Thanks for posting. I posted the Wikipedia page mainly as a basis for discussion. I am going to have a read. I didn't find such a prescriptive or constructive element in the Wikipedia page, though. See final paragraph in the "Society" section.
Contextualise, under Nietzsche's master-slave moralities, the following topics over which there is an abundance of articles and discussions on HN, posted by people who frequent HN:
Gender/racial equality, language games over gender, rights to be called one name or another, the elusive one percent, supposed rights to privacy and free speech, the right not to incriminate oneself, the pornification/glorification of work, the hustle, start-up culture, premium mediocrity etc.
So do many philosophical systems. They've been shot down many times before as irrelevant. Because Nietzsche is popular with certain vocal minorities on HN who are eager to make him look more credible than he has ever actually been on this topic is the only reason it's gotten this far, whereas other philosophical frameworks that have been floated here have been moderated away as immaterial.
And behold, the mods seem to have agreed to remove this from the front page. So at least we are being consistent.
Easiest trick in the book: Associate any idea you disagree with, with "certain vocal minorities". Works wonders on here and Twitbook. I put this in the same bag as I put book reviews which go along the lines of "characters have no depth", and "no plot".
Is the fact that Nietzsche is still studied and cited in a positive light, that books are written on his works by academics at leading universities including Oxford still not sufficient for you, or is it only Frankfurt types you'll openly associate with?
I suppose really though that this isn't important enough for you to look into; rather you'd prefer to run the party line and maintain your job at Googsoft.
You're right in one respect. I wouldn't expect any different from the mods.
> Easiest trick in the book: Associate any idea you disagree with, with "certain vocal minorities". Works wonders on here and Twitbook. I put this in the same bag as I put book reviews which go along the lines of "characters have no depth", and "no plot".
I'm not sure who's literary critique in particular hurt you, but it's irrelevant.
> Is the fact that Nietzsche is still studied and cited in a positive light, that books are written on his works by academics at leading universities including Oxford still not sufficient for you, or is it only Frankfurt types you'll openly associate with?
Ah yes. Yes. The Frankfurt School. Allegiance to that group is always at the root of these problems, isnt it? You are not a "social marxism" conspiracy theorist at all.
> I suppose really though that this isn't important enough for you to look into; rather you'd prefer to run the party line and maintain your job at Googsoft
If you were trying to pretend you weren't in the NRx family of thought, you did a bad job here slipping a Damore reference in.
> You're right in one respect. I wouldn't expect any different from the mods.
Maybe post things that are meaningful about technology and science rather than the crackpot edge of Nietzche's widely rebutted social economics? Next you're going to tell me Burke was right. If you need someone to tell you it's all right, no fear! You've got a lot of other options. Maybe, go to a site like SSC.
On the book reviews comment: If you read a few books and also a few book reviews, you'll find two things: These two types of review are most common, and they are written when the author has nothing positive or negative to actually add on the subject of the book. The author just can't be arsed.
The commonality is that these cheap jibes really add no information, they are aimed at derailing a discussion someone doesn't like. You know that, though.
I had never heard of NRx until you mentioned it. I generally try to stay away from selling my identity to a single word, or a set of words.
Yes, I am not a social marxism conspiracy theorist at all. Right and left, it's all the same. You've missed the whole point I have tried to make.
I will rephrase in a more literal way for you to understand, in a way more difficult to avoid: Without resorting to claims of crackpotness, conspiracy theory, sympathising with vocal minorities and Nietzsche's ideas' supposed negative consequences on society, what exactly do you disagree with about using Nietzsche to understand our moral psychology, and specifically about the sources I have given in this post and in my other submissions?
I envy you like I envy god-believers. It must be nice to believe and fit in.
Actually I just realised that you avoided the question again, and pulled another of those “no character depth” and “no plot” tricks. I guess it’s a lost cause at this point.
Gets me thinking: I wonder how good Intel CPUs are with dealing with this sort of thing. Can the CPU detect repeated jumps to comparators and in-line them from there? I’d be interested to see a comparative benchmark.
Or the Niederfinow boat lift, which is on the same canal system as the Magdeburg water bridge, just 200km to the east: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederfinow_Boat_Lift. I am glad they decided not to tear down the old one (from 1934) but built the new one right beside it over the last years.
Unless you’re happy with playing a supporting role, gaming should be left as an activity for friends only. Higher-ups do not like being shown up by lower-downs. This doesn’t only apply to team sports.
I learnt this by coming second in a solitary, competitive sport for the Christmas event, which the higher-ups were into in their free time, and which I had no experience with, as a new, young employee. I came first in a similarly solitary sport we all participated in the following year.
My project manager had been going around telling everyone how good he was at this sport, how we shouldn’t even bother. This encouraged me to make even more of an effort. He came second, his manager third. He and a few others booed me while I received the trophy.
Sounds like a good learning experience. Cocky arrogant people will generally resent you for showing them up, you should only do so if you don't mind the possible consequences.
Better to learn that in an inconsequential game than in a project, where you might weeks or months of work shot down (even at the expense of the company).
Thankfully most of my bosses weren't like that, they had their flaws but I never feared such pettiness. If your local job market is good, don't settle for that crap.
I once had a bet with the CEO that I can implement one very competitive functionality in 10 minutes. I won. The functionality never made it to production and any questions regarding it (even from customers) were deflected. Some people hate to lose and become completely irrational about it.
In retrospective I should have as it manifested itself later in some shady moves (almost mafia-style); but I was traveling around the world, having time of my life, and could work on my own side-business, so I didn't mind. Since then I did a top 10 ML degree and MBA, moved to a completely different orbit and it gave me a "good" experience observing red flags and correlating them with behavior that might come handy when dealing with business partners.
I once played chess against one of the owners of the company at the Friday afternoon drinks event. When things started to look good for me he just left the drinks event. He does not seem to hold it against me in any way, though. When the other owner arrived a bit later at the drinks and was told about this, he found it rather funny and said that it was typical of the other owner. All in all, it was kind of funny.
Like someone pointed out, seems like a problem you would have either way with that kind of person (bad losers). Still, competition can get though, that's why one of the ideas is to compete against other teams/companies' teams.
Just because some people choose to live in their own reality in their mind and reject objective reality outside their mind has no bearing on whether an objective reality exists. What a sad age of fallacies and confusion we live in where people even deny that they exist!
The psychiatrist opens the scientist up to the idea that the schizophrenic person, in his psychosis, may have insight into certain ideas which sane people do not, which nevertheless still may apply to them.
Yes, there are objective mathematical truths, but you cannot be sure there exists a physical reality or anything that corresponds to our experiences. You just know that there are subjective experiences right now. That's the only thing you can be absolutely certain about. So I see no sense in talking about "reality".
No, there are no objective mathematical truths. I am saying this as someone who has studied pure mathematics. We have long moved away from Plato. Godel long ago proved that no system based on a finite number of axioms is complete. This isn't just a comment on mathematics. It is a comment on language and human thought itself.
Of course, the debate remains of the "validity" of pure mathematics for its own sake. Many mathematicians, while not being religious in the common sense, have longed for a Platonic reality. Why do you think Hardy was so derided for his Mathematician's Apology?
Mathematics is simply another formal game of language, based on a number of axioms which can be either held to be true or not. Look at the differences between Euclidean and projective geometry. No one is asking which one is "true". Projective geometry helps for some lines of thought, Euclidean works for others.
This is so incredibly confused. You live in reality. You exist. The things you can observe exist observably. People who choose to believe such existential nonsense remind me of the xkcd with the super soaker.
What kind of broken logic can conclude that this is the extent of my “scope” from what I said? An easier conclusion to arrive at is that I figure it’s one of the few memes we probably have in common, and chose it because memes are an excellent source of connotations.
You're right to an extent. I absolutely believe in the utility of humour and satire as ways of illustrating certain ideas and forcing people to think. People on HN especially are much too prudish. These forms can be a lot more effective than a long piece of text.
What I mean, though, is that there's only so much information that a piece of humour or a comic strip can convey.
Also, you have to consider the crowd that xkcd caters to, and the crowd that typical American geek humour such as Big Bang Theory caters to in general.
Existentialism/Nihilism are common themes in geek humour, but negatively: these ideas are quick to be dismissed as edge-lording, and as 8-chan-incelling.
Geek culture and morality relies wholly on the self-supporting idea of science as the one and only source of truth. The geek's first reaction will of course be to dismiss any claim to the contrary, in humour and otherwise.
Smaller antennaes needed for the same gain as lower frequencies.
Terrible ability to go through, say, a concrete wall, but that’s an issue for broadcast, not point-to-point. Possibly an advantage by reducing noise from other 10ghz signals (maybe harmonics from a bad microwave oven?).
They also have narrower fresnel zones than lower frequencies, so it’s easier to hit your target without having to be too high at both sides.
And the usual tradeoffs: Spectrum is available and you want equipment that’s cheap and reliable, but not too cheap either.
I’ve had to leave a job because of office noise. Fuck the architects who sell open plan ostensibly in the name of collaboration. Even more so when it comes to housing actual scientists.
By the way, striking resemblance of the design of inside of The Francis Crick institute to that of H.M.P. Pentonville [1] not too far away. Same architect, maybe?
