Forgive my ignorance but haven't there been experiments that prove quantum theory? Why all the fuss about quantum computers if its just a pie in the sky hypothesis? (It's not a field I am familiar with other than on a very superficial level, so an "explain it like I'm 5" would be most useful in responses to my points).
Personally, I fail to see how that would be (except for stock holders of arms companies etc). Surely the American state would save a ton of money by having their army shrunk by 1/3.
Population control? Is the US worried about there being too dense population of arabs in the world? I don't think that's true - and not for when they waged war in Korea or Vietnam either.
Seems to me war is only good for absolutely nothing.
Unfortunately your common sense is in the minority of opinion here. HN is plagued by overeager engineers who endlessly discuss the how without addressing the much more important why.
Why bother having a pet at all if you're not going to personally care for it?
The author was giving two meals a day and often got home late in the evenings. Only the evening meal was from a machine. Don't act like the cat is being abused. The author looks like she is providing the cat with a very nice life.
"Whys?" It helps prevent tripping incidents when the cat knows its food time and is rubbing on your feet as you walk. It helps with anxiety associated with irregular feedings. That's just two reasons I thought of off the top of my head.
>The author was giving two meals a day and often got home late in the evenings.
"An automated feeder would save me one chore per day, and I wouldn’t have to worry about getting home late in the evenings."
You seem to have ignored "save me one chore per day" which is what my original comment was in response too. Occasional late meal is not a big deal at all, you don't need to go about inventing ridiculous machines for that.
How do you, personally, anonymous Internet commenter, know how much stress this specific cat has when the evening meal is late?
You can give constructive comments about the benefits of manual feeding vs auto feeding without being rude and speaking in absolutes. There's certainly benefits of both options that differ with individual cats and circumstances.
def not my intention. Can you point out where i was rude so i can keep that in mind for future.
What I said of course is not true for special needs cats, do whats best for your cat if its special needs. I assumed we are talking about the 99% general case because original article didn't mention any special requirements that her cat had. I doubt anyone reading that blog would get the impression that her cat is special needs. Would you tell you someone "not speak in absolutes" to if she says "don't don't declaw your cat" ?
I know many cat owners who "play" with their cat by dangling a feather on its head, telling them to improve the play by creating intrigue and mystery during the play by hiding the source of noise is not an insult, I wouldn't think so. I made many pet owner mistakes myself. Unfortunately cats have the misguided 'easy maintenance' reputation which works against their well being.
"Why" is having control over frequency and quantity. If you have an over-weight cat you may need to dial that down gently over time to avoid too much protesting.
The writer clearly indicated this is just for one meal of the day. People are losing their shit here as if this cat is locked in a room for months on end with no human contact.
It's not surprising that the "educated" skew blue. The institutions in this country preach ideology in addition to teaching practical skills. We all know which direction the majority ideology follows...
I spent ten+ years in a private Christian school in the US. We had special Christian-version science textbooks, daily Bible class along with all the regular staple courses, etc.
My take is that the conservative right has been taken over by an extreme religious element that has actively withdrawn from engaging with education, science, and non-religiously-affiliated institutions. Everything is extremely filtered and anything mainstream is to be avoided at all costs. So where are people from other ideologies supposed to come from if they're brought up to withdraw to their own parallel no-differing-views world?
I wouldn't say "these days" given the current situation. The arguably most extremist form of the mainstream right, the alt-right, is quite intellectual and fairly secular.
If critical thinking is considered as "preaching ideologies", I'm all for it!
Seriously, engineers and (hardish) scientists often go through universities with little exposure to preachy liberal art professors, and they still mostly come out as liberals.
>For Frank, the central defining tendency of the modern Democratic Party is its domination by “professionals,” the highly-credentialed, data-driven Best and Brightest that Obama stuffed his cabinet with.
Wouldn't you /want/ the best and brightest setting the direction and making sure that course is followed?
I can understand having a different criteria for selection, but that doesn't seem to be the message. They can't really want willfully ignorant, under-performing, yet popular.
> Wouldn't you /want/ the best and brightest setting the direction and making sure that course is followed?
Please read the book. You want the best and brightest writing the policies, but you need them working on behalf of the working-class in general, through an exercise of broadly-based working-class power inside the party. Otherwise, you just get what we have, which is the best and brightest writing policies that favor the best and brightest above everyone else.
Is there evidence of the interview actually taking place? Why was his own lawyer not allowed to attend?
If he's alive, then someone has certainly mentioned to him that the Internet is going crazy about this. Why doesn't he simply walk a few feet and show himself on the balcony, as he has done before?
Side note: labelling something a "conspiracy theory" is a way to dismiss an idea without thinking about it. If you want to refute the facts in the thread, use better facts.
It's not "dismissing an idea without thinking about it" when you say "I think this is a conspiracy theory because [evidence]". The only response to the position that too many people with widely varying affiliations and interests have said he's fine, is to say that Wikileaks, Sweden, Ecuador, and the US are somehow united in wanting to hide the truth and in communication to keep their lies consistent. I can't think of many scenarios where that happens, and all of them ought to end pretty quickly with someone whispering to a journalist under the condition of anonymity.
At this point, I doubt the timestamped video and signed message would convince the majority of redditors. The RT interview is a perfect example of the typical conspiracy pattern of grasping at straws to discredit evidence. It's absolutely Assange's fault for not putting this to bed right away, he's probably either unaware or enjoying the publicity.
I find it disappointing that with his long history of passionate journalism - whatever you think of it - on the more controversial aspects of US engagement with the rest of the world, John Pilger is casually suspected of helping to cover up an Assange abduction / extra-judicial assassination, or etc.
I'd find it easier to believe that Bill O'Reilly was on the Sanders campaign payroll, frankly.
Assange needs to sign a message with his private key. That would be satisfactory. Ideally, the message can be a video that contains information that clearly dates the recording. That would be quite satisfactory.
This is where we hit some ideological barriers. As a leftist, I can see the perverse incentives that many to most reporters are working with (helping friends, trying to please execs for promotions, not upsetting sources with good info), but I don't see them as affecting everyone in the same way. The Intercept, with its ties to Snowden, would happily declare Wikileaks dead and lead the charge for a replacement. Aljazeera would probably love to paint their satellite news rival as blatantly dishonest. Breitbart prints anything that makes Clinton look bad (Assange dropping dead as he threatened to sink her campaign would do the trick). And that's just the organizational component, a CNN reporter with internal clout and incentives to do so might be able to run this story.
Meanwhile right-wing news outlets sell themselves with the "media is corrupt" line so heavily that people on that end of the spectrum seem to think serving Soros and the Clintons is something they teach at journalism school. "Free and independent press" in scare quotes is probably a message in itself to most readers of r/WhereIsAssange, but it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe that a global conspiracy controls everything from the BBC to the newest online newspapers.
The Intercept is the baby of a billionaire. Al-Jazeera is BBC debranded. Breitbart's Bannon is ex Goldman Sachs. They all agree on one thing: the binary political world.
> As a leftist
There are 360 degrees of freedom in the non-binary world. There is also up and down. I must inform you that I do not subscribe to the 1 dimensional dialectic hand-me-down space and am ambidextrous.
This is categorically false. People who love and want to defend free speech go there. If you want to continue living in a bubble world, stay on Twitter.
It doesn't have to be a 'Nazi symbol' for self professed Nazis and white nationalists to identify with it. Check out the mentions of any prominent Jewish person on twitter, it's a cesspool of Pepe frogs telling them to get in ovens or whatever other idiocy they've come up with today.
Case in point, David Duke saying "you can't zog the frog":
Does Twitter have no right to freedom of speech, when there are alternatives to it? If they don't want to be associated with white nationalists, then why should they allow themselves to be?
If the difference between Twitter's speech limits and Gab's is that the latter allows Nazis and harassment, I think you'll find most prefer "less" free speech.
On the contrary, we should support Twitter more after their recent laudable efforts in banning neo-Nazi accounts. There is no freedom to spout hate speech on someone else's platform.
Expecting a tolerant person to be blindly tolerant (of anything) is an adolescent argument. Tolerance is not a binary state, and has never meant a binary state.
I'm not sure it's "neo-nazi sympathisers" as much as "oblivious young white male libertarians who don't realise the bubble they live in." Admittedly they do tend to sound the same when it comes to "censorship" but I think the distinction helps.
As mentioned in this thread, the temptation to ask "what if?" is huge, and we all have built-in cognitive strategies for dealing with it. If this ability didn't exist, coping with non-fatal mistakes could easily overwhelm us and paradoxically become fatal!
Imagine waking up every day knowing that you could have been a billionaire but for a single foolish decision, and having no way to get around that thought. You'd have a very poor quality of life indeed, even if you were perfectly materially comfortable. The fact that he cannot keep an Apple product hints at this; being confronted with a constant reminder would be too painful.
It's a subtle and useful lie to think of yourself or pretty much anyone else as being non-materialistic or enlightened enough as to cheerfully give up billions of dollars in wealth. No doubt if this person was given a second chance with foreknowledge, he would take the deal.
It's only afterward that we cry "sour grapes" in order to reduce our mental struggles to a manageable level.
If I were Ron Wayne, I'd take solace in the fact that in 99 out of 100 similar scenarios, my choice would have been the right one. If he's still kicking himself, he needs to understand that he's a victim of survivorship bias. Being "older but wiser" won't help him avoid the same mistake in the future, because it wasn't technically a mistake at the time. He made a rational choice based on the information and experience he had available to draw on.
You can defeat their ad-blocker blocker by disabling javascript.
In Chrome, go to DevTools (CMD+Option+I). Press F1 for settings then check "Disable JavaScript" and reload the page. There are similar ways to do it in other browsers too.
I'd just like to note that this article has given us a fine new phrase to put on the shelf of useful business culture metaphors, right next to bike-shedding and dog-fooding.
