site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 250644 results for

domain:parrhesia.co

And I'm assuming producing another log of innocuous-looking deletions for that same "made-up" procedural reason will not change your mind either?

Literally why would it? Also, why are you criticizing me for not changing my mind, when I'm proposing a test that would falsify my belief, and you're just looking for excuses to never change yours?

Do you believe organisations are unlikely to have procedural reasons that don't serve political agendas contrary to yours?

It's not about "contrary to mine", and yes I believe it's rare for organizations to neutrally apply their procedural rules, unless they have a healthy balance of worldviews, political agendas, and values, in their decision-making positions.

I think it’s more that there’s a clear delineation between caste supremacy and Hindu nationalism. The latter can’t be too casteist because most Hindus are of either middling caste or casteless. For the same reason a British nativist might be hard-pressed making the argument that the aristocracy should be put back in charge of everything after the revolution.

Most of modern-day urban India is mostly leaning towards the casteless future BJP imagines or Congress did before it. There is no caste supremacy, arranged marriages exist a relic, and people who are living in urban centres and not poor don't really care as much about who they marry. BJP is not and never reactionary even when it first started out. They follow Arya Samaj which makes corrections to the Vedas to justify annihilating castes. Savarkar in his texts very directly talked about this. BJP has to appeal to upper castes because they vote for BJP in unison.

You cannot discuss any of this here publicly nor point out the HBD implications of castes, how brahmins in various parts Sanskritized people for money or how every single scripture is explicitly in favor of having castes and varnas. Indus Valley civilisation had a concept of caste despite not being aryan and the Aryans who came from the Eurasian steppes had Varnas, two are different but nearly identical in most cases now. I am not some caste obsessed lunatic, I have to mention all of this since it gives a complete model for understanding religion, denying birth-based varnas is not far from denying the divinity of Christ. Anyone who does that is calling scriptures wrong, and not the fake new ones but the Vedas which are the equivalent of the bible in Hinduism. Again I am not asking for people to follow it, its just that you cannot believe in the Vedas, call them divine and then go against things they explicitly tell you to not do.

The reality of being poor plus having stark contrast with people who live beside you who not only inherit everything good but also were responsible for everything bad done to you and have slightly different ancestry is a recipe for disaster. Also why they push against Aryan Invasion Theory as it makes things even worse. On the flip side, most upper castes are people who got Sanskritised in that fold, their y haplogroups don't match those of others so there are no good outcomes.

I'm not sure what the conspiracy theory is. It seems like a paragraph or two was lost before the edit.

My impression .

Austen Allred of Sigma Bloom formerly known as Lambda School lied about everything until his firm blew up and PG still defends him.

There's probably a steelman of that Allred piece -- heaven knows Lambda's collapse has a lot to be embarrassed about -- but it has such a scattered grab-bag of every disagreement possible that it's a little hard to take at face value. The clear illegality of operating as an unregistered school is damning, and then it's undercut by the 'oh and the legislature had to update the law later to make clear it was really-illegal not just I-want-it-to-be illegal'. Allred's homelessness was a lie, because he could have gone back to his parent's spare bedroom, as evidenced by this example of a guy who... was homeless until he made calls and went to a friend's spare bedroom. He did that incredibly dumb Sample Size of One Gimmick, but he also considers a court holding an arbitration clause intact as winning (spoiler: yes) and ran a pretty stupid 500 USD hustle to try to promote a YouTube channel (congrats, you've found an influencer). He's made three references to Elon Musk, which is tots a sign of delusion, and not just having different political aspirations, which is near-certainly what really set Sandusky off. There's some serious criticisms of Lamda excluding 'no-longer-searching' students that weren't searching because Lambda left them with no change or dropouts that Lamda went after for pennies, and also here's a claim of 27% job placement that's behind a paywall, which, once you roll the rock aside depends on interpretations of a leaked slide deck that, afaict, isn't anywhere online and allegedly is disputed by third-party auditors.

Which is probably is big difference. Graham's definitely got some serious faults here, and that he's not more critical where Lamda has fucked up says a lot about whether he's on the outside pissing in or the inside pissing out. But his sort of people have an answer about an indefensible fellow insider: they never mention them again. Graham doesn't do that not because of some complex conspiracy, but because he thinks there's some defensible variant of Lamda's goal that the school simply missed (and to be fair, I could be persuaded!), and because so many criticisms of Allred were junk.

The strange thing is, there are zero articles, videos, discussions, HN comments or even tweets about this.

I think the real question you need to be asking yourself is why do you find this "strange".

Or more pointedly what specific facet of your current worldview/model is it that this particular fact seems to invalidate or contradict?

And I'm assuming producing another log of innocuous-looking deletions for that same "made-up" procedural reason will not change your mind either? Do you believe organisations are unlikely to have procedural reasons that don't serve political agendas contrary to yours?

It would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not interested if it turns out a prompt deletion for another made up procedural reason wouldn't change anyone's mind.

Do you want to make a bet on how long it will stay up if I reupload the image, and state that it's fair use?

Do you want to actually do it, or to merely feel secure in your continued belief that Wikipedia maliciously deleted that picture (in a manner indistinguishable from neutral routine gruntwork)?

On the other hand, when I play such games I do not feel having to expend any particular mental effort to resist shelling out cash, any more than I feel compelled to take any Nigerian princes up on their offers. If you're not in the susceptible target audience, those games really are free.

Because it's the best predictor.

No it's not, because an even better predictor is some combination of past history and direct obsevation.

I am going to disregard the multiple paragraphs of woke nonsense you just spouted off and ask a simple question. Are you calling Clenence Thomas a nigger?

Are you seriously trying to argue that because of his skin color he should be considered as a shoplifter or a drug-adict and not as a supreme court judge?

If your answer is anything less than an unequivocal "yes" how do you reconcile that with the rest of your post?

Couldn't the vast majority of the work be done on rats? It shouldn't take that long to figure out what works if progress is in fact being made.

He looks exactly his age to me. His skin just looks a little funny, like he exfoliated or something.

New: There are many agents. All these agents have goals and sets of possible actions. Some of those agents have physical bodies. But the actions and interactions of the agents only account for their physical bodies in the broadest sense, i.e., usually just location. Those physical bodies that are very close to the player's location are actually rendered and physically simulated, but the abstract behavior of the agents has priority over the physics simulation, and they can interact with non-rendered, non-physically-simulated agents just fine.

Yeah, makes sense, that's how I like think about my projects as well, though back to the engine question, I get the feeling that Unity / Godot is often an obstacle to it. It's like they really want you to think agent == scene node, and decoupling the game world from the scene / physical simulation often feels like a pain in the ass. Is this an issue you ran into, or did you come up with some cool way around that (alternatively - can't relate with the issue at all)?

How did your similar situation turn out?

Much like yours. It was a step down financially but that was unavoidable, for all the misery the old job was causing me, it paid quite well. Otherwise nothing but upsides - better management, colleges I get along with better, a more up-to-date tech stack (which was a big relief, I felt I was in the danger of becoming a fossil with the old one). I also relate suddenly having energy after years of dragging myself.

The VC scene has been shady and two-faced forever. Graham is bad, so are the rest of them. Johnson has an extreme axe to grind and is a fabulist of hilarious proportions, but like you say he’s never entirely wrong. He’s basically an extremely autistic compulsive liar with a huge axe to grind.

The impression people have of Indian politics is that BJP is some hyper-casteist political party that wants to impose Hindu and caste supremacy on the world

I think it’s more that there’s a clear delineation between caste supremacy and Hindu nationalism. The latter can’t be too casteist because most Hindus are of either middling caste or casteless. For the same reason a British nativist might be hard-pressed making the argument that the aristocracy should be put back in charge of everything after the revolution.

I used to see Peter Thiel as someone who embodied values I admire but the information about him from Charles completely breaks that for me.

The boyfriend died shortly after he showed up unannounced at Thiel and his husband’s Christmas party and apparently made a big scene. (Classic case of a mistress with unwarranted confidence). Was he killed? Hard to say, but probably not. Thiel stayed out of this election to hedge his bet, he still needed all those contracts for Palantir etc if Harris won, and Vance is his guy so he doesn’t need to suck up to the Trump campaign.

Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.

You're missing the point. The point is that there's nothing to distinguish this photo from the 150 other photos deleted in those ten minutes except that you feel strongly about this image. There's no indication at all that the process has been abused.

At this point, it seems it is you who has the unfalsifiable belief, namely, that this entirely routine, automated action was actually politically motivated.

They have health problems resulting from inbreeding. I don't think they have a problem with hostile values being smuggled in. They practise rumspringa.

Interestingly (to me) another euphemism for sex is etchi or エッチ which is itself the pronunciation of the letter H, which in turn is a representation of the romanization of the word 変態 (hentai or perversion).

The term's arduous journey softens the tone from the original hentai meaning--エッチ really just is a noun for sexual intercourse --but it's one of those weird words in Japanese.

There is a term 性行為 or sēkoi which means sex, but it's a clinical term (think "intercourse"). Sēi means sex or gender, koi means "deed" or "behavior."

Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell

What? No, I asked my question because it's relevant to my claim, which is - if the Brooks photo was deleted and had licensing information, nobody could tell.

How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?

Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.

How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?

That's irrelevant to the question. Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell. The question is, are there any photos on Commons/wiki without licensing information, and are there any copyrighted photos on Commons?

How is that evidence of anything?

How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?

In the same minute that he deleted the Brooks photo, he deleted 18 other unlicensed images. In the ten minute window, he deleted 147 images total. All of them had been without a license for 8 days at that point. He then deleted the category that held images that were tagged as missing a license on July 3.

It's pretty obvious that this is an automated process where images without licensing information are tagged, added to a category, and then in 8 days those without licensing information are automatically garbage collected. I don't see any reason to add epicycles to this.

"When the Brooks mugshot was deleted from Wikipedia, it was the worst day of your life. For krd, it was Tuesday."

Commuter rail is fairly inefficient in most cities, and in any case doesn't replace the automobile. That is a large public capital investment to not even replace a lot of privately held capital.

We know that "just be nice" with the treasury doesn't work in the long run. Our economists are less susceptible to flim flam than our social scientists and culture warriors.

I think you make a pretty important point: Many, if not most, drivers in cities don't even want to be there. They are there to get the paycheck to do the things they actually want to do. Thus any "solution" to too many people driving in the city will inevitably end up hollowing out that industrial/urban core of office buildings. We've seen this story before. This kills the city.

You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures.

It's crazy that you would say this considering that I acknowledged that there are plenty of rules that can be bent to make things happen. My actual claim is that there isn't evidence that the photo was removed for this reason, and that the actual reason the photo was removed is actually quite unambiguous.

What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?

If you upload the photo to Wikipedia with licensing info and it gets removed, I'll agree that the licensing rule is also abused.

Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.

How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?

Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.

How is that evidence of anything?

If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.

You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures. We're claiming that the photo was removed because the Wikipedia editors don't want it to be published on Wikipedia, and are using any procedural rule as an excuse. A way to disprove my belief would be to reupload the photo and address the issues from the previous removal. What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?

By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.

Maybe? This doesn't explicitly say anything about what could have happened to the image.