"abusive", really? you can debate their merits without hyperbole. it's not clear to me that you bothered to read past any of the headlines.
1. is explicitly given the caveat "when not immediately helpful".
2. is rude, regardless of whether it is helpful. if you want to help, join in and actually help.
3. is difficult to imagine ever being helpful, and when feigned is obviously not ordinary, but an obnoxious affectation.
4. has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful.
I'll leave determining what is ordinary or authentic to others, but suffice to say I don't think either of those things is consistent case to case.
one thing the author touches on that I'm curious about--
> academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method
I always see this bandied about as axiomatic, but I'm really curious if:
a. this pertains outside of "softer" subjects and and the liberal arts
b. this isn't a case of overblown media coverage of the occasional "how dare you say XYZ".
I'm a little skeptical of it because I know SV types love to pooh pooh academia, but I went to a devotedly conservative college (and a decade ago) so I'm hoping to hear from someone with recent experience and a lack of that implicit contempt for formal education.
obviously the pro-Palestinian protests exposed some serious issues with respect to speech on campus, but I'm more curious about the typical daily experience of students. are the morality police really so widespread, or is it overrepresented and limited to individual overzealous types and colleges like Oberlin with a reputation for such?
Even if colleges are more censorious these days (which I’m skeptical of), I struggle to think of any institution in American life more open minded than colleges.
Mainstream media acts as a hive mind. Businesses do not host speakers critical of their operations. Silicon Valley VCs are among the most fragile minds out there.
> Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people
epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.
Fluoride is known to discolour teeth; also, inactive dental caries will turn dark, and most dentists will jump at the opportunity to drill that shit out.
>especially when these opinions enter a feedback loop with an uncanny resemblance to a religion
It honestly amazes me the way that rationalists have reinvented every aspect of religion. They have scripture, a prophet, an apocalypse, and even a god who will torture you for not doing its will. And to cap it all off, of course, their own non-profit dedicated to preventing the apocalypse. Donate now!
"What about, I don’t know, not stepping in front of buses? It certainly has a commandment (thou shalt not step in front of buses). It has notions of sin (stepping in front of buses) and virtue (not doing that). It has its rituals (looking both ways before you cross the street), its priests demanding obedience (crossing-guards), and its holy places (crosswalks). It promises blessings on the virtuous, but also terrible vengeance on the wicked (if you step in front of a bus, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth)."
I rather admire Scott Alexander--but this strikes me as a very weak argument that boils down to "if you are willing to distort anything enough, it appears to be a religion".
Rationalism does not require that kind of distortion. The parallels are strikingly obvious; I don't have to torture Yudkowsky into a prophet, or the Sequences into scripture. Yud literally predicts the future and tells you to give him money to make it better. When rationalists write litanies and gather for solstice celebrations about how great rationality is, I'm not sure comparing them to a religion requires quite that stretch.
Or, to take a more conciliatory tone: Maybe he's right! But either way there's probably a spectrum, and rationalism is way closer to being a religion than, e.g. fans of the New England Patriots--who can only have a minor apocalypse on an annual basis, and lack scripture entirely--and further away from it than Scientologists.
What do you mean by "central booking system"? As far as I know (working on a rental car contract for a couple years), there are just various travel industry standards for bookings and whatnot.
GDS.
A Global Distribution System is a worldwide reservation system that acts as a conduit between travel bookers and suppliers, such as hotels, other accommodation providers and other travel related services.
I mean there is only one pipeline, to which are contributing many actors, like big agencies (booking, expedia), car rental, airlines, etc. Together, they act as one.
check out /r/leaves for community and resources. you're not at all alone, I've been using weed as a crutch since I started during the pandemic and it became habitual--don't think I've quit for more than two weeks since.
it's great that people are discussing this, some people can definitely use weed responsibly and stop easily, but others really, really can't--and the sooner we recognize it as addiction the easier it is to get out.
yep. this is part of the skepticism mentioned in the article--I have anxiety, depression, hot/cold flashes, appetite loss, sleep issues, and disgusting night sweats for a few days after I stop heavy use, but am often told it's all in my head. the reality is that our own cannabinoids do all kinds of things for our homeostasis that are not well understood. so asserting categorically that there is no physical withdrawal when you stop flooding your body with external cannabinoids is naive.
>>to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary.
that is not at all obvious to me--what is revolutionary in Warhol is not the art but the way people see it, like found art. but if you "found" the art in someone else's comic, and aren't substantially changing the actual image--the actual appearance of the work, the only part that could reasonably be described as being ripped off from someone else... it can be revolutionary without having meaningfully transformed the original, just the way people see it.
disclaimer: I don't have a lot of time for that kind of art, which no doubt biases me.
1. is explicitly given the caveat "when not immediately helpful". 2. is rude, regardless of whether it is helpful. if you want to help, join in and actually help. 3. is difficult to imagine ever being helpful, and when feigned is obviously not ordinary, but an obnoxious affectation. 4. has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful.
I'll leave determining what is ordinary or authentic to others, but suffice to say I don't think either of those things is consistent case to case.