fossuser

67 ms·

601.
by fossuser 6y ago
I don't mean to imply that a religious person can't be outlier smart in other ways (Knuth being a great example but there are many others), but that doesn't mean something isn't broken with their world view. People are w
602.
by fossuser 6y ago
Sure - technically every atheist should be agnostic in the sense that you can never know anything with 100% confidence, but pragmatically you live as if you're an atheist. In the strict sense I'm "almost certain there is no g
603.
by fossuser 6y ago
I'd recommend Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe which goes into some of the more modern theories beyond The Big Bang (Inflation Theory, MWI of QM) - I thought it was pretty interesting and didn't know about. https:&#x2
604.
by fossuser 6y ago
Thanks - I think this does a better job clarifying that bit better than I did (which notably doesn't address the infinite regress issue). The watchmaker argument is more narrowly the creationist 'eye can't have just formed it
605.
by fossuser 6y ago
> ""How is it possible to test for "supernatural behavior"? - "I'm a psychic and can tell what's in these containers without looking" - "I can detect water with magic rods" - "I can
606.
by fossuser 6y ago
You can read the bible directly and see problems with fundamentals (I did). It's just the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
607.
by fossuser 6y ago
I don't disagree really - there's still space for intuition and making a guess in places with limited information. I also agree most people are using evidence to drive motivated reasoning for a pre-existing conclusion rather than
608.
by fossuser 6y ago
A lot of the creationist arguments stem from "irreducible complexity" or a misunderstanding of natural selection (the "eye just formed itself somehow"). Both of these things sound reasonable when explained in isolation t
609.
by fossuser 6y ago
The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things. This means even if most people most of the time are perfectly pleasant, they can get swept up in other stuff that
610.
by fossuser 6y ago
I think that's the reason it's possible, but how can you trust they've compartmentalized the right thing? Basically you can be a great surgeon and religious, but you can't be a great evolutionary biologist and a creation
611.
by fossuser 6y ago
I grew up mainline Protestant too before throwing it away (I was young ~12 which makes it easier). My objection is to the broken nature of the reasoning and how that tends to corrupt evidence based reasoning elsewhere most of them time (tho
612.
by fossuser 6y ago
This is a good point - and makes my REI example irrelevant, thanks.
613.
by fossuser 6y ago
Do others have better experiences with co-ops than I do? I know people love REI, but whenever I go in there to buy anything that requires someone (ski boots, skis, work on skis) - it sucks. There's never anyone available, it often take
614.
by fossuser 6y ago
I find it irritating that I'm waiting while others are lying to get it when I think it's time to open it up to general access. I agree it's important to get the numbers up at this point, so just make it GA. > "beyond
615.
by fossuser 6y ago
If it was about vaccinated people returning then fine. To my knowledge they’re not saying that and that’s the important bit.
616.
by fossuser 6y ago
Because the arguments are bad. It’s not “the science” it’s the arguments. Throughout this pandemic “science” as authority has argued masks don’t work, or that they only work for healthcare workers, or that second order effects make it worse
617.
by fossuser 6y ago
Couldn't they have at least done the rapid antigen test when they came in for their second dose? Maybe I'm underestimating complexity (typical for an outsider), but just seemed surprising to me when I heard that.
618.
by fossuser 6y ago
I don't know - I'm also not the person that was arguing that. I have pretty high confidence that if you have the vaccine you won't transmit the disease - I suspect the scientists are just being overly cautious because they do
619.
by fossuser 6y ago
Yeah, beyond health workers and old people - logistics around prioritization just seem like a disaster. You could do age bands to get old people in, but once they stop coming just keep expanding the age or open it up to everyone. I'm l
620.
by fossuser 6y ago
It's wild to me that in the trials they didn't test all participants (including asymptomatic people) when asymptomatic transmission is the reason we're in a pandemic.
621.
by fossuser 6y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful back and forth despite my provocative first comment. It's been flag-killed (possibly 50cent party? maybe just people disliking my abrasiveness) so this thread won't be seen, but I thought it was an intere
622.
by fossuser 6y ago
Wealth can be created - the best companies create wealth and everyone gets a share. In that environment being petty over things like demanding a company pay for your WFH office just comes across poorly (imo). I wouldn't want to work wi
623.
by fossuser 6y ago
Yeah, I'm also just waiting for them to open it up to general availability - but it's irritating.
624.
by fossuser 6y ago
This is still uncertain, but accumulating evidence suggests that vaccinated people are unlikely to spread the virus. That said, masks will still likely be common for a while due to unknowns around variants and just the logistical hurdle of
625.
by fossuser 6y ago
If you have equity as part of your comp for the company you work for you may disagree with this. There's also a reasonableness part to any business relationship. The extreme entitlement of demanding work pay for your home because you&#
626.
by fossuser 6y ago
I won't go back without a vaccine. The easing of bans without a vaccine is dumb. Once you have the vaccine, then you're free to go back to normal. Without it, nothing has really changed. Government policy around restrictions has b
627.
by fossuser 6y ago
Yeah - I'd guess it's less 'threat' and more 'things that embarrass the party leader'.
628.
by fossuser 6y ago
> "China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution." I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot
629.
by fossuser 6y ago
It's not noise - the censors drop specific comms over time when there's focus. When the Pooh meme was happening if you tried sending it the receiver would never get it. Now that it has died down it's no longer a focus (though
630.
by fossuser 6y ago
The framing is cynical, though I agree with you that stability is valuable. I'd argue the reason the framing is cynical is because the two party system wasn't intentionally crafted as some sort of 'nothing changes' power

More ›