distic
7mo ago
No I'm just explaining you the difference between the facts (the explicanda of the theory), like the price of diamonds and water, and the explanation of those facts (the theory itself), like supply and demand. It is true, however, that the theory is always more precarious than the facts
distic
1yr ago
It means nothing because there is no control group. Replace "prayer" with a drug, and you get a shitty observational study that does not mean anything. I wouldn't take this drug.
distic
2mo ago
I think we won't be able to agree but it's still quite weird that 3 people opposed to Putin in a way or another die within a week... what's the probability that it happens at random?
Why not them?
I guess he cannot just choose to kill anyone, there are practical limits. They must have searched for the pilot since he defected.
If two people have different interpretations, how do you decide which one is correct? The number of protestant churches is still not reducing. Actually, it would be quite magic if everyone agreed. Look at the american constitution: it's a lot easier to interpret than the Bible, yet not everyone agrees. So if all well-intended people agreed on a religious doctrine, it would actually be some kind of proof that this religion is correct. But it seems to me that everyone agrees there will never be any such a proof (until the return of the christ if you prefer).
And for the record, I think catholics are concerned about the truth of their dogmas, but I also think they are more concerned avout other things like unity of the church. It's a very intellectual belief to think that religion must necessarily be about truth
distic
11mo ago
The fact that they use sma and ema does not mean that it is what makes them earn money. If I use both astrology and science for agriculture, I will make money (astrology is useless, thus it is harmless) but it won't prove anything about astrology.
And what he is saying is that there are strictly more informations in the order book than in the price.
distic
1yr ago
Their productivity per hour is low because they work a lot. It's expected that the hours when you are awake and do the most important part of your job are more productive than those when you are tired and do something less useful. You should do a comparison ceteris paribus, but it is more difficult.
distic
1yr ago
You might be on something. In another message in this CW thread, someone implies that companies want their sector to be as lightly regulated as possible. However, it seems to me it is not always true. Think about children toys: if the regulations remain light, then there is no or less incentive to buy new toys compared to re-use older ones. If the regulations become heavier, then old children toys become dangerous. You should not re-use them. You should buy new ones. Why would the toy industry oppose it? In this case, it might be a win-win situation (children get safer toys, and toy companies get more money).
But you can also have the exact same phenomenon with "social regulation" or with authorship. It might be expensive to compete with the best works of the past. You have to hire talented people, to give them money, and even then you have a high failure risk. So what about lowering the bar? Just use whatever social trend to make the older works worse, out of fashion. And if it makes you free of the authors and their IP, even better, right?
distic
1yr ago
like the framework of being a revolutionary ideology to remake all society in their own image
The libertarians are the same, so they are some kind of socialists?
If just being racist and homophobic is enough, then Marx, Engels and Guevera are "far-right"
Racism and homophobia weren't particularly important in their politics. That is what matters.
If we're going to ignore the distinctions and categories enough to group Brandon Sanderson with the Nazis
I never said you should group Brandon Sanderson with the nazis because I don't know him and I'm not interested in fantasy authors anyway. That is not my point, and that is certainly not the point of the wikipedia article either.
distic
1yr ago
Are you arguing that what he writes is false? For comparison, that is what is promised by the Culture War thread:
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time
Look at the discussions there are right now.
https://www.themotte.org/post/329/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/57553?context=8#context
Quality post, but not very culture war-y. Anyway, right now, no one really disagrees.
https://www.themotte.org/post/329/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/57543?context=8#context
A post criticizing a labour MP for his anti-incels politics (anti Labour so we might assume right wing). No one really disagrees.
Are The Global Elites Coordinating to Push LGBT Acceptance And Gender Theory? (https://www.themotte.org/post/329/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/57433?context=8#context )
Obviously right-wing, but there I have to admit there are some people arguing the other way. But the post was quite extreme by itself.
https://www.themotte.org/post/329/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/57424?context=8#context
A post about liberals using AI to push their views. Pretty right wing. Everyone agrees. More or less.
I stop there. I don't think the CW thread delivers on its promise to challenge your beliefs, especially if they are right wing or libertarians.
distic
1yr ago
Rejecting the claim that a god exists is not the same as claim a god doesn't exist: it doesn't require a burden of proof because it's the default position. Agnosticism is the default position. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.
It seems to me you did not prove that. The default position is that I do not know if the default position is theism, atheism, agnosticism or something else.
By the way, if you argue that it is not proven that god exists, it means that you also argue that it is at least possible that he does not exist. So you are actually arguing (a bit) in favor of atheism.
distic
1yr ago
There have been societies without prisons. The native americans had no prisons, up to my knowledge. I think there have been more societies without prisons than without censorship in the history of humanity. Even in the US there has often be some kind of censorship enforced by the society itself (not by the state).
distic
1yr ago
What do you mean essentially the same? Obviously we learn that 2+2=4, do you think it means that it is the same as american culture? I doubt Americans spend as much time on grammar (and especially on french grammar) in the US. The language is not the same. It's not a detail: the book we read in class are not the same, they are from french literature. Do Americans ever read l'Avare, from Molière? Almost every french person has read it. Do most Americans ever hear about Racine and Corneille, about Flaubert and his master work, Madame Bovary? We learn at least two foreign languages, so that I can understand something like 50% of an article written in german, and like 95% of anything written in english (yet foreign language learning is not that good in France when compared to other european countries). Do Americans learn foreign languages? In history lessons, there is much emphasis on the french Revolution, but we almost never speak about the American revolution. Most french people do not even know there was an American revolution. Have Americans ever heard about Danton and Robespierre? About the differences between Jacobins and Girondins? There are also lessons on Napoleon, with much emphasis on his politics. Do Americans learn Napoleon's politics? So please tell me what is "essentially the same".
distic
1yr ago
But it seems to me that in countries that implement a strong censorship, like eg Russia, the justice system, including prison, is a lot more instrumental than reddit censorship which has yet to prove dangerous. The justice system has to establish what is true or false (for example did you and did you not murder X?), and this power on truth is the very basis of polical censorship (remember 1984 Ministry of Truth).
Once you've been able to stop people saying something small you don't like hearing, why would you stop?
Because the law is well written and only allows you to ban harmless things? That's like death penalty. If you kill criminal, why wouldn't you kill political opponents? The answer is that you can't because it isn't allowed. Why is it possible to draw a line for the harmless use of the justice system and not for the harmless use of small censorship?
It's also an outcome we've literally watched in history on multiple occasions.
Just like the justice system has been used for repression a lot. Or the army. Russia used poisoned tea to kill political opponent, so is drinking tea a first step toward political assassination? The only thing that could convince me completely is a proof that the censorship as it exists is already dangerous. There are other restrictions on freedom of speech (eg you cannot publish classified material). Is forbidding the word "nigger" really more dangerous than allowing the government to keep secrets that no one is allowed to tell?
distic
6mo ago
Well, it wasn't clear from my comment but the brutality and the settlements are not necessary for Israel to exist, so they aren't justified at all. I mean, if you are searching for a peaceful solution and not to justify your own crimes.
distic
6mo ago
Even if you live in the west, China may use informations about you. Do you work for the army? Do you work for a competitor of a chinese company? Do you hold anti chinese views? Are you an obstacle on the way of a chinese agent?
I understand that you don't trust your government, but trusting a foreign government more is something weird...
distic
7mo ago
I agree, it would not be an economical problem. However it seems to me it is a problem with your argument: the negociating power of the workers has not increased because there is no need for them.
distic
7mo ago
Authority argument are bad arguments, especially when they are about yourself.
A lot of theories (like quantum physics and evolution theory) derive from experiments. How does that make them non-theories? And because they are theories, they might be replaced by something better one day. However, the fact they explain will remain the same (excepted if we prove they were illusory). Things like that occured when subjective theory of value replaced objective theory of value, or when Einstein replaced Galileo.
But some specialist are unable to see the difference between the theory they learned and the fact it's supposed to explain. Most of the time they are the last ones supporting the old theory when everyone has moved on.
distic
7mo ago
I'm not australian either, but I don't think it's affirmative action (where you help individuals get better jobs). It's something more collective. Think about it: in the US (and also in Australia), instead of voting by states, you could vote by race or something like that. For example Lebanon votes by religion. That is not something I would want for my country (and it does not work very well in lebanon) but perhaps it makes sense sometimes, just like taking account of geographic differences makes sense sometimes.
distic
10mo ago
The problem with your theory is that the american jews have not really been in favor of the war:
https://forward.com/news/1797/poll-70-of-jews-oppose-iraq-war/
France has laws against racial discrimination
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000006165298/
Discrimination as defined in articles 225-1 to 225-1-2, committed against a natural or legal person, is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros when it consists in:
1° Refusing to supply a good or service;
2° Obstructing the normal exercise of any economic activity;
3° Refusing to hire, punishing or dismissing a person;
4° to subordinate the supply of a good or service to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;
5° To make an offer of employment, a request for an internship or a period of training in a company subject to a condition based on one of the elements referred to in article 225-1 or provided for in articles 225-1-1 or 225-1-2;
6° To refuse to accept a person for one of the internships referred to in 2° of article L. 412-8 of the Social Security Code.
Where the discriminatory refusal referred to in 1° is committed in a place open to the public or with the aim of preventing access to it, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Then there will be no need of a skilled worker...
More options
Context Copy link