lucajona

For context, I started an open source project that is arguably 10x more popular than Nutjs (20k stars on github vs 2k). I also gave up on maintaining it, but others stepped in to take care of it so it's still running.

The parallels between open source and bolshevism are interesting. I'm not a history expert, but this is just how it appears to me.

  - Contempt for property
  - Pitches itself as a movement by "the people", ends up being a tool of the powerful (e.g. Microsoft's use of open source)
  - Punishes the producers by destroying the economics of production, rewards the stooges
  - Creates a high-low alliance between powerful and unskilled, drains the middle class

I don't understand why the media and Silicon Valley seem to be gleefully awaiting the downfall of Uber. If Uber's business model is not financially viable then the free market will take care of that. But promoting the view that their "culture" is "rotten" based on a report from a disgruntled employee, or saying that their employees are being "exploited" based on one video from one driver is sanctimonious and vicious. Why is this necessary? The only answer I can come up with is that there is a political motivation, driven by neo-Marxism and the narrative that capitalism and big business are inherently evil.

I'm an Uber user, and I still love the service and the fiercely competitive way that Uber has transformed what was previously a protected and stagnant industry delivering poor service.

Okay sure, I made a bad generalisation. Some true statements can be uninteresting. The point I was trying to make was more that the parent commenter was making a true statement about epistemology that is relevant and useful to the discussion.

Maybe it could have been better elaborated, but I don't think it deserves being down-voted and replies of what seems like moral disgust.

Those "anti-intellectual slogans" I think you mean can also be seen as arguments for a return to enlightenment values instead of an entrenched, elitist dogmatism.

Behind those slogans is the idea that intellectual life doesn't belong to a chosen few, but to everyone who's interested and willing to engage their capacity for independent thought and critical thinking, and those who are willing and eager to engage with other people with different opinions.

I don't think it's fair to call a correct statement vacuous. More nuanced than it appears, and easily misinterpreted maybe.

I think it's fair to point out that peer review doesn't determine scientific truth, because that would get the causal relation in reverse.

Consensus has little to do with objective truth, but it is a useful heuristic as you say.

Good point. But if the only way you can avoid malaria is if someone gives you a bed net, then your ability to improve your own circumstances is still close to 0. You're still impoverished and powerless, you're just not dead. And now you're dependent on a source of bed nets that might dry up.

If plain old reciprocal altruism hadn't somehow failed, there would be a way that you could exchange your labour or otherwise for bed nets. The people paying your wages could be acting altruistically, or they could be rationally self-interested actors.

These are the sort of systemic changes I was thinking of, but I like your argument.

This hits on the problem with "Effective Altruism" — it is exactly the bad form of utilitarian thinking.

It seems purely about reallocating some wealth from the rich to the poor. That's nice, but it's only treating the symptoms and ignoring many other factors that influence human flourishing, such as an individual's ability to improve their own circumstances (instead of waiting for a generous benefactor to give them some cash). Surely addressing poverty involves systemic changes, not just charity. And besides, charity can also have a negative utility, feeding feelings of inferiority in the receiver and leading to resentment.

You're right, I think we should believe him when he says that he was tortured. It's the part where he claims that it was at the direction of the FBI that needs proof.

And I agree, I don't think the UAE cares about Portland. They might care that US security services had taken an interest in this individual though. Are you saying that the UAE security services are totally subordinate to the US and just act as puppets when it comes to US citizens? I would have thought they'd have a bit more independence than that, even if they do cooperate at some level.

I don't know why this was downvoted, it seems like a valid question. I suppose I will get downvoted too, but I think it's worth discussing this now, since it's made the front page even though it probably shouldn't have.

So what evidence is there that the US condoned Fikre's torture? The alleged statement of a torturer? That doesn't seem very reliable. He couldn't prove his story in Sweden, so how will he prove it in the US?

Isn't it possible that the UAE came to find out that Fikre had some involvement with the FBI over the Portland mosque, wanted to know why, and decided on torture on their own? Maybe they suspected that he had been turned into an FBI informant.

It seems a bit far-fetched that the US would be outsourcing the torture of suspected Muslim terrorists to a largely Islamic country, and just waiting for suspects to travel there so that it can happen. And the State Department's statement that they saw Fikre and he seemed ok seems strange if they had anything to hide.

Yep, Scoop has Rust 0.9 now.

Thanks!

Thank you so much! I've seen that before but assumed the /a 'administrative install' meant UAC popups. Just tried it now (with /qn though) and it's UI-free. Very cool!