Nursing to me seems like it would be an emotionally taxing job. Much more than being a doctor. At least that's my perception.

Is there some kind of new technology or something going on here? I have difficulty believing anyone mistaking a flat display for a window no matter how good the picture is or how bad the viewer's depth perception is. This guy in particular was inspecting it and obviously trying to figure it out.

Ugh. Unpopular opinion incoming....

Trump is no genius, but he's smart enough to have learned how to talk dumb. He's trained himself to speak using simple language. How he speaks, and how he crafts the public's perception of himself is no accident. This has worked to his advantage both in appeal to those... less educated than himself, and in negotiations, when opponents might underestimate him, as all his opponents did during the last election.

/unpopular opinion.

Now to be clear, I don't like Trump. Just stating what I see. He isn't stupid.

Also see this vid:

https://videosift.com/video/How-Trump-Uses-Words

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Fair enough, but outside the context of this particular incident, the US, in general, is still INSANELY sensitive to even the perception of lack of patriotism.

For example, back when he was just a primary candidate, Obama got in trouble for not wearing a flag pin. You just don't see that in other countries.

I think it's maybe due to the history of the US. It's still a (comparatively) young country, born out of rebellion and suddenly finding itself the most powerful nation on earth (mostly due to accidents of history and geography).

That's a fair point, Eric. I can't say that I know enough about minority group racism to judge.

So yeah, I'm happy to amend my statement that to "not all republicans are racist, but pretty much all white supremacists/nazis are republican".

Huh, still doesn't read great, does it?

Oh, and @worm, I agree. There is a perception of "anti-white social engineering by the left". Of course, it's complete fucking nonsense, but hey, no reason to let facts get in the way, right?

"David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress."

If you're going to post bullshit, you might want to post something that isn't trivially disprovable by 5 seconds googling. He was never a congressman, instead having failed several attempts at both Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. He did become a state representative for Louisiana, but that was as a Republican (he also lost a governship battle, again as a Republican).

I'm not seeking to demonise Republicans here. I don't agree with them most of the time, but at a point, they were a relatively sane political party, before becoming the international laughing stock they are today.

The problem is that they are now beholden to Trump and almost all of them are spineless fucks with a few notable exceptions.

Wow. Great sift.

I went to a state university in Kansas in the early 2000s, so this stuff is after my time and probably centered more in the Ivy League type places. But still, so much rings true and also helps explain the why.

Being a teacher at the High School age range in Thailand has been very interesting. So many things different, with plenty of pros and cons compared to my own experience. Cliques exist here, but aren't as antagonistic toward each other as they were when I was in school. Kids here are massively more accepting towards different groups like LGBT, LD/autistic/whatever, socially awkward academic nerds, etc. I'm sure the change in perspective from student to teacher influences my perceptions of this, but bullying seems essentially nonexistent here compared to rampant when I was in school.

Anyway, it seems to me like one thing that could really help dig us out of this mess is real multiculturalism and diversity (as opposed to what the SJW types that Haidt describes in the video would affix those words to). Knowing more about how other cultures and countries do things and being able to objectively compare and figure out alternative ways of doing things that might be better/worse is extremely useful.

Pink is a combination of red and white light.
There are almost surely numerous combinations of various spectral colors that will look exactly like ultra-pink to our limited eyes. Fitting into the various color gamuts involved in color reproduction and perception is not very simple at all.

Whiter than white washing powders work by using fluourescence -- they transmute some of the ultraviolet light striking them into visible light. The reason this works is explainable by a color gamut, the gamut of the human eye. If we could see in the ultraviolet range that is being absorbed then the trick wouldn't be nearly as effective. There are animals, for example bees, that do see colors bluer than we can, and in fact some flowers have patterns that are visible only to them.

It is possible that fluorescence is partly responsible for ultra-pinkness. If it is, that would have been more interesting than what was presented.

I suspect, but do not know, that the CMYK or RGB color representation schemes are up to the task of encoding the colors you describe. The problem is that there is no practical process that can sense them in an image, nor any practical process that can mechanically reproduce them.

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

The content of the video wasn't bad, but the tagline / title they chose gives a very faulty perception, I think.

I guess "how accurately can the skill of players on a team relative to players on competing teams predict their aggregate regular season success in various sports" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

I love hockey largely because a great team can be good at everything OR specialize in being offensively skilled / big and mean / fast and opportunistic / defensive system minded / whatever. Take a team loaded with extremely skilled superstars and put them up against a team of low-skill bruisers that play tough but legal and work well as a unit, and the pure skill team can easily lose. Makes for fascinating interplay between philosophies / rosters / coaching schemes.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

Yes, I have family I despise, but I still consider them humans (not that I see that as much of a compliment).
My hope would be, once they know they are part African, Asian, Mesopotamian, etc., people wouldn't continue to think of other people in those dehumanizing tribalistic terms.

Edit: Isn't it more likely you would find out that you have unknown ancestors from elsewhere, either because they were wrongly assumed to be "English" or were wrongly assumed to be the father? I thought this video did a good job showing how wrong people's perceptions are about their own ancestry.

I don't like his delivery but I like the message at the end. The perception people have of suicide in the US is crazy. It's a health issue and the US has shitty mental health services and a poor understanding of mental health issues... Just throw some powerful drugs on it and it will go away (and make me rich in the process)! On top of that, the US economy is depressing the hell out of a greater number of people, a lot of people after being out of work for a while or not having enough money will just choose to go. So, it's a political issue as well due to the class warfare that has been waged in the US especially since the 80's.

But to add some flame to it - sometimes I wonder if some of the people I know who chose to end it early - made a wise decision just to end it; maybe they thought it through to the nth degree and it was a solid choice - and the remaining mourning people are just selfish "no, you must live in this temporary fucked up little world with ME!!" or "don't remind me that I'm going to die too!" lol

The doldrums of winter, the long election cycle, the perception by most that 2016 was terrible. Perhaps people are just all talked out at this point?

I hear that, I know that I've had to drive home stoned, real stoned. Didn't want to but had to. I know for a fact that I was super dangerous. Even after I ate my Wendy's hamburger & friends on someone's driveway (because I was so paranoid). I remember it started to rain - drove right through a flooded creek on the road at 50mph and definitely felt like I was swerving (even if I may not have been). Nevertheless, I know I can't handle driving while stoned and never have ever again (don't smoke pot much, anyway).

I also feel that pot changed some of my perceptions permanently for the better. This idea scares the living shit out of normie corporate people because any change to their mind is looked upon as bad, but they have no idea to begin with, they're ignorant to the facts or the experiences (look at me being judgmental haha). Many medicinal "drug" plants can really do people a lot of good in the short & long-term (I'm looking at you psilocybe & ayahuasca).