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    Agreed. The idea that I would want chemicals on anything I buy by default is nuts. Maybe it's safe, maybe a study will come out in 50 years showing it's not, maybe you let your pan get too hot and the teflon breaks down into your
19. 649.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I would not tolerate a company that build physical handcuffs to keep an entire population from expressing their opinion. I feel comparably icky about "mental handcuffs."
20. 650.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I as a private individual take responsibility for what companies I do business with, and what those companies do. A company claiming an imperative to stockholders does not excuse me, by my own personal moral standard, from investing in such
21. 651.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    If you have examples where America puts money before the freedom of the individual to have a political opinion, then it's those examples that need to change, not our standard of America.
22. 652.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    No. - Most people care a lot how corporations behave. Many corporations have a very, very bad reputation and it affects their business. E.G: I know more than one person who deleted their facebook. - Google got its popularity by indicating i
23. 653.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I think how it would work (if I amazon wanted it to) is that the supplier would send the list of signatures for the next 200 products to amazon (which would then check for duplicates). Presumably these signatures could be scanned from a bar
24. 654.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    What companies need to start doing is digitally signing their products (e.g. put a unique code on each box that is generated from a private key). Then Amazon and/or sellers can go online and verify this key to ensure their wares are no
25. 655.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    No idea why you're getting downvoted. The Jordan Peterson situation is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. When a public intellectual accuses a group of identity politics, and the response is to dishonestly misrepresent h
26. 656.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    What? You're argument is that a non-zero number of Alex Jones supporters don't support free-speech therefore all private platforms should ban him? As a moderate liberal, this type of extremism (i.e. seeing Nazis and hate-speech an
27. 657.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I'd bet < 100
28. 658.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    Well this would be scary if it were true, but the premise of America's democracy is that it's not. If it really were true that there was some "evil words" that would spread through the whole population like wildfire like
29. 659.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I certainly believe that [it would slow them down]. Firstly, I think the odds of America becoming a repressive regime, though low, are much higher than the 1/300,000 chance of a particular child being abducted... Remember, the US had a
30. 660.▲
    by alexandercrohde 8y ago

    I suppose nobody really invents anything in-house in one sense. You reuse the hardware, the OS, the drivers, the network, cloud storage, IDE, source-control, JIRA, a programming language, several libraries, databases, at least one framework