onetwofiveten

13 ms·

1.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
Honestly, unless you have expensive hobbies you are passionate about, if you have enough money then you should shift your focus away from money and more towards finding happiness in your life. There's nothing wrong with making lots of
2.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
There are two differences. The first is that you have to replace "preconceived notions of how the universe works" with "vast body of experimental data and scientific understanding of how the universe works". Our evidence
3.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
The argument being made is that employers have a lot more market power in the employment market than potential employees. Employers have capital, they have inertia so they can absorb a lot more risk. There are fewer employers than employees
4.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
Slavery is immoral because it takes away freedom of movement (and is thus a form of imprisonment), not freedom to create contracts. There are no fundamentally fixed moral rights relating to trade because there is no universal objective noti
5.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
It doesn't necessarily imply that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. I think it's more likely that most of the time these elections are a close call and campaigning sways people who are in the middle or motivates peop
6.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
You mean restrict who can vote? The public wouldn't go for it. Which is good, because if people were okay with having their right to vote taken away, we'd be in a much bigger mess.
7.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
It's perfectly possible to learn to change your ideas and continue to learn and adapt over time well into adulthood. Not everyone does it, but I pursue personal growth and learning, and consequentially change quite a lot from year to y
8.
by onetwofiveten 12y ago
Let me paraphrase what is going on here: nemesisj's comment - "Tesla is probably in the right here, but their response to threats tends be heavy handed and defensive." your comment - "Tesla is in the right, you are troll
9.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
No, the financial sense of the word "investment" isn't the only meaning that matters here, because here we're discussing the behaviour and attitudes of contributors. Its unreasonable for anyone to expect them to ignore t
10.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
You haven't really given me a reason as to why false advertising is a bad analogy. I think this is quite similar to a case of false advertising or a product defect. Here the product is the service of Oculus developing VR technology for
11.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
The article is about the possibility that the NSA could be bribing Huawei engineers or infiltrating Huawei with spies. Either way, it requires Huawei employees to be complicit, and for the Huawei support infrastructure to be compromised.
12.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Nothing is assumed to be happening, that's why we're talking about probabilities. We are discussing the possibility that the NSA could be infiltrating and subverting the Huawei support infrastructure. That's what the article
13.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
To give you an example, if I pick something up at random, the probability that it is a shoe is at least as big as the probability that it is a red shoe. That's because it can't be a red shoe without also being a shoe. Same thing w
14.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
The article discusses the NSA embedding themselves in the Huawei support infrastructure. If true, Huawei's access is being abused by individuals who work for both Huawei and the NSA. So, in order for the NSA to abuse Huawei's acce
15.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Sorry, no, P(A) >= P(A n B) Always holds whether or not A and B are independent. A contains (A n B) therefore is always bigger. The assumption being made is that the NSA can't abuse the Huawei access without Huawei being complicit.
16.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fail
17.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
I was just saying that Kickstarter contributors are more personally invested than simple bystanders. If a company shifts focus away from the initial vision they used to attract funding, before that vision has been realised, then naturally t
18.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
I don't think that's stupid. Kickstarter contributions are investments, they just don't have financial payoffs. The payoff should be that, if successful, a certain desirable piece of technology or art is created. If a company
19.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Oculus was funded by a kickstarter. I think Notch personally contributed. Having given money to help a company develop their core technology is a little different to "not even involved beyond having read about it".
20.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Maybe future societies will condemn us for always being so opinionated on subjects that we don't know much about, instead of just accepting that no-one knows for sure yet.
21.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
That's kind of the point.
22.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Right, so negative discrimination is not important at all, because it's possible to overcome it if you are sufficiently talented? Bullshit! Everyone has to prove themselves in life, but if you make it harder for one group of people to
23.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Orwell was pointing to a very real phenomenon with "newspeak". For the best examples look to how political leaders talk about military conflicts. Language regarding conflict is very well chosen and quite misleading. Terms like &qu
24.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
The big problem with corporations (as far as I see it) is that they act as a dehumanising mechanism for representing shareholders. An individual who has tight control over a company (like Elon Musk) can shoot for long term goals in order to
25.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
What are you saying here? People who suffer from discrimination should just learn to understand why they get stereotyped and be more tolerant about it? That's extremely self serving and entitled. If you're in a position of privile
26.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Most people don't meet so many people that they can't spare a few minutes politeness. Mostly prejudicial judgements are made out of laziness and incompetence, not because they are useful. Obviously I don't know your circumsta
27.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
How about we blame the individuals within the industry that participate in and perpetuate the culture that thinks it's okay to use female sexuality to sell software products. It's patronising to men within the industry, it's
28.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Do you really find it hard to understand why it would be frustrating for people to not take you seriously and constantly hit on you in a professional context? And what exactly are you defending here? If you're in a professional situati
29.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
I don't know, my dad is retired, used to work as an engineer and loves model trains. He doesn't know what bitcoin is. It really isn't that unusual for technical people to get out of touch with recent developments. A 64 year o
30.
by onetwofiveten 13y ago
Yeah, well, in the case of Game of Thrones, it's quite an important work of art and it's priced out of reach for the vast majority of the public. Owning an important work of art could be argued to be a bit like having a monopoly o

More ›