huetius

Would this put concepts from classical philosophy like formal and final causation back on the table? The article seems to imply that it’s possible, but I’ve learned that journalistic summaries can be low-fidelity.

This is a curious paper, as it seems to come at a time when the philosophical postulate of meliorism has been problematized precisely by the trajectory of historical development, which had previously its own criteria of success. It might interest the author to know that this was basically the prediction of Vico, one of the most valuable (and misunderstood) philosophers of the not-so-distant past.

I openly love meetings. With a good, well-planned and thoughtful meeting, I can save myself and my team weeks of engineering work. Just last week, by asking a simple question to the right person, we canned a heavy, ~2dev*sprint story for something a developer was able to achieve after the meeting with no code changes. The customer was thrilled.

Depends what you mean by “this.” This exact project is, I think, not ready for prime time, as I said in my post. If by “this” you mean “ways to make more of our own stuff on a smaller scale,” I am currently in my fourth month of waiting for a proprietary part for my tractor, when if I had an economical and legal way to either machine the part myself, or have it machined by a competent neighbor, then I wouldn’t have this problem. In a time when we are experiencing the consequences of over-specialized, over-connected, over-optimized supply chains, I think that a more fractal, scale-invariant, redundant approach to production has real value.

(It also, in general, makes humans feel good to make and then use something).

The responses here are critical —- some useful, some not so useful.

I’m happy to see this project and would like to see more like it, even if this is not quite ready for show time. The possibility of using advances in technology and open source methods to allow people to make more stuff for themselves and their communities in a way that is efficient and feasible is exciting to me.

A friend of mine has a similar story. Still searching for his good ending. I’m glad you’re better.

I feel like we’re at the beginning of the opioid wave again, and the obvious and foreseeable negative consequences are just being shunted aside. We never learn anything.

This is obscurantism. If there’s no difference between marijuana and food, what’s with all the excitement and advocacy?

OP’s point seems to be pretty reasonable to me. If marijuana is outcompeting established anodynes it implies they are in the same category.

I’m going to answer as if you’re arguing in good faith.

In the theology of Antonio Rosmini, God places within humans the principle of universal being, by which we participate in the light of reason, which enobles us with the ability to think about concepts that are beyond our quite limited selves.

Of course, there is also something mysteriously wrong with human beings, such that our own efforts always betray the infinity of which intuitively conceive. This ought to give us pause as we try to create machines with human-like or super-human-like qualities.

I think this poster has an axe to grind, but there is definitely significant overlap between symptoms of child abuse/neglect and early signs of ASD and other mental disabilities. I am on mobile, and cannot right now give a compact source, but the lists on Mayo etc. have a lot of overlap.

Not doubting this, but it seems to cut both ways. I can just as easily justify an overreaction by claiming to have averted some worse outcome. It seems to be a general problem of counterfactuals.

Honest question: what is worrying to you? Is it the idea that infectious disease being used as the pretext to create an environment of fear and compliance, such some unwanted social transformation which is actually predicated on ulterior motives can proceed over objections? Is it the idea that people overestimate the degree of control people can actually exert over these diseases, leading to hubristic reactions? Do you object to being alarmed about infectious disease as such?

This is an intellectually consistent view, which is good.

It seems to me to be relativistic to the point where I would call it nihilism, but it is, at least, consistent.

I wonder what the venn diagram looks like between “people who are responding to this in the negative” vs “people who believe human rights are real and serious.” I’m not trying to be flippant here, I just really don’t believe that people think through the consequences of their beliefs very well.

With the collapse of the SSRI hypothesis, I feel like there was a missed opportunity to interrogate what it is about the affluent, technological society that makes such a staggering number of people so depressed. It seems that we will instead (characteristically) plow forward with even more powerful drugs.

Not knowing all of the details of your situation, this seems like the kind of thing working agreements are supposed to help with. If you can get the parties involved together, you may be able to come up with some explicit guidelines for communication. For example: “assume good intent.” This would apply to you (you will not assume that your CS are personally attacking you) and them (they will not assume you are indifferent to the customer). If either party steps out of line, you can come back to the working agreements, point out that this is not how any of you want to work, and hopefully correct the behavior, or else resort to discipline in the case of repeated violations. Hope this helps.