I find this post hilarious. You're trying to juggle an idea that is in itself paradoxical and illogical.
The idea that all forms of discrimination are bad. Hear me out.
All discrimination is bad including cultural discrimination. However if a culture discriminates against sex or race how do I reconcile this paradox? By respecting a culture must I respect a culture a discrimination? The parent post is a confused person trying to make sense of the paradox.
My suggestion is to get above all of it. You don't need to crystallize discrimination into a hard black and white rule where if you discriminate your evil and if you don't your good. Much of America has this attitude and they can't rise above it.
There are legitimate logical and mathematical correlations between race and certain traits, between sex and certain traits and between culture and certain traits. To judge a person for these traits based off of sex, culture and race can be very rational due to these very real correlations.
But instead America has embraced woke culture which takes these anti discrimination views to the extreme such that you get male athletes with sex changes competing with women in female sports. It's sort of insane. But I get it.
This wokenesses attitude arises from a past where Americans took discrimination to illogical levels and committed atrocities because of it. Now our country lives in the extremes. You are either racist/sexist or you are woke. Pick one, because there isn't really a word for a moderate viewpoint on this topic.
The hypocrisy is all around us. Don't discriminate against gender but we must segregate restrooms into male and female versions. Are you saying males are lecherous pervs and we must give females a safe space to piss, shit and do makeup? It's actually completely sexist to segregate restrooms when men and women practically share every other space.
epgui doesn't know what he's talking about. Science in it's purest form can only falsify things. Absolutely nothing can be proven correct. There is no "pure" science. That's garbage.
What's going on is epgui likely mixed up logic, math and science. In math and logic things can be proven because math and logic is a game where you make up axioms and prove theorems... but in science and reality, nothing can be proven.
Basically by posting that wikipedia article he proved you right. and demonstrated to you that he doesn't know what science truly is.
English is my second language, and I believe the correct term for what I called “pure science” is “formal science”. In French, it’s common to talk of “sciences pures” in contrast to “sciences appliquées”, so it’s possible this is where that came from. Thank you for pointing this out!
I do have 12 years of postsecondary education in the applied/natural sciences, so I think that first sentence of yours is perhaps a little exaggerated.
In English science exclusively refers to science as Wikipedia defined it.
Formal science is a rarely used term. In fact much of the (English) academic world doesn't consider logic, math, or computer science to be actual sciences. The term is basically unheard of. You may find some people who use the term but most people don't know about it.
The reason is simple, the nature of what science is, is not discussed by scientists. It is more discussed by philosophers or French people.
If you weren't suffering from a language issue, I would indeed be 100% correct that you don't know what you're talking about; but given your language impairment and your claim that French academics in common parlance demarcate a difference in sciences between formal and applied it makes sense that you can make this mistake.
It is always the case. Another fallacy that can only be the result of your flawed intuition.
All human capability has limits. You have limited strength and limited intelligence. There is no amount of intelligence or physical strength in a single human that can allow one man to build a feat of technology such as a Boeing 747. It can't even be done by one human in 10 lifetimes. This fundamental impossibility in your words is "always the case."
Yet there are individuals that exist in the world with enough wealth to buy several 747s. You will see that anyone with this amount of wealth could not have achieved this wealth through the sheer power of their individual IQ or physical strength. They had to have worked with many others in order to achieve such wealth. The existence of said individuals completely verifies the existence of how wealth is distributed unfairly. There is no fair barter that can allow one man to gain a 747 unless that man extracted work off the backs of others. It is logically impossible if this was not the case.
The only thing you can argue here is that wealth inequality is required for society to progress; but there is no argument on whether or not the resources are distributed fairly.
Doesn't matter. It's true and what you said how it's "always the case" is categorically false. The falsehood of your comment is the only thing that is relevant here.
PS.: I don’t know what I said to trigger you, but you don’t need to continue posting arguments to other comments I make across various threads. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
You did trigger me. Read your first reply to me. Your comment really pissed me off, it was intentionally rude. "New flash"
Either way it got me curious and I started reading your other comments and I realized you're just not a very nice person and highly mistaken about a lot of things. You're not very logical or scientific or academically inclined. So I just wanted to help you out and teach you some stuff that's all.
Just responded to a couple comments you made. Just trying to be informative. :)
It was the intention. You are lying to my face. The format: "News Flash: Statement of something obvious." is very rude. Implying I don't know the obvious thing.
I hold no grudges but your previous statement is a total lie. Don't pretend it wasn't intentional.
There are proven instances where systems such as this can remain stable. Slavery is one. There are tons and tons of other systems throughout human history where massive inequality remains stable.
In fact inequality is the bedrock of civilization according to our current theories of anthropology.
How do self interested parties gather together to fund great infrastructure projects and technology required for the progress of civilization? People on their own are self interested do not assist others outside of family or tribal units.
What causes people to organize is that there must be a small group of wealthy individuals who pays a Large group of individuals who lack wealth to work together. This isn't something I'm making up. This is the basis for the formation of civilization according to anthropology and there there are loads and loads of research and papers that support this theory so it is currently the best of what we know.
So it is not at all clear that the result is trivial. your conclusion is not at all scientific or logical you're just going off your intuition which is highly flawed.
Isn't a representative government the opposite? When a large number of people work together to decide to funs or accomplish some goal, voting and taxes
No it's not. Any form of government is an attempt at centralization of resources and decisions. It is an attempt to move closer to an extreme system of singular decisions with a single point of resources. You do tend to see these concentrated centralized structures within government. Leaders, central banks, executive branch, centralized resources.... etc. Although It's not fully centralized, the creation of government from no government is essentially movement in the direction of centralization. So in other words:
The point of government IS centralization. The US government is sort of an attempt at centralization with checks and balances. An attempt to make sure that the centralization doesn't become too powerful. A movement towards the extreme but not all the way.
So the liberal western form is not an exercise in working together towards some mutual goal. Rather it is in satisfying some baseline level of acceptance of how society works, property rights, etc. Power comes from the people, not by divine mandate or military might.
Right, but that was my point. Its a step closer to people coming together to accomplish or fund some goal instead of just some rich guy saying "I have money, I'm paying you all to so this now"
It doesn't have to be a rich guy. But some form of centralized rich power. Like a corporation for example. But even complex structures like this involve a cluster of individuals who own the corporation or have seats of power within the structure. This small population of people controls wealth and resources and deploys it accordingly.
In the beginning though, before complex structures like corporations formed, civilization began with rich guys telling poor guys what to do.
It's quite something to denounce the arrogance and pompousness of others while proclaiming that they "haven't seen the light" and declaring they've taken the easy path in life.
> No other profession does this kind of pompous comparisons.
Learning from other disciplines is an incredibly common practice across many professions and often leads to insights as people discover new perspectives and ways of working.
>It's quite something to denounce the arrogance and pompousness of others while proclaiming that they "haven't seen the light" and declaring they've taken the easy path in life.
I said that because the parents comment was just plain rude. It really pissed me off. It's like "News Flash: Something obvious you should know". So my response was basically, "No bro, you're wrong." with a bit of rudeness injected in.
Still what I'm referring to is legit. The sheer amount of programming analogies on HN is through the roof. I see one every other day. Sure other careers like to do comparisons but the amount is nowhere near the volume of programming analogy blog posts.
There's definitely a sort of intellectual arrogance programmers have and you can feel it on HN. A lot of articles related to IQ and intelligence always get voted up and the comments become littered with self affirmations. No doubt in my mind this blog post and other programming analogy blog posts is related to this.
You did piss me off with your above comment. It did trigger me. But my response is still valid.
I just looked at your profile and responded to a couple threads. That's all. I'm not trolling you, those comments are legit and they aren't an attempt to be rude like you were. Feel free to ignore them, I don't really care.
But maybe I suggest you be less rude with your asinine comments next time.
>Given that the universe is eventually inconsistent,
I don't think this has been observed to be true yet. At least not true within a framework of very specific theoretical rules. Otherwise all our science and logic is useless.
Lying to oneself and exposing the complete truth are two alternative strategies towards survival.
That is why some people have brains that lie to them less then others, while others have brains that lie more. You will find different degrees of bias and delusion in the people you encounter.
Free will lies at the particle level. If atoms are defined by strict physical rules that are deterministic and have no free will then if our brains are made of of the same atoms does that mean our brains are also defined by the same strict physical rules?
What if atoms are not defined by deterministic rules? What if it's defined by probabilistic rules? Then are our brains bounded by the same probabilistic rules?
It seems that given that all brains are made of the same stuff as the universe, the question of free will is more of a physics question. What is the universe made of? And does this fundamental unit allow for free will?
there's also subconscious lying, such as hiding our blind spots where the optic nerve is attached to the retina and turning off our vision when we move our eyes, and toying with our perception of time passage to make it seem like there was no gap in vision.
The churn is the result of the fact that we don't understand what is optimal.
We know how to optimize for things like the shortest distance between two points but we don't understand how to optimize Software Design or even GUI.
This is literally what "Design" means. If something needs to be designed it means there's no theory or notion behind it on what it means to be "optimal." So we "design" a "better" solution but we don't actually know if it's better. So we design another solution and the cycle continues.
A/B testing when done on a population that gives consistent answers should converge on a consistent solution. If the population gives different answers at different times then of course there will be churn.
I would say the methodology of A/B testing is indeed like machine learning, it's quite good and accurate. It's the data source that's the problem. If you have users that don't know what they want or behave differently and inconsistently then your conclusions reflect the data. Perhaps the data is accurate and there is no consistent conclusion, OR the data is inaccurate and you need to get it from a better source other then users telling you what they think is better.
> Apply these assumptions to finding an answer to the
> question of what you should make for dinner, and you'll
> quickly see there are problems.
And, to amplify your point a bit, there are problems with A/B testing for which of my children I should love the most, or what I find beautiful or interesting; or should I A/B test out whether enslaving others works out well for me?
I chose extreme examples, but the point is that there are many, many things in human experience that don't lend themselves to easy, simplistic rules. It's genuinly hard to work through a lot of a lot of the issues that people face in real life.
With that said, it's it's also important to work through and to understand objective data as best as possible. For clearly defined and nicely-behaving problems objective data is certainly the way to go. The problem is that a lot of the problems people actually face aren't so easy to understand, and aren't so well-behaved.
The idea that all forms of discrimination are bad. Hear me out.
All discrimination is bad including cultural discrimination. However if a culture discriminates against sex or race how do I reconcile this paradox? By respecting a culture must I respect a culture a discrimination? The parent post is a confused person trying to make sense of the paradox.
My suggestion is to get above all of it. You don't need to crystallize discrimination into a hard black and white rule where if you discriminate your evil and if you don't your good. Much of America has this attitude and they can't rise above it.
There are legitimate logical and mathematical correlations between race and certain traits, between sex and certain traits and between culture and certain traits. To judge a person for these traits based off of sex, culture and race can be very rational due to these very real correlations.
But instead America has embraced woke culture which takes these anti discrimination views to the extreme such that you get male athletes with sex changes competing with women in female sports. It's sort of insane. But I get it.
This wokenesses attitude arises from a past where Americans took discrimination to illogical levels and committed atrocities because of it. Now our country lives in the extremes. You are either racist/sexist or you are woke. Pick one, because there isn't really a word for a moderate viewpoint on this topic.
The hypocrisy is all around us. Don't discriminate against gender but we must segregate restrooms into male and female versions. Are you saying males are lecherous pervs and we must give females a safe space to piss, shit and do makeup? It's actually completely sexist to segregate restrooms when men and women practically share every other space.