ohnomrbill

I would not be concerned about them having my workplace's information if they did not have my personal information. I'm fine with them having personal information, or workplace information, but not both. The only thing missing for Facebook then would be to watch me while I sleep.

Yes, because I use Duck Duck Go for browsing and my personal emails are generally not very revealing. Google certainly has a good deal of my personal information, but I purposefully keep it limited. For that reason, I'm okay with having them as my work email provider.

Nope, the concern of the parent post was that they would link my work and personal profiles behind the scenes. I don't want to see work-related content pop up, but it's a secondary concern. I don't want Facebook to know what I do both when I'm at work and when I'm on personal time, because I don't trust their company.

I try very hard to separate my work life and personal life. This would make me do one of two things:

- Stop using facebook for personal purposes and treat it like a more featureful LinkedIn

- Quit my job and find another which doesn't require me to give work information to a company which has a trove of my personal information

On the other hand, I've just been at a place where "invented here syndrome" masked crappy developers to the detriment of the business. One tester spent 3 days tracking down a simple python dependency bug - but in the meantime he was productive because Travis is so easy to set up, and his Ruby tests worked.

Travis is definitely more appealing to me than maintaining my own Jenkins instance. But I can't help but feel that we would have caught this guy's crappiness much earlier if he had to set up his own Jenkins job instead of a travis.yml file.

Anyone can cook. Will people pay me a living wage to cook? Will that wage cover lost income from being on government programs? Does cooking (given the relative difficulty of becoming wealthy doing so) provide an income ceiling higher than getting paid via welfare/Social Security?

There is plenty of work to be done. It's just not paid work. How do you propose to coerce people to pay for this work?

Thank you for the link. I suspect we agree more than we disagree. It's good to be reminded that we can only falsify theories, not prove them. It's also good to check assumptions from time to time - your example of slavery is very apt.

I am not, however, going to modify the way I speak and write to emphasize that I am speaking my own opinions, with my own assumptions. That should be obvious.

It's a form of culture jamming to disrupt the cognitive processes by which we accept things as "truth" or "reality".

Can you express this a bit more clearly? "Culture jamming" is not a broadly understood term. It's not clear why the words "truth" and "reality" are quoted. Additionally, it seems odd to combine a specific term like "cognitive processes" with a ultra-broad term like "things".

If there is an argument for postmodernism being something more than word salad, your comment does not make it well.

Depends on how you look at the game. The point of the game for users is to catch pokemon. The point of the game for Niantic is to have users wander around, so they can make money via sponsored locations.

A winning strategy must accommodate both.

There is a big difference between pain you can reasonably expect to go away and pain you cannot reasonably expect to go away.

Suicidal ideation is due to the latter, not the former.

I'm happy to admit it, and wish others were. But it seems there's a lot of convincing to do first.

2) I have some issues with (though I agree with the general direction).

I would still describe science, art, etc. as a job (or at least any successful system will have to). There is a big difference between saying, "let's give people money, and hope they spend their time painting or writing", and saying "let's give people money contingent on their painting, writing, etc. with some of their time". In both cases, we don't strictly need the work, but one carries the connotation of laziness. That has proven to be a large sticking point in the current discussion.

As others have mentioned, there is a big difference between living in a system where basic needs are met and getting to that system. In particular, it has never been clear to me why we assume that people in power decide to accommodate the number of people we currently have. If the number of jobs is a problem, a despot can do the hard work of finding a system that works with fewer jobs or they can engage in population control by other means, hoping to delay the onset of the problem.

(Disclaimer: I will vote for some candidate this election, but I would write in a name before voting for Trump.)

I see this conflation in almost all the election news I hear - people assume that Trump supporters are against any immigration. In fact, the white, blue collar workers making Trump's base are okay with most immigrants. They (quite understandably) dislike illegal South American immigrants, who compete with them for a shrinking pool of manufacturing and menial labor jobs. While immigration may benefit the country as a whole, illegal immigration from South America does not benefit them; instead, it contributes to ever-worsening employment prospects. To convince Trump supporters of the benefits of immigration, one must present a solution which simultaneously addresses the lack of jobs for workers at the low end. Until then, the tradeoff is clear - blue collar workers would rather ship illegal immigrants home than have increased local competition for employment, which I find understandable. Trump is also in favor of tariffs, etc. to keep American manufacturing jobs, and has spoken against NAFTA. For a blue collar worker, he may be the best candidate left in the race - and his protectionist position combined with a strong stance against illegal immigration may mean that he has been the best candidate in the race for a long time. (Again, seen from the perspective of a white, blue collar worker).

For Thiel, I can see a few reasons why a protectionist, anti-illegal immigration stance makes sense. He may believe we really do have an overpopulation problem, and wishes to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America on those grounds. A protectionist stance makes more sense - America's prosperity in the 70's and 80's and South Korea and China's relative prosperity today make the case for keeping a manufacturing base at home, coupled with a reasonably strong creative and technical sector.

Again, this is just speculation on the beliefs of others; my own beliefs are different. But I think it's important to consider that Trump supporters may have reasonably nuanced views on immigration too, even if they don't align with our own stance.

The important thing (which no fork can really change) is that the assumed likelihood of contracts having bugs went way, way up as a result of finding one critical bug so quickly in a large contract. You may not be able to steal a massive pot like theDAO again - but this shows that you can make a killing using exploits against smaller players. They either have to hard fork each time an individual gets their savings wiped out, or accept that there is risk of death by 1000 cuts when investing in ETH. Others may see things differently of course.

Agreed on the consensus; the nice thing about making decisions with a currency is that people can vote with their money. But I can buy other state-backed currencies today, some of which I trust to represent my interests. They have the benefit of an established legal system too, which Ethereum does not.