darawk

81 ms·

721.
by darawk 6y ago
That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.
722.
by darawk 6y ago
> This just isn't true. I'm quite sure that Epstein supported what he thought was good science. I'm also quite sure that Epstein had opinions about why his treatment of girls was justified. We do not have to accept that pe
723.
by darawk 6y ago
> Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with. Invest in local politicians by makin
724.
by darawk 6y ago
I'm not saying they were completely disconnected. What i'm saying is that he very clearly had a legitimate interest/passion for science. He could have acquired power and influence in much more efficient ways than funding the
725.
by darawk 6y ago
Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes. The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded v
726.
by darawk 6y ago
Academia is an indirect way to acquire that power, though. The direct way is to befriend and donate to politicians. It's much more efficient, and someone as intelligent as Epstein surely knew that.
727.
by darawk 6y ago
I agree that one may reasonably ask that. But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy. The only reasonable conclusion you can draw about the man is that he was both legitimately interested in f
728.
by darawk 6y ago
Epstein? You could easily be referring to the other three I mentioned too, i'm legitimately unsure.
729.
by darawk 6y ago
Agree. People's response to all this is so strange. It seems clear to me that this guy was legitimately interested in supporting science, and was a sexual predator. For some reason people really can't handle the idea of him bein
730.
by darawk 6y ago
There is something else that blockchain does that I don't often see people talking about, or they do talk about it, but they don't seem to quite understand it fully. Blockchain solves the platform problem. Finance needs a platform
731.
by darawk 6y ago
Why is this on SSRN? This is not an academic paper...it's not doing science or analysis, there is no data or statistics. It's just an opinion, and a facile, meaningless one at that.
732.
by darawk 6y ago
You seem to be equating wealth and power. Wealth and power are certainly related, but probably on a logarithmic scale. Someone worth $20,000 isn't twice as powerful as someone worth $10,000. The primary source of political power Jeff B
733.
by darawk 6y ago
How would Bezos continue to have power if people stopped using Amazon? Most of his wealth is in Amazon stock. Sure, he'd have a few billion left over, but his real political power comes from his companies, not his money.
734.
by darawk 6y ago
But there is no mystery. Feeling is a self-referential concept. The concept of 'you' or 'me' 'feeling' presupposes a self, which smuggles in the conclusion that consciousness is related to some immaterial eleme
735.
by darawk 6y ago
This article perfectly articulates my sentiments about the "hard problem of consciousness". It's a made up problem. There is no such thing as consciousness. It's a term we made up to differentiate ourselves from the rest
736.
by darawk 6y ago
> I'm not sure how Google wins this one because it seems like an easy comeback is "well why don't you just be transparent and tell everybody that information". Ultimately, as long as they have anything resembling &quo
737.
by darawk 6y ago
Could be, but if you want to answer the question "what are most people worried about" the correct thing to do is ask a random sample of 1000 people, not just to ask the people who've lost jobs.
738.
by darawk 6y ago
Why do you think they all had jobs, or their jobs weren't at risk? All it says, afaik, is they asked 1000 parents.
739.
by darawk 6y ago
Everyone saw the mass surveillance coming. What the premise of this article is, is that nobody ever detects the NSA in their systems.
740.
by darawk 6y ago
I think it sounds like a bad thing, but it also seems that Chevron claims to have remediated it, and it's a little unclear what the real facts of the situation are at this point.
741.
by darawk 6y ago
Probably worth reading the actual appellate court decision: https://theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CA2-Opi... Notably, their appeal didn't even challenge the factual findings of the lo
742.
by darawk 6y ago
The judge admitted that before the appellate court ruling: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160808006005/en/U.S... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neye7z/chevron
743.
by darawk 6y ago
...except that this guy was convicted of corruption, in US court. And while this article tries to insinuate that judge Kaplan was corrupt...the conviction was upheld on appeal: > In 2014, after a full trial before Judge Kaplan, Donziger
744.
by darawk 6y ago
> No. But if you are a shoe-maker who employs 10 people to make shoes, and you pay them less than their skills are worth or take money for yourself beyond what is required to run the business, you are taking their money. How do we determ
745.
by darawk 6y ago
> It’s true they may create wealth but that doesn’t necessarily mean it corresponds to the actual share of the money supply they are taking. You're right. They only take a small fraction of the wealth that they create. > For exam
746.
by darawk 6y ago
Most of that analysis is correct. Except you made a logical leap at the end from "profit" to "taking money from everyone else". That leap doesn't actually follow, at least, not from the argument that you made. If I
747.
by darawk 6y ago
> Putting a very high tax on wealth would have the benefits of a one-time infusion of tax revenues, AND a future disincentive for the ultrawealthy to seek to enrich themselves infinitely using business practices that take money from ever
748.
by darawk 6y ago
I couldn't agree more with this. Thanks for distilling that so well. I've been trying to articulate variations of this point for a long time.
749.
by darawk 6y ago
The point of this article appears to be that the Gates foundation simultaneously promotes vaccination and helps pharmaceutical companies with their vaccine research. While that is technically a conflict of interest...it's not much of o
750.
by darawk 6y ago
Sure, but that doesn't make him not an expert. Accountability != expertise. People believe Bill Gates is credible because he has a long track record of being credible.

More ›