In the 9th century, the Song dynasty in China lost the northern half of the country because instead of dealing with the invaders to the north, they sat in the capitol writing poetry about how great it would be to win. In the same era, the Indian subcontinent was being invaded by the Muslims and instead of doing anything productive, they built nicer temples so the Gods would grant them victory and they ultimately ended up losing most of the subcontinent.
At the end of the day, reality is the final arbiter of what's real. Let one of many different bad things happen, you're dead. Reality doesn't care about ideology if the ideology inevitably leads to ruin. It'll just let you die. The giant stone heads on easter island is all that's left. The Minoans left virtually no trace of their existence despite once being a regional superpower.
We're ironically a deeply conservative culture. We already have all the answers. We don't need to change anything, just do more of what our grandparents did but moreso. We don't need to care about what other cultures do, what ideas are out there, because we're the center of the universe.
In that sense, it won't matter what we want the future to look like, because we won't be a part of it. Things will change too much, and we'll be too busy looking backwards to do anything about the future.
At the end of the day, reality is the final arbiter of what's real. Let one of many different bad things happen, you're dead. Reality doesn't care about ideology if the ideology inevitably leads to ruin. It'll just let you die. The giant stone heads on easter island is all that's left. The Minoans left virtually no trace of their existence despite once being a regional superpower.
We're ironically a deeply conservative culture. We already have all the answers. We don't need to change anything, just do more of what our grandparents did but moreso. We don't need to care about what other cultures do, what ideas are out there, because we're the center of the universe.
In that sense, it won't matter what we want the future to look like, because we won't be a part of it. Things will change too much, and we'll be too busy looking backwards to do anything about the future.
"Progress"
The word progress was undoubtedly uttered as justification for every genocide. It's a mindless word without any judgement of whether the thing being progressed towards is good or evil or something else entirely.
People who use it as justification are similarly without regard for whether what they push for is good or evil, which is why it isn't justification for anything.
The word progress was undoubtedly uttered as justification for every genocide. It's a mindless word without any judgement of whether the thing being progressed towards is good or evil or something else entirely.
People who use it as justification are similarly without regard for whether what they push for is good or evil, which is why it isn't justification for anything.
Both are broadly important, though postsecondary needs to generally be more like training and less trying to turn people into "well rounded individuals" since people are paying based on it being vocational training. Paying to become a well rounded individual is a luxury many people can't afford, it's something the idle rich can faff around with while people who need to figure out how to get food and shelter or they'll die can focus on that.
That said, prior to that point a well rounded education is a good idea since people never know what they'll end up with when they're 10. I do think educators are failing their students -- if more than half your students can't do age appropriate math or reading or writing, then that's a failing grade for the instructor and the system they work in. The problem isn't that math is hard, it's that the system failed to teach the skill.
That said, prior to that point a well rounded education is a good idea since people never know what they'll end up with when they're 10. I do think educators are failing their students -- if more than half your students can't do age appropriate math or reading or writing, then that's a failing grade for the instructor and the system they work in. The problem isn't that math is hard, it's that the system failed to teach the skill.
While I agree with you, I also agree with basedbagel. It's true that some people just don't get things and coding is one of those things, but it's also true we shouldn't tell people they can't do things and that they're too hard to learn.
Same goes for all the stuff you mentioned. "Oh, I can't learn machining, I can't learn weaving, I can't learn car engines, it's too hard" but in reality they're all things people can learn and do learn every day.
I never clicked with playing musical instruments. It just never worked for me. That doesn't mean it's hard and people shouldn't try, it just means I couldn't get it. People still should try because you never know what you'll turn out to be good at until you try. Everyone is different.
Same goes for all the stuff you mentioned. "Oh, I can't learn machining, I can't learn weaving, I can't learn car engines, it's too hard" but in reality they're all things people can learn and do learn every day.
I never clicked with playing musical instruments. It just never worked for me. That doesn't mean it's hard and people shouldn't try, it just means I couldn't get it. People still should try because you never know what you'll turn out to be good at until you try. Everyone is different.
Freedom includes freedom to do things you don't like.
Sucks, but trying to get involved with every person being a bit of a jerk is a fools errand.
Sucks, but trying to get involved with every person being a bit of a jerk is a fools errand.
Yes, that experiment seems to prove you can't just give people everything because it'll destroy them. Ironically, we're seeing that in some subcultures that are highly protected by the state -- without any reason to do anything productive, you end up with people who just destroy everything around them, whereas throughout history you've seen people with much less live much happier lives because they had a reason to go out and do something productive.
Caesar Milan talks about it a lot with dogs -- the problem dogs have isn't that they're not loved enough, it's that they need a job and if you're not walking them enough and tiring them out they start misbehaving because they're trying to do something. I think we have the same thing with people, people tearing up the furniture because life is just handed to them with the best of intentions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYooC9yys8
Caesar Milan talks about it a lot with dogs -- the problem dogs have isn't that they're not loved enough, it's that they need a job and if you're not walking them enough and tiring them out they start misbehaving because they're trying to do something. I think we have the same thing with people, people tearing up the furniture because life is just handed to them with the best of intentions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYooC9yys8
Post scarcity is literally impossible.
Why?
Because there's always going to be something that's scarce. Even if you have unlimited food and stuff, you can't have everything.
The factories can pump out stuff (or even your personal replicator in the star trek future), but the fact that someone hand built a thing is important to humans and there's a limited amount of that which can be done.
There might be all kinds of track housing, but nice beachfront property is geographically limited, everyone can't have some. The places with the nicest weather, that's limited, everyone can't have some. Places where the talented people gather, that's limited and not everyone can be there at once.
There's stuff that isn't stuff. Megan Fox can't be married with kids to all of us. She can't even bang everyone who wants to bang her, because there's only one Megan Fox. Oh, and let's not forget, maybe you wanted to bang 2000s Megan Fox oops she's approaching 40. So not even Megan Fox is Megan Fox.
There's more stuff that isn't stuff. Hey, you want John Carmack to help work on the game you're working on? Tough, there's just one, and you're just some idiot in the middle of nowhere, he's not going to work with you on your thing. You want top artists to do your art for you? Tough, they've got options. You want top musicians to do the music for you? Tough, they've got 24 hours in a day and not one for you. Amy Hennig to be the creative director? Tough, she doesn't even know your name.
I wrote long ago that economics include money but don't necessarily require money. There's always going to be scarcity, and that scarcity is always going to be settled one way or another. Unlimited stuff from highly efficient factories can't change that. Human beings don't work that way, and neither does the universe.
Why?
Because there's always going to be something that's scarce. Even if you have unlimited food and stuff, you can't have everything.
The factories can pump out stuff (or even your personal replicator in the star trek future), but the fact that someone hand built a thing is important to humans and there's a limited amount of that which can be done.
There might be all kinds of track housing, but nice beachfront property is geographically limited, everyone can't have some. The places with the nicest weather, that's limited, everyone can't have some. Places where the talented people gather, that's limited and not everyone can be there at once.
There's stuff that isn't stuff. Megan Fox can't be married with kids to all of us. She can't even bang everyone who wants to bang her, because there's only one Megan Fox. Oh, and let's not forget, maybe you wanted to bang 2000s Megan Fox oops she's approaching 40. So not even Megan Fox is Megan Fox.
There's more stuff that isn't stuff. Hey, you want John Carmack to help work on the game you're working on? Tough, there's just one, and you're just some idiot in the middle of nowhere, he's not going to work with you on your thing. You want top artists to do your art for you? Tough, they've got options. You want top musicians to do the music for you? Tough, they've got 24 hours in a day and not one for you. Amy Hennig to be the creative director? Tough, she doesn't even know your name.
I wrote long ago that economics include money but don't necessarily require money. There's always going to be scarcity, and that scarcity is always going to be settled one way or another. Unlimited stuff from highly efficient factories can't change that. Human beings don't work that way, and neither does the universe.
WTF man? You can't use candles! That releases CO2 and soot! You'll have to just live in the dark unless you can afford a supply of 100% pure ethanol and a high powered powered fuel cell.
Your choices are der fuhrer, der fuhrer's pomeranian lapdog, the guy everyone else is calling Hitler, the guy everyone else is calling double Hitler, The separatists, and the greens.
I miss Canadian politics being boring and ignorable...
I miss Canadian politics being boring and ignorable...
No kidding! Ugh, I ended up taking every painful step along the way. Herc monochrome, then CGA, then EGA (and btw not all EGA is EGA, there's a super EGA that'll not display on your EGA monitor and will show garbage), and finally VGA. Jumping right from CGA to VGA would be mind blowing.
That sounds about right!
Later on I got a 5MB hard drive that was so big and heavy you could use it as a weapon of war, and you had to manually calibrate the interleave to get the fastest performance out of it.
Later on I got a 5MB hard drive that was so big and heavy you could use it as a weapon of war, and you had to manually calibrate the interleave to get the fastest performance out of it.
heh, I still love BASIC, so much that my next book is going to be an introduction to FreeBASIC.
My first computer computer was a TRS-80 coco with the extended color basic. The extended basic was on a completely different level than for example c-64 basic, you could do graphics using the sort of commands that would later become the standard.
My first computer computer was a TRS-80 coco with the extended color basic. The extended basic was on a completely different level than for example c-64 basic, you could do graphics using the sort of commands that would later become the standard.
My first PC was an 8088 made of random parts we managed to scrounge together. After an 8088 with a herc monochrome screen, everything was an upgrade and these days I'm fully "you damn kids don't know how good you got it" when it comes to computers. :P
(I'm not even that old...Maybe a little...)
(I'm not even that old...Maybe a little...)
Unfortunately that's true. Can't possibly happen until another crisis forces their hand like what happened in the 1990s. Could happen mind you.
From where I'm standing, it doesn't matter what things that were called conspiracy theories get wrong if particularly lately they are also routinely getting things right.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.