jhiska's comments

Another way to see it is the Internet was supposed to make sharing what one understood as truth easier; instead, what it did was democratize Chomsky's propaganda model by making entry into becoming the media much cheaper; the Internet-based media newcomers essentially copied as best as they could the traditional media's model of _imposing_ their view of reality and manufacturing consent.

In this view, what we're seeing is a power struggle for influence between the media who traditionally held the power to manufacture consent and the Internet-based newcomers.

In meat sports, if someone has a legitimate use for a stimulant then they are barred from competition nevertheless.

In practice, this is better than someone getting the edge because of a medical condition.

So much for the lie that Trump would "end big gov".

More like end having a sustainable budget.

Buzzword-heavy, dreamy-optimistic speculation on how the Internet might change.

What's the author's interest in this pitch?

It's not a sonic attack (experts agree), but it's very likely not mass hysteria either (an unproved speculation from a medical doctor not involved in the investigation).

More research is needed (and not by journalists looking to capitalize on a popular story).

It's not "interesting" because the media industries have been doing this everyday for at least 2 centuries. Maybe more interesting is how people keep getting amnesiac about this.

We can attribute any of it to "the Internet" or "Facebook" or "Twitter"... or to any other communication platform that lets people reach a wide audience.

Because what works in animal studies doesn't often work in humans. This is why you hear about a novel cure for cancer in the news every month -- it's always animal studies.

If you want something to get your hopes up, look for stuff undergoing human studies. They're not new(s) -- in fact, it's stuff that is known and has shown promise for years -- but they're more likely to eventually work.

Whenever you hear about amazing breakthroughs in medicine, look to see if it is an animal study. Those usually do not translate into results in humans.

Do not get your hopes up just yet.

Is Bitcoin a currency?

It's a calming, reassuring article about something that will destroy people's lives and societies in unpredictable ways and disrupt the balance of power for worse.

At least there's always the soothing "solution" of "regulating it". The people who get to "regulate it" are exactly the ones who will wield its power.

After some millions of us have died the other people who survive will eventually find a new equilibrium.

None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.

Like Slashdot and Reddit, once Hacker News became influential enough it was taken over by political actors.

It makes sense from a political actor's point of view to push their message on whatever platform reaches the most influential people, and Hacker News was that platform once, but it destroys the platform in the long-term, and I don't think they care about people wanting a platform for discussing news for hackers.

In this article, the message being pushed is one of social change, and although I agree with the agenda, I don't think it's appropriate in Hacker News either.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

One can argue that both almonds and cannabis take a harmful share of water in drought-prone areas and that both will be controlled.

This story again? This is bananas!

All in all, from a certain perspective it's a nice list, but keep a critical mind while reading it because the author sometimes seeks to rewrite the terms used to advance his own views on what is valid and what isn't.

>Is it possible that people who learn or do something focussedly over a long stretch of time (practice music 4 hours a day) show larger development over those same areas than the average distracted person?

It's more than possible -- it's well-documented with some kinds of meditative practice. [1]

The only interesting question this article raises for a knowledgeable person is whether or not the Sanskrit language _itself_ would have an effect on cognition, but it never succeeds to prove it would or offer a mechanism for how it would work, and instead asks for funds for more studies.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/meditationpapers/top/?sort=top&t=al...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MeditationNerds/top/?sort=top&t=all

>Although this initial research, focused on intergroup comparison of brain structure, could not directly address the Sanskrit effect question (that requires detailed functional studies with cross-language memorization comparisons, for which we are currently seeking funding), we found something specific about intensive verbal memory training.

This quote, coupled with a lack of a proposed mechanism as to how the Sanskrit language would itself have an influence on cognition, means that as far as we know right now there is no such thing as the Sanskrit Effect.

It makes for a catchy headline, though, and the other stuff in the article speaks to my own successful experiments in memory training -- if interested, look up the books from the World Memory Championship winner.

>How about creating a new aphorism [based on Hanlon's razor]?

The whole enterprise is sabotaged by the simple fact that the logical foundation behind that aphorism can be bluntly, but better, summed as:

"Choose the most adequate explanation."

The keyword in the rule of thumb known as Occam's razor is neither that the explanations be simple or complex, but that they be adequate to a knowledgeable person, and that given two (or more) highly adequate explanations -- one simple and one (or more) complex -- that the complex ones be cut in favor of the simplest one.

I guess the answer is no.

Ah, yes; the Russian defense. I know it well. How did it go?

"The hard-coded backdoor that was found can't be a hard-coded backdoor, because Western Digital would never be so crass and incompetent as to put a hard-coded backdoor hidden in such a way that a security researcher would find it and attribute it to them."

How can one argue against such flawless logic when it even has an aphorism to describe it?