161–170 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Average people find him entertaining. Others find him slow, inaccurate and petty.
Average people make up the masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to form an opinion about every damn thing that matters is a) exhausting and b) hubris. It is not possible to be an expert on everything. The best personal outcome doesn't come from making your own assessment of everything from toothpaste to nuclear power. It's when you learn to recognise the difference between someone's reasoned expertise and, well, just about everyone else pushing their viewpoint. The top cur…
>Having to form an opinion about every damn thing that matters is a) exhausting and b) hubris. It is not possible to be an expert on everything. That's a cynical take, and it illuminates the importance of good education, so that "hubris" as you put it is minimized and right judgment is maximized. Even more important when most children's education is more and more geared away from critical thinking, and instead toward…
The left-hand side of the bell curve will be a challenge in that regard. (Average IQ is 100.)
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” — George Carlin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Joe Rogan is Gwyneth Paltrow for men" is a spot on analogy I saw recently. If you want interesting science podcasts, at least do Lex Fridman!
Since when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.
What made his interviews interesting is that he, apart from the mentioned standard hitching points, was inquisitive and unafraid to ask 'stupid' questions. Those often gave the guest room to delve into his or her subject of expertise, enlightening the listener and Rogan at the same time. Only a few of the guests were scientists, most were comedians, MMA fighters, ex-servicemen and such. Things might have changed since then but I can not imagine him ever labelling anything he does as 'science'.
[1] this period ended when he sold out to Spotify
I really like the core idea here: media used to be a push model, social media turned it into a pull model but they're trying to wrest it back. I always hated the push model of social media, which is why most of the online content I consume is via rss, including Twitter [0]. But I never thought of traditional news media media as being a push model. It makes so much intuitive sense when you say it: the reason I read ne…
Not really. Facebook pushes stuff to you via its Timeline. Twitter has a feed. Reddit and HN has front pages.
Social media does plenty of pushing. It’s just instead of a biased human editor with common sense and perhaps a conscience filtering your news, it’s an algorithm with none of the aforementioned attributes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intelligence just means spotting patterns faster. If you're intelligent but "detail oriented", that just means you'll end up coming up with a brilliant solution to the wrong problem. In a Dungeons and Dragons character, knowing to vet one's sources would be an example of "Wisdom". And I think that's probably the right word for it in conventional speech as well.
There is no academically or commonly accepted definition of intelligence. Your confident statement renders everything else you say suspect.
Obviously, measured intelligence is not "real intelligence" ("g", whatever that is) — but at the same time, people increasingly use the term "intelligent" to refer to someone who has high measured intelligence (IQ), whether or not they have high "real intelligence." So the definitions sort of collapse into one-another over time. "The measure becomes the target", but for language.
The solution to all of society’s ills: Ban infinite scrolling
Color screens need to go first.
Crawlers would have to execute JS and do additional requests, which is not feasible at all.
Content shouldn't be optimized for the most brittle consuming users and infinite scroll should be an anti-pattern of the most severe degree. I don't know which boneheaded webdevs recommend it to customers, since it is a most effective mechanism to kill discoverability.
This thread is a hilarious example of why most people will always be controlled by someone else. There is exactly 5 words talking about Joe Rogan and half the replies are telling how you shouldn't watch him because he spteads misinformation. Meanwhile there has still been no reckoning for the lies the main stream media invented and repeated to invade Iraq and kill a million people.
I really like the core idea here: media used to be a push model, social media turned it into a pull model but they're trying to wrest it back. I always hated the push model of social media, which is why most of the online content I consume is via rss, including Twitter [0]. But I never thought of traditional news media media as being a push model. It makes so much intuitive sense when you say it: the reason I read ne…
> social media turned it into a pull model Not really. Facebook pushes stuff to you via its Timeline. Twitter has a feed. Reddit and HN has front pages. Social media does plenty of pushing. It’s just instead of a biased human editor with common sense and perhaps a conscience filtering your news, it’s an algorithm with none of the aforementioned attributes.
The point is that now it is getting more and more "pushy", but previously it was very "pull" based when compared to traditional education.