HAhahaha! With 6 & 11 years on me and the household rule of "Boys NEVER NEVER NEVER bully girls" (note how this was not reciprocal) I would have more appreciated Brother-nemeses over my own experiences...

and I was the one easily bribed, thus I was the only one to get snitched on, keeping them smelling pretty. (Suprise! This dynamic never ended...never changed, but I don't bribed anymore).

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

@Fairbs
i agree with everything you just said,but i didn't see him make that argument.

how i hear him is that while empathy and compassion have their place,you shouldn't engage in radical empathy where it blocks out any sense of rational reason.

to a normal person who watches a hawk swoop down and brutalize a baby rabbit,we may respond with revulsion and even pity for the baby rabbit but we certainly do not view the hawk as "evil".

a person with radical empathy views all dynamics in a power structure where everyone on the bottom is the victim and everyone on top is the victimizer.

and there is danger in that because most dynamics are far more complicated and nuanced.

Rememer the talking point that 17 intelligence agencies pointed their fingers at Russia for having orchestrated the hacks during the election?

Even the NYT has finally buried that one:

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

@lucky760 -
I still think Judge is actually presenting the situation pretty accurately. If you look up online forum posts about tabs vs spaces, the file size thing is brought up as a pro for tabs very regularly.

While it is technically true, you're right that it doesn't make much sense because the difference is *tiny*, so conforming to the standard of wherever you are working is vastly more important.

BUT, that doesn't stop individual programmers from being (irrationally) passionate in their preferences.

Another dynamic that is (correctly) displayed in the show in my opinion is the difference between a big corporate environment, working as an individual in a large team of programmers as compared with having a project that starts out as a the brainchild of one person and grows into a small team.

The show is about the latter. In that scenario, a programmer / software engineer ends up trying to also be a manager of a team, in spite of the fact that he isn't really built for it. In a big corporate environment, they are well aware that style issue conflicts can turn into big time wasters unless they set out guidelines clearly at the outset. But that sort of micro-managing is NOT what a pure engineer type is comfortable doing.

Basically, I think that tabs vs spaces is completely a personal preference issue if you're working alone OR on a small team that don't interact with each other's code much. And even on a large team, either choice is fine BUT it becomes important to conform to the standards of the team as a whole.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Yeah Boston Dynamics have got them worried..

@Asmo @Phreezdryd

i get his arguments using historical precedent,and i actually agree,but i dont see how c-160 in its current form can be used as a bull whip.there would have to be heavy complicity from the judiciary to abuse which in essence is simply an addendum to an existing human rights statute.

and as i stated,or thought i did,i really enjoy his arguments for free speech and the usage of language in cultural and societal dynamics.

if you take away the more rabid of protesters who rallied against peterson,without really even listening to his lectures.a.k.a muglypuff.those people are true believers,and their minds will never be changed,because they refuse to even allow a discourse to even transpire.

the only actual abuse i saw was by his his own employer:university of toronto.

many of the protest i saw against him were fairly tame in comparison to other supposed "anti=sjw",because if you listen to peterson he is nowhere near an anti-sjw.

in my opinion,it was the decisions of the university of toronto that created this false image in regards to peterson,and for those who are unfamiliar with dr petersons take on free speech,and the misuse and abuse of the current trend of pronoun-political-footballing you really should give him a listen.

he certainly has a libertarian lean to his lectures,but his arguments are sound.

thanks you two for clearing some things up for me.
much appreciated.

Do we really want automated laser weapons all over the place when the Boston Dynamics robots get fed up with the abuse and take over?

Already done, should have posted that link:

https://videosift.com/video/Boston-Dynamics-New-Nightmare-Inducing-Robot-Handle

ok....i come to you for your opinion on my new favorite political scientist.this is the man who predicted brexit and trump,and his ability to depoliticize complex political and economic dynamics is just beautiful.(or maybe i just like the fact that it sounds like i am getting schooled by shrek)

i have watched pretty much every one of his lectures,and i cannot find a flaw in his logic.he appears to have his finger on the pulse of our global economic situation.

but economics has never been my strong suit.i have always struggled with economics.so i come to you,hat in hand,and ask if maybe my adoration is misplaced.

totally worth the time:
https://videosift.com/video/mark-blythe-global-trumpism-lecture

i am crushing on this dude.watched every one of his lectures,and he predicted trump and brexit.he is adept at keeping the politics out and his way of expressing complicated dynamics is so fucking refreshing.
totally worth the time:
https://videosift.com/video/mark-blythe-global-trumpism-lecture

It doesn't make a difference to your ability to make a statement per se, but speaking to a friend of mine who is a physicist his answers are somewhat different. He's suggested that reading more about it will make it more confusing and that we are invariably wrong and don't know shit. I happen to agree with him. That's not to say one shouldn't attempt to gain as much knowledge as possible, but that it's not always as easy as "go read a text book and it should be nice and clear", because reading it should hopefully generate more questions than it answers. Hopefully I've worded that so it makes sense.

Anyway, the sum of human knowledge is dynamic steaming pile of shit. Yes, it's gotten us a long way. But we're still like dung beetles tending to it and it will be a long time until we can transform it into something close to the truth.

Maybe when we can integrate AIs into us we'll accelerate things a little.

That's really interesting, although I can't say I understood everything you said. If there were absolutely nothing, of course there would be no energy fields to generate anything. Where ever something comes into play, some force or dynamic, we aren't talking about nothing anymore.

I'm curious what you think about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

God is the best answer for why the Universe had a beginning, including a beginning to time itself, for many different reasons. I'll get to those a bit later, just wanted to hear what you thought about the paper.

I'll ask another question though: If something is eternal isn't it perfectly stable..doesn't that have to be the case? Why would it suddenly generate a Universe for no reason?