lidHanteyk

Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.

People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.

Sure. The oral polio vaccine was given away for free, undercutting and disrupting any attempts to region-limit its availability. To this day, it's hard to charge more than a dollar per dose, and nearly all countries have eradicated or are eradicating polio using this vaccine.

Might be hard to find examples that are business-friendly, though; the growth-hacking of a business usually means harm to its customers. The prior polio vaccine, manufactured using Salk's method, had had quality control problems leading to illness in hundreds of vaccinated people; maybe they shouldn't have rushed to market.

You are over-complicating this. People are not infinitely deep; they have strange loops which make one level of depth look like many levels. Consciousness is a hallucination.

Let's finish the analogy. Rose gardens and other community parks are usually community-funded; my local gardens are funded with taxes. There are not only paid moderators (police), but paid curators (gardeners and arborists) who deliberately build up and cultivate an appearance for the garden. Some of the more expensive gardens, like the local zoo, also have an entrance fee, because taxes alone would not fund the garden at its given size and occupancy.

There are communities like this; Something Awful is the first which comes to mind. These communities deliberately acknowledge that money is required to fund community spaces, and use the money to improve the space.

There are also extensions to the analogy. A local park has a bulletin board. Postings to this board are generally made by community consent; anything that any community member feels strongly enough about can be removed immediately. This is also how postings on telephone poles work. Sometimes a community will lock up their bulletin board after a wave of abusive listings. This is analogous to primitive message board moderation, as seen here on HN.

Are we here to advertise to each other, like on a bulletin board? Are we here to produce a great knowledge base, like in a garden? What should the shape of conversation be?

Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.

Another "bad actor" here. I think that it's a combination of two phenomena:

* I have accounts not just here, but also at places like Lobsters and Something Awful. In those places, because accounts are rare and can be banned so easily, discourse is constantly trying to stay much more civil than here or Reddit.

* As a former community moderator, I don't respect moderation actions on sites where anonymous signup is allowed. You asked for hoi polloi to wander in off the street and give their opinions; you can't then wonder why discourse is trash. Here, it's even worse; the moderators are paid for their work, which lends a clear bias to every moderation action. Similar happenings on Reddit led directly to user protests and revolts, and it's amazing that the community tolerates paid moderation here.

The idea of the well-tended garden is a potent one. I have had to tolerate obviously toxic but helpful people before and it is always irritating to not ban them, despite knowing that they are good for the garden.

Beyond the title, there's a whole bunch of folks slapping their cheeks and being amazed that Joe Rogan has a popular podcast. Lots of money-making is discussed. I am criticizing the entire orientated worldview of the article.

The author talks about three people, two of whom are accomplished mathematicians and one of whom draws pretty pictures. I don't quite understand where they are headed; they're researching for a novel, which is a path that I've been on for a few years as well, but I'm not sure what they've actually drawn on from physics in order to write their linguistics-focused story.

I don't really understand why "innocence" is used here; I know that it can be used to denote novelty rather than naivete, but I'm not really sure that podcasts were ever so innocent. After all, podcasting draws heavily on over a century of public radio broadcasting for its media encoding and tropes.

It's nigh-impossible to take this sort of posture seriously when podcasts like "Behind the Bastards" spend their time either talking about horrible people, or talking about the evil of iHeartRadio and how terrible their sponsors are. This isn't the "end of podcasting's innocence;" this is mass media moguls realizing that they missed out on squeezing money from Joe Rogan.

Nobody's mentioned the Conway-Specker-Kocken Free Will Theorem!? It lines up perfectly with the idea of "quantum choice" discussed in the article: Free will is when particles choose to reply to quantum measurements with non-predetermined values.

From this perspective, electrons are a little conscious, while humans are a lot conscious (because we have lots of electrons in our brain), but we don't have to define consciousness beyond the ability to be forced to make choices.

Honestly, you got three replies, when you deserved zero. I discussed your original questions with real people offline, and everybody else was unable to get through your first three questions without making personal attacks against you; your opinion is just that odious.

I've tried to help you see how UBI proponents have not only anticipated your line of reasoning, but have long finished figuring out things like impact on business. Quoting from the summary of the Roosevelt Institute's study:

> When paying for the policy by increasing taxes on households, the Levy model forecasts no effect on the economy. In effect, it gives to households with one hand what it is takes away with the other.

> However, when the model is adapted to include distributional effects, the economy grows, even in the tax-financed scenarios. This occurs because the distributional model incorporates the idea that an extra dollar in the hands of lower income households leads to higher spending. In other words, the households that pay more in taxes than they receive in cash assistance have a low propensity to consume, and those that receive more in assistance than they pay in taxes have a high propensity to consume.

As long as you are predisposed to look down on so many people for supposed moral failings, and look at people as "couch potatoes", you are going to have a blind spot where you don't recognize how essential cheap labor is to our way of life.