seneca

56 ms·

691.
by seneca 6y ago
It's a Motte and Bailey, by design (which I seem to end up pointing out a lot on HN, apology for the repetition but it's a common and important pattern). The core BLM organization are subversive Marxists. Their tenants are extreme
692.
by seneca 6y ago
It's a loss for Americans of all political stripes that Sowell hasn't been the public face of American Conservatism for decades. He's passionate, articulate, and, most of all, deeply nuanced in his thoughts. I don't alwa
693.
by seneca 6y ago
> Well, processing data correctly is a form of art. Raw data contain systemic biases and are not ethical. It takes an artist to cleanse data, and present them without bias in an ethical and moral way. This is one of the most dystopian th
694.
by seneca 6y ago
While I understand the sentiment, the problem is that abstaining from weapons research due to moral qualms leads to the least moral being the most well armed.
695.
by seneca 6y ago
Interestingly, the only hosted option was originally on AWS. The company was purchased by MS and it was deprecated.
696.
by seneca 6y ago
Yes, very fair statement. I don't think they were really under strong competitive pressure until somewhat recently though. You can get away with quite a lot when you're the only game in town. Less so when Disney are your competiti
697.
by seneca 6y ago
Going to have to respectfully disagree. There's no accounting for taste, but I haven't made it through a full episode of a Netflix original since House of Cards, barring series they bought and labeled originals. I consider their o
698.
by seneca 6y ago
> Perhaps an unconscious bias of literate cultures It seems like a quite conscious decision. That's how categorizing things works. You have to have a definition, however vague and exception ridden, otherwise your words don't re
699.
by seneca 6y ago
I struggle to see Netflix existing in its current form in 5 years. Their content is just awful, and the continuous price hikes just aren't justified. If they also start cracking down on shared accounts, I can only see it hastening thei
700.
by seneca 6y ago
In general I agree with you, baiting people into stating an unpopular argument and then dog piling kills conversation. That being said, I downvoted that particular response because there's no argument being made. It's the typical
701.
by seneca 6y ago
> Not all consumers. No need for a TV license to listen to radio 4, or use the website. I may misunderstand then. In order to watch live TV in the UK you must pay a fee, mandated by the government, and that fee is paid to the BBC? If tha
702.
by seneca 6y ago
> The license is mandated (in certain circumstances), however the funds are collected by the BBC directly. Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government
703.
by seneca 6y ago
> It's not even funded by the UK government.[0] > The BBC is primarily funded by the TV Licence. The licence is levvied on anyone who watches live TV (any live TV) Who mandates the payment of a TV License and allocates the funds
704.
by seneca 6y ago
> There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the notion of a medieval knight in full plate. Indeed, the proverbial rose colored glasses. I think this is where a lot of
705.
by seneca 6y ago
> This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of years and is called "marriage". Well said. The modern inclination to tear down tradition institution and then replace them with increasingly more damaging and convoluted
706.
by seneca 6y ago
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Why would women get paid to raise their own kids? You suggest it's because when done well, it has incredible value to society. What is that value to society? It&#
707.
by seneca 6y ago
> My extended family went from being really close and compassionate to hateful and unable to be in the room with others. I can't speak to your personal situation, but from what I've seen this is usually driven by the exact tre
708.
by seneca 6y ago
> Yeah I’m still trying to figure out how people even met pre dating apps. We used to have civil-society. It facilitated a lot of these things. Read Robert Putnam's books and research if you're curious.
709.
by seneca 6y ago
You're assuming a 1 to 1 relationship, which isn't the case. A minority of men have sex with many women, and many men have sex with no women.
710.
by seneca 6y ago
This post reads as an advertisement for a blog. While you may have something interesting to say, I find this difficult to engage with.
711.
by seneca 6y ago
> There is no era of Western history where unpopular opinions were more acceptable than today. I suppose it depends how fine grain you can be when considering eras, but there were periods even within my own lifetime that were much more t
712.
by seneca 6y ago
> it is just that at absolute level of suffering your issues are ignorable. I'm curious, how do you go about establishing that level? Do you think it's really absolute, rather than relative to the stressors the observer feels?
713.
by seneca 6y ago
> Damn that google and their 17 year plan to eventually charge us for storage. This is how monopolies are established. Corporate conglomerates able to sell a product at a loss until competition is starved out, relying on profits from oth
714.
by seneca 6y ago
This kind of dismissive attitude toward peoples' problems is unhelpful. Following your line of reasoning, there are people with crippling diseases in the world. People worrying about a place to live etc should remember that their probl
715.
by seneca 6y ago
Or more likely they don't like low quality reddit jokes showing up here.
716.
by seneca 6y ago
> The whole public conversation is at the “Expert Youtuber” phase of subtly and sophistication. Ha, well said. > This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been culturally prominent in recent years. I am m
717.
by seneca 6y ago
The person I am replying to used the phrase "literally no context" and you're saying I am ignoring the context in order to make an argument. My entire point is that the OP is throwing away context, and in so doing falsifying
718.
by seneca 6y ago
You're correct, but I think you're missing that this is done intentionally. I've heard it referred to as "humpty-dumpying", referring to the character is Through the Looking-Glass: > "When I use a word,&quot
719.
by seneca 6y ago
> The topic is clearly about personality traits not medical conditions. Contextualizing it would make sense if you had not said "literally no context". This is my point, black and white language like this repels nuance.
720.
by seneca 6y ago
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometim

More ›