One challenge with this approach can be seen by considering a scihub takedown followed immediately by a correction to a new TLD. The new(and suddenly correct) address would be changed to an incorrect old address.
The old Jawbone Up fit the bill somewhat, but I don't remember exactly what features it had. I thought it was a great product and hoped to see more like it.
I had that one. Super stylish, cool functionality. But unfortunately very fragile hardware.
You could actually log your food intake via their app. And sync data to your phone by removing the “cap” from the band and plugging it into your phone’s headphone port!
Discounting the fact that humans aren't coldly rational is irrational. People love to hide behind "logic", but poking a bear and expecting it not to attack you because that would be an "irrational" emotional response is not smart, it's wishful thinking. I can understand why people crave a "grand unified theory" on how the world works and the importance of emotion is an obstacle to having an elegant, comprehensible model for the world, but that doesn't mean it's right to ignore it.
> I can understand why people crave a "grand unified theory" on how the world works and the importance of emotion is an obstacle to having an elegant, comprehensible model for the world, but that doesn't mean it's right to ignore it.
I agree that emotion does provide somewhat of an obstacle to building an elegant, comprehensible model for the world, but is it really that complicated?
If one simply models emotion as a specialized type/instance of thought, and thoughts as processes that run on a biological neural network (where processes are not isolated and cross contaminate each other), and consciousness and "rationality" are higher level, complex ~thoughts (predictive estimations of reality, perceived as reality itself) that emerge[1] from all of this semi-organized complexity...doesn't it seem fairly obvious what's going on?
I think we can use rationally or emotionally-focused language to express our desires, wishes, demands etc. I think it's worth considering the language used to merely be the dress we give to what we want to say - we use the language we are accustomed to or that we think will have an impact.
So it's not always people are more or less rational/emotional, but they express their goals in that language.
We use rational language to express desire for ostensibly arbitrary choices all the time, for example. Rational language can also serve just as a way to dress up an opinion.
No question, but I just want to sympathize with your distress over receiving the original email. It's impossible to say for sure because I didn't receive one, but I think I would have reacted the same way. I am also very frustrated on your behalf with the way people in these comments are talking about you and others who read this email as a legal threat.
It's telling about many HN users' capacity for empathy that they think their reaction, real or hypothetical, has anything to do with whether this was a bad thing. Regardless of how any of us would react, it's clear from the many people who lawyered up or experienced anxiety because of the emails that this study had victims. Not seeing them as victims because you would have disregarded the email reveals what I'd consider a solipsistic mindset that causes them to regard others' experiences as less valid than their own.
> If I keep guessing coinflips, I don't have knowledge of the answer 50% of the time even though I can predict them that often.
Sorry to get off topic, but I think this is an interesting way of thinking about this. I wonder if it represents any kind of larger difference in our worldviews. I would say that we have knowledge of the answer 0% of the time. If we guess and it happens to be correct, that's a coincidence, not an indication of knowledge.
IMO this goes hand in hand with thoughts I've had about the concept of mistakes. When I used to dabble in day trading (I've been clean for a few years now), I gained and lost and gained a lot of money. Whether any particular gamble ended up as a gain or a loss, I consider them all mistakes because I had no rational reason to expect any of them to pay off.
My uneducated hypothesis is that whether somebody thinks of a successful gamble as a mistake or a good decision could be a decent predictor of certain personality traits and political views. Maybe the same applies to the question of whether being correct implies knowledge.
Yes, I got it on the recommendation of a friend but have read less than a quarter of it so far so don't have my own opinion yet. Because I am cheap bastard I got my copy on eBay for $4.
