Hi anigbrowl, I really enjoy this community. I don't think anyone likes to read things like:
> The sad reality is you tried to
> While you're moaning about
Let's follow the guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I spent about 15 minutes looking over that paper you linked and it looks like the researchers are discussing systemic problems and biases in the American legal system. Race is one of the variables they studied in their model. Their results show that Non-Black candidates are treated more favorably than Black candidates in the legal system. Am I understanding the part you wanted to highlight? The paper and results makes sense to me but I don't understand how that directly relates to Barrin92's original point.
I understand that someone could see Black people being discriminated against and connect that to the word "dark" being used to describe a negative trait. I get that using the same word to describe someone's race and describe something as negative can be bad. Is that what's happening here though? How do we determine which of the following examples from marriam-webster.com [0] are OK to use?
- They walked into the dark room, it was devoid of light.
Perhaps you could address your reminder about guidelines to the person who replied to a tactful comment with 'What on earth is happening at American universities [...]'. The only original point of that comment was to generate an emotional reaction.
I replied by pointing out that said trope doesn't apply to me and citing my preference for a data driven approach, a polite rejoinder which was rudely rebuffed.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Barrin92 brought up American universities where it wasn't necessary. I get it. Let's not dismiss their comment because they brought that up. I looked past that and I am trying to keep this on topic by discussing the point they made.
Does the paper you linked say anything about using the words "light" and "dark"?
How do we determine which definitions of "dark" we should use in a professional context?
I think this topic is important to discuss and I am genuinely curious how you and others would address the points in my previous comment.
This idea boils down to if you believe the human brain exists purely in physical space. Let's assume it does. There is no free will. Every thought, every neuron, every sense can be represented and is controlled solely by energy and matter. We could record the electrical signals between your optic nerve and your brain, and send those same signals to your brain again in the future. We could recreate what you perceive as red by shocking your brain in the right place at the right time. If we perfectly understood the human brain, the sensation of red would be defined as a sequence of neurons that need to be turned on and off at the right time.
As far as I know, the only thing limiting us from perfectly understanding the brain is our limitations with measuring it. I don't know of any scientific studies that claim the brain exists outside of physical space.
Let's assume the brain doesn't exist purely in physical space. Free will exists. There is something immeasurable and outside of matter and energy that experiences the color red. Sensations are impossible to define because they exist only in this immeasurable world.
I heard about a guy that claimed it was obvious that the origin of lightning and earthquakes were from the gods themselves. I try not to think like that guy.
> If we perfectly understood the human brain, the sensation of red would be defined as a sequence of neurons that need to be turned on and off at the right time.
A sequence of neurons firing is not equivalent to the sensation of red. It doesn't even tell you anything about the nature of the sensation of colour more broadly, or why the sensation of red looks the way it does and not like, say, the sensation of blue or yellow instead.
All you have is a material correlate -- a merely descriptive physical "law".
> A sequence of neurons firing is not equivalent to the sensation of red.
Have you seen videos where people perform experiments on people's brains while they're awake? The subjects experience sensations that are inseparable from their neurons firing.
I would say the sensation of red and neurons firing are the exact same thing to the person experiencing it. It's like saying a flashlight that is on is different than photons traveling away from a light bulb with a battery and a current. They're the same thing to the observer. The sensation of red is caused by and is only possible by neurons firing. The neurons firing causes and only results in the sensation of red. The observer does not know the difference.
> It doesn't even tell you anything about the nature of the sensation of colour more broadly
I don't think seeing red tells us about the sensation of color more broadly either. I think that's a concept created through human discussion, not by our senses.
> or why the sensation of red looks the way it does and not like, say, the sensation of blue or yellow instead.
I was talking to your point of "but whether that experience of redness itself is information". I don't know why red looks the way it does, but I imagine the reason exists in the physical world and we could find out if we understood the brain.
I do think in the future we could activate someone's neurons and have them experience red, blue, and yellow in any combination we want. And we could give someone else the same experience (hypothetically we perfectly understand the brain) by activating neurons in their brain. I think that is perfectly communicating color.
> The subjects experience sensations that are inseparable from their neurons firing.
What does "inseparable" mean? That the sensation occurs at the same time that the neurons fire? That may be true, but it doesn't make them equivalent.
> It's like saying a flashlight that is on is different than photons traveling away from a light bulb with a battery and a current.
They're not the same, for what it's worth. The term "flashlight" conveys a certain intent and structure that "photons traveling away from a light bulb with a battery and a current" does not.
> The sensation of red is caused by and is only possible by neurons firing. The neurons firing causes and only results in the sensation of red. The observer does not know the difference.
The fact that two different phenomena are closely coupled via a cause and effect relationship does not make them the same phenomena.
If you push two magnets together, the fact that the same force causes them to attract or repel does not mean that the motion of the first is literally equivalent to the motion of the second, or that the force itself is literally equivalent to either motion. They are closely correlated, but ultimately distinct.
You just can't avoid the fact that qualitative phenomena do exist in their own right. They can't be explained away using a physical model that assumes from the get go that they don't exist.
Erwin Schrodinger said:
> Scientific theories serve to facilitate the survey of our observations and experimental findings. Every scientist knows how difficult it is to remember a moderately extended group of facts, before at least some primitive theoretical picture about them has been shaped. It is therefore small wonder, and by no means to be blamed on the authors of original papers or of text-books, that after a reasonably coherent theory has been formed, they do not describe the bare facts they have found or wish to convey to the reader, but clothe them in the terminology of that theory or theories. This procedure, while very useful for our remembering the facts in a well-ordered pattern, tends to obliterate the distinction between the actual observations and the theory arisen from them. And since the former always are of some sensual quality, theories are easily thought to account for sensual qualities; which, of course, they never do.
> What does "inseparable" mean? That the sensation occurs at the same time that the neurons fire? That may be true, but it doesn't make them equivalent.
Can a sensation exist without neurons firing? The root of our conversation is the question if a sensation purely exists in the physical world. If it does, then it is possible to measure it. If it doesn't, then that breaks our scientific understanding of the world and would be exciting news.
> They're not the same, for what it's worth. The term "flashlight" conveys a certain intent and structure that "photons traveling away from a light bulb with a battery and a current" does not.
Yes there is no strict definition of a flashlight. Let's use your definition of a flashlight. Is it possible in your mind to separate the concept of a flashlight and your definition? Without "your definition here", the flashlight no longer exists. My point was without firing neurons, the sensation does not exist.
> The fact that two different phenomena are closely coupled via a cause and effect relationship does not make them the same phenomena.
My wording was not the best. My point was that the sensation of red is physically equivalent to neurons firing. How do we measure a sensation? If we cannot measure a sensation, does it exist in the physical world? If it doesn't exist in the physical world, then what does it existence mean to the scientific community?
> If you push two magnets together, the fact that the same force causes them to attract or repel does not mean that the motion of the first is literally equivalent to the motion of the second, or that the force itself is literally equivalent to either motion. They are closely correlated, but ultimately distinct.
I agree that these forces are distinct. We can measure the force of each magnet separately and we can define the motion of one magnet without referencing the motion of the other.
> You just can't avoid the fact that qualitative phenomena do exist in their own right. They can't be explained away using a physical model that assumes from the get go that they don't exist.
What is a qualitative phenomena? I couldn't find information on this term.
If we can't measure a qualitative phenomena in the physical space, what does it mean to exist?
These discussions are normally expositions of how the other party misunderstands reality and or terminology with a dash of if i don't understand it but can vaguely describe it then it must be inexplicable.
People were discussing bitcoin being used as a digital currency. There was talk of bitcoin being accepted on Overstock.com, TigerDirect, and using bitcoin apps on phones as a digital wallet. I would argue the majority of people in the bitcoin community at the time were genuinely interested in the technology and its use as an everyday currency.
Now let's look at some Reddit /r/bitcoin posts in January 2020. I picked this date because there weren't any recent significant price fluctuations.
There was practically zero discussion on using bitcoin as a currency. People were only interested in the price and treated it as a commodity, just like a digital gold.
> EDIT: downvote me if you want but you are flat wrong
Do people treat bitcoin as a currency or a commodity today?
*The narrative around bitcoin has always been "It is digital currency. It works like gold".*
I don't think we need to get into whether or not gold is a currency or a commodity but you are fooling yourself if you think that the price of gold is driven by jewelers and PCB fabs.
People were overly enthusiastic about it intially, but soon realized almost no one wants to use a slower, riskier, and now more expensive payment option. Bitcoin is good for merchants but terrible for buyers.
Bitcoin lightning could change this, instant transactions with almost no fees, but it's still in early days.
The Phoenix wallet[0] is actually quite a nice LN solution. When I tried it out it gave me similar feelings of excitement as when I first got into Bitcoin.
Reading about the Lightning Network gives me a headache in general, but Phoenix manages to hide all the tech stuff. I think my old parents would be able to use it.
And it solves one LN problem of having to have bitcoin for opening a payment channel, you can simply install the wallet and start receiving bitcoin.
> Now let's look at some Reddit /r/bitcoin posts in January 2020.
This is a very amateurish attempt at analyzing what "Bitcoin community" (which you haven't even really defined properly either) are thinking or are interested in. Bitcoin reddit is a bunch of kids who like memes and hating on the FED. I know a lot of serious investors who would never be seen posting or commenting there. It is just not a place for a lot of people.
I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article for a blockchain [0]. It's agreed that a blockchain is decentralized and resistant to change from bad actors. If a system doesn't meet those requirements, it's just a fancy database. I don't see how Git or the New York Times example you mentioned are inherently decentralized.
Great write-up and those two graphs are interesting. It's cool to learn how different companies treat their beta users. I wish this article touched upon more of the technically difficulties with switching from Python 2 to 3 too.
It saddens me that people are more comfortable watching videos of gore than a person suffering from a mental illness.
It saddens me that America lacks mental health awareness.
> I can't believe this is real.
About 1% of Americans suffer from schizophrenia [0] and for many of those, this video shows what they and their family face on a daily basis. You and the people around you probably don't ever experience what happens in those gore videos, but we are surrounded by people who suffer from schizophrenia and other mental disorders.
There is currently no cure for schizophrenia and the best treatment is therapy and antipsychotic medication. If the person who is suffering from schizophrenia decides to pass on the medication and therapy (for reasons related to the disorder or because the side effects are worse than the benefits), it can be difficult to prevent situations like the one in the video of Terry from happening.
Imagine you are in a room with 100 other people. It is likely that someone in that room has experienced paranoia or groundless thinking similar to what you saw in the video. Both them and their family have to learn how to deal with the symptoms and often do not get enough support. I encourage everyone to educate themselves on mental health and consider donating to an organization that supports people with mental illness [1].
Terry uploaded a video the day before he died [2] and also removed all of his previously uploaded videos from YouTube. That leads me to believe that he committed suicide. I don't know much about his situation, but I can't help to wonder if he would still be with us if he was given more support and resources to help him deal with his illness.
Thankfully Archive.org [3] has saved a great amount of videos and links related to Terry's life if anyone would like to learn more.
I’m going to puke if I see one more tweet from Fred Wilson saying “the startup community needs to be open to talking about mental health” and then he talks about some trendy, socially acceptable “depression”.
I had someone I cared about on a 5150 hold. That shit breaks your heart when you know you need much more then 48 hours, and you are helpless.
Terry had people that cared about him, and what ended up happening to him is an indictment of the system.
The system failed Terry and those that cared about him.
"This is not an issue of mental health in America. American society decided that Terry Davis was not a threat to himself or others, and thus permitted him the freedom to choose whether he would get help for his condition or not. That freedom may be clouded by his condition, but it is a freedom he is afforded none-the-less. Terry Davis is a success story in America being tolerant of the mentally ill." --random internet guy
Fantastic article. It reminds me of the story of Paul Le Roux, a man who also took his love of programming too far. Although he had more malicious intentions.
It's definitely because of the Referer header. It has only happened to me when I am linked to a tweet from somewhere else and refreshing always solves the problem. I think Twitter wants you to download their app instead of using your phone's web browser.
> The sad reality is you tried to
> While you're moaning about
Let's follow the guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I spent about 15 minutes looking over that paper you linked and it looks like the researchers are discussing systemic problems and biases in the American legal system. Race is one of the variables they studied in their model. Their results show that Non-Black candidates are treated more favorably than Black candidates in the legal system. Am I understanding the part you wanted to highlight? The paper and results makes sense to me but I don't understand how that directly relates to Barrin92's original point.
I understand that someone could see Black people being discriminated against and connect that to the word "dark" being used to describe a negative trait. I get that using the same word to describe someone's race and describe something as negative can be bad. Is that what's happening here though? How do we determine which of the following examples from marriam-webster.com [0] are OK to use?
- They walked into the dark room, it was devoid of light.
- They are wearing dark clothing.
- They prefer/dislike dark rum.
- There were dark powers that lead to war.
- They have a dark view of the future.
- They had a dark period of history.
- They enjoy dark humor.
- Most of their dealings were done in the dark.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dark