the_optimist

8 ms·

31.
by the_optimist 2y ago
The story itself is a marketing piece.
32.
by the_optimist 2y ago
So you're saying this is a marketing piece.
33.
by the_optimist 2y ago
It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the contex
34.
by the_optimist 2y ago
"If they really wanted to know how to use technology to build a more efficient country, they would ask us." What a powerful statement. Safely and securely share information that the public deserves to know. Together, we can shine
35.
by the_optimist 2y ago
I didn’t. It’s just a giant security scam to let doge access systems. Didn’t you read the article? The USAID people said they don’t trust the doge people so we shouldn’t either.
36.
by the_optimist 2y ago
This should be very illegal. It’s a huge security risk to let Federal government employees access Federal government systems.
37.
by the_optimist 2y ago
He said he did not.
38.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Perhaps review “The Poverty of Historicism,” which if read carefully, is similar to being slapped with a fish.
39.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Perhaps revisit your premise prior to asserting malicious intent.
40.
by the_optimist 2y ago
This whole topic is basura enfuego. Same pack of maroons careening around society for years clamoring for censorship now imagining that Aaron Schwartz is their hero and that they want to menace people. Kids, don’t be like the grasping fools
41.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Can you tell us about the multi-generational involvement of George Soros? David Geffen? We’ve been here a long time, and I’m curious if you’ve developed a longer-term perspective.
42.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Notably, each item you cite involves some manner of prior government-centralized policy decision. Each forms the basis for a gross economic distortion.
43.
by the_optimist 2y ago
The ocean would be much better place if the meat weren’t so uneven in the first place.
44.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Interesting that Weinstein and Ciszek are unmentioned anywhere else, given their widely known and recognized involvement in this matter. Weinstein's extended hypothesis is far more interesting and compelling that this particular paper.
45.
by the_optimist 2y ago
You seem to have the concepts logically inverted. Mistruth is necessary for defamation but not sufficient. You are quite certainly allowed to lie, generally. You are even allowed to lie about me, and there is no exemption to the recognition
46.
by the_optimist 2y ago
There is no evidence that being made of marshmallows is damaging to one’s reputation, and thus this would not necessarily be classified as defamatory. The law requires proven damage. The details are tricky.
47.
by the_optimist 2y ago
How can you prove that the person sending a death threat was specifically motivated by a specific, broad act of speech? This is an impossible, unenforceable premise. It has no basis in law either in theory or practice. Example lines of inqu
48.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Your hypothetical is neither trivial nor provable. How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely rep
49.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Both of these concepts are specifically defined in law, whereas “lie” is not. You are made of marshmallows! Sue me.
50.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Proposal: Lower the resolution of the context window for distant historical tokens. Summarize most important concepts, drop out the rest. Do not try to assess every single token.
51.
by the_optimist 2y ago
So if Alex Jones posts on WorldStar, they’d be liable? How far does deplatforming responsibility extend in this theory?
52.
by the_optimist 2y ago
Why do you say something is treated as fact? For example, are either the ‘cheating’ or ‘no cheating’ hypotheses verifiable in any productive regard? There may be confusion between “absence of evidence” versus “evidence of absence.”
53.
by the_optimist 2y ago
It is absolutely fantastic that this assertion draws ire from those who have no substantial response. It is intended to poke you directly in the eyeballs. That crowd so often favors censorship to protect the same. If you have a substantial
54.
by the_optimist 2y ago
So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it fr
55.
by the_optimist 2y ago
There is no burden of proof required to assert a hypothesis. This is how none of truth nor science nor security operate. There is evidence gathering activity which supports or undermines, strengthening or weakening a hypothesis. Ideally, on
56.
by the_optimist 2y ago
This “sounds smart” and I’m sure it circulates well in conversation. In practice, no. The point of “facts” is to identify useful truths that guide decisions. When some portion of the distribution of people identify misalignment, which is in
57.
by the_optimist 2y ago
To all the drive-by downvoters. Whatevs. If this is a low-quality environment, so be it.
58.
by the_optimist 2y ago
If I understand correctly: if I threaten a third party based on something you’ve said, you now face legal liability?
59.
by the_optimist 2y ago
“Bad” is merely the inverse of the characterization you seek to avoid. There is no basis for assuming Pareto improvement in offshoring, particularly in an intellectual-property-flat world.
60.
by the_optimist 2y ago
A) repeating: ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration o

More ›