551–560 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the simulation argument is solid. One of the three possibilities Bostrom outlines absolutely must be true.
Well, Bostrom states that there will be more ideas in the future that may change the simulation theory. It's the latest most plausable theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was not wrong. So many people define right and wrong by some system of made up rules and laws, and if someone breaks those rules or laws, even for right, people still say "they should be held accountable" as if the rule and law matter more than anything. The bad guys don't follow those rules and laws and exposing them for that, even if it violates said rules and laws, is not "wrong". It's brave and moral and right…
There's this concept of punching up or down. The little guy shouldn't be punched down to - in conventional politically correct culture. Mostly the legal system is not encouraged to be politically correct. Mr. Snowden broke his oath and leaked confidential data. His defense is the greater good. That should prevent prosecution. Mr. Clapper lied to Congress when he said "Not Wittingly." Mrs. Clinton failed to safeguard…
Do you mean prevent conviction or are you taking the stance claiming "the greater good" means you shouldn't be tried?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So did they piss the bed or not?
Read the Steele report and Keith Schiller's testimony to congress and decide for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how do any of us know we are making the right call here? This is one of those wickedly complex problems where there is no right answer. It just sucks for everybody involved, nearly every decision you make can have a horrific outcome and the effects are permanent. You can't be that surprised that in a situation like this, most people would tend to be very conservative (not republican conservative, but careful, do…
No, puberty blockers don't cause any permanent body changes: that's the whole point. They delay the decision. You can still go through a male or female puberty once you're older. Most people are "conservative" on this issue because they have no idea what they're talking about, just like every almost every other issue related to trans people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thomas Drake followed procedure, and he got burned. John Crane was one of the bureaucrats involved with that procedure, and he didn't think the burning was proper. So he followed procedure in order to blow the whistle on the burning, so then he got burned. Unsurprisingly, no one stepped forward for Crane.
Drake got burned because in addition to following the procedure he leaked information to the press which is not part of the procedure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you're welcome to that opinion, just as he's welcome to his. That's kind of the point here. Opinions are valid, even if they're stupid.
(I don't want to wade in here really, but I have to take exception to your statement: Stupid opinions are not valid.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That matches with what I remember, and I don't understand why that's a controversial thought here. Changing gender is a big deal, it can wait a few years so you're sure.
If you're trans and going through puberty, "a few years" can literally ruin your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the timeline you're implying. Snowden did blow the whistle on this program, in 2013 . Your link was from 2015, and now it's 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Snowden has lost the access he had before his whistleblowing. It will take another whistleblower to reveal the scale of current unsupervised malfeasance.
You're not following the point. The point was that people did care about the leaks and took appropriate action. Secondarily, you're not understanding the leaked documents. The leaked documents showed that the NSA believed that the phone metadata program was legal. Once there is a court ruling that it is illegal, its lawyers cannot justify the program. Thirdly, your phrase "another whistleblower" shows that you do not…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/27/lawye...
As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court (in which DoJ faces no opposing counsel) in order to jury-rig a fig leaf for the ongoing destruction of personal liberties. I'm made my peace with the fact that the authoritarians to whose whims we are subject will occasionally overstep their bounds in public. When they do so, the public may protest and eventually conditions might improve somewhat. When the unsupervised services harm us, their putative employers, we have no recourse.
Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You guys make a great team!
There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government - and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the biggest problem. The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree. To me the real problem is how effectivel…
There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…
This is a good point. In an ideal world their job would be less...complicated. So our job as intelligent, capable citizens is to make the system more ideal for them to do their duties.
Making a "captive workforce" out of AI tools and robots is, to me, the ideal solution. Either way it's inevitable. Since no one else will, I'm trying to get out ahead with thoughtful early planning. Communicating a common goal for the nation without fear is the way to get the technology into the hands of the right people. It's up to us, the intelligent and "good people" communicators, to push for it.
The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging. For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing. Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage. But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a 13 hour movie? I see a definite trend towards long form content rig…
I think thats Podcasts as a medium in general. IMHO Rogan could use pretty heavy editing, I guess people like having it on in the background or something.