HBlix
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
347
Submissions
88
Member since
Aug 24
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Observation and exploration are part of science, but only when mated with the rest of the scientific method. On its own “observation and exploration” can be equally applied to playing in beach sand. If you’re not forming and testing hypotheses, analyzing data from experiment, and attempting to replicate results, you’re not engaged in science. You can’t pick one or two elements of the scientific method and call it science, anymore than you can claim that buying running shoes and standing at the start of a marathon is racing.
Comment · 8 years ago
I think you bring up interesting points, but in Neri Oxman’s case the answer seems to be that the science is essentially absent in its entirety. I won’t pretend to have a good answer to “what is art,” but the question “what is science” is much easier to answer. Her work may be art, but it utterly fails the test of science insofar as it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method. She’s a scientist in the same way that a color therapist is a medical doctor.
Better examples of the intersection of science and art might be found in the work of someone like Buckminster Fuller. The nature of science being what it is, the science probably has to come first, with the art emerging from it
Comment · 8 years ago
Has the world gone crazy?
The funny thing is that people who feel like Brexit, Trump and so on are crazy would say yes, and people who think that Brexit and Trump are the best things to happen in long time will say yes for opposite reasons.
Comment · 8 years ago
Some people can change to some degree, some can’t. Some people for example can recover from PTSD with time and talk therapy, and if you insist on others doing that they’ll end up killing themselves. Not taking medication is just as much of a fallacious “one-size-fits-all” solution as insisting that everyone take medication.
Comment · 8 years ago
"Nothing personal", you attacked the team, not just me. If you want to do that all day long, go for it.
I’m done with attempts to frame yourself or your “team” as a wronged party.
But what I'm asking you to do, as a better course of action, or on top if you prefer, is say what "existing solutions" are superior and why they win. We started with baseline ad blocking and some of our users, who see the ecosystem problem of free-riding (which you still dismiss)
I don’t dismiss it, I encourage it. I’ve actively stated several times that it’s a model in need of a bullet in the neck. I’ve pointed out that much ad-supported content and “journalism” exists on a scale between useless and toxic. Moreover, the ad industry itself is inseparable from the industry of information brokering, creating demand for crap, and the subsequent environmental catastrophe of modern consumer culture. The death of it, and the noisy bollocks which exists to draw attention to it would be a good thing. Given their history they don’t deserve more chances, and it’s reasonable to suspect that even if they started off allowing for good intentions, over time the envelope would be pushed until we were back where we are now.
I understand that you disagree with what I’m saying on several levels, but the good news is that ad blocking is free and easy, not to mention popular compared to what you’re attempting.
asked us to build an option for giving back. So we prototyped with Bitcoin, and when that got expensive and cut off users who could not buy it, we created the Basic Attention Token instead. Again if you dislike our ethics, no need to rehash. But I'm still interested in how you think pure blocking, AKA "free riding", will result in a superior outcome for anyone in the long run. Publisher revenues have been falling for years, decades if you look at newspapers. How do your top ten sites keep their lights on?
Less noise, more signal. Will “free riding” kill loads of clickbait, outrage factories, and “journalism” that is really a collection of affiliate links? Yes, and it’s a feature, not a bug. As a bonus it could even encourage a more functional and less societally destructive means of remuneration for content creators that isn’t mediated by profiteering sociopaths who call themselves advertisers.
Comment · 8 years ago
If you had a childhood full of physical abuse, and your right leg was frequently broken until it became malformed, then the solution might involve crutches. All of which is to say, just because the damage done is in the past, doesn’t mean that it can’t have lasting effects you can’t just wish away. The developing human brain, it has been shown time and again, undergoes permanent changes associated with abusive environments. Those are real, physical changes that may require interventions beyond talking or therapy. It’s not just learned insecurity, it’s the biochemical changes wrought by years of stress during a formative period.
Comment · 8 years ago
You seem to be conflating criticism of your actions with criticism of you personally. That’s not a game worth playing. As you said I’m questioning your motives in the context I already laid out, of existing solutions which are superior for the consumer. I’ll leave it to others who have already commented extensively to question the technical means.
It’s also worth pointing out that I’ve explained the core issue I have with your plan have nothing to do with your motives or ethics. I’m not sure how many times I need to repeat the idea that something like uBlock Origin is a superior performer, and “but the ad-supported content!” argument is unmoving for reasons I’ve already stated. It’s not that I’ve failed offered a broader perspective, it’s just that you’ve focused a lot on what you perceive as a personal attack, despite it being nothing of the sort.
Comment · 8 years ago
You picked up the ad hominem axe.
Did I really? Looking back over our brief exchange I’m not seeing it, you just seemed to use my supposed impropriety as a justification to turn this into a fight. It’s a pattern that seems to hold throughout comments on this thread when you’re questioned on the ethics or wisdom of BAT. A more cynical person would suspect that your position is sufficiently untenable that you’re employing a bit of the dead cat strategy.
Comment · 8 years ago
Sci-Hub is pretty amazing for any paper that has been out for as long as most sources on Wikipedia have been, so in truth you can almost always read them in full.