|
Oh cool, a guy whose personal wealth problems were solved by technology tells everyone how technology can solve a lot of different problems! Sounds great! I find the whole west coast startup culture insufferable. It's like great, you can write an app that makes millions of dollars from middle class people. What the gently caress does this have to do with social problems?
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Having read the OP article and response, the main thing that jumps out at me is that neither of you consider that all of these wonderful new modes of software driven social organization are explicitly created by rent collectors seeking to collect transaction fees on using their service to cloudconnect with your etherpeers in the meatspace. Maybe I'm just horridly cynical about the impact of entrepeneurs trying to make millions by driving a paywall between the people they tout to connect.enraged_camel posted:Jeez, SA can be quite a reactionary place at times! I just dont trust a guy who made money on niche tech startups telling everyone how niche tech startups will trigger the next social revolution. RealityApologist posted:The poors are the ones who by definition get hosed over by society. Why do you think a world run by software would be any worse at handling its least fortunate than the system we have now? Why would a digital world have more poor people in worse shape? It seems implausible to me, and against the trends. "Why would a system designed by wealthy first world people for wealthy first world people exclude the global poor? I'm really confused by this guys it goes completely against what I expect to be true." boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm taking for granted that any system will have losers. I'm asking why you think the losers in the system being proposed will be any worse off or greater in number than the people who are left out of the existing system. Because this system presumes that people who don't have electricity will suddenly give a gently caress about open source software. RealityApologist posted:Because we're doing a monstrously bad job now, and it's hard to imagine an open system grounded in participation doing significantly worse. You seem to think it will inevitably do worse, but have given no reasons other than mistrusting the source. It's not a convincing objection. Yo let's bring participation to people first before we worry about what participatory license is being used. If technocracy was able to substantially improve the lives of the poor in a non-tangential way there would probably be some example from the last hundred years of history one could draw from. on the left posted:I think it's a great idea to start a new country that avoids a lot of the legacy costs that other nations have. It's a lot easier to build a strong welfare state if you start off with a bunch of people who don't really need a welfare state in the first place. On top of that, if you start a large country that steals a lot of these people from existing states, it will hurt their competitive position greatly, mostly replicating the white flight phenomenon.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Attention is, primarily, a memory management system that plays a functional role in cognition. The attention system is the system through which the cognitive system delegates its functional resources to some task. When one "pays attention" to something, one is devoting some combination of cognitive resources to that thing. When I'm watching TV, lots of my functional parts are directed towards the object. When something "catches my attention", it somehow acquires access to lots of those functions. If something is flashing in my peripheral vision, it might make me orient my head and eyes towards it to get a better view. In this sense, the flashing directs my attention. So basically the only way to prevent the faking of attention is to install neural scanners into every consumer to discern their inner 'memory' rather than viewing their outward behavior? Because anyone who attended an American public school knows that you can appear to be paying attention while thinking about any number of other things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It doesn't matter if you are just an idea guy who never did anything tangible, you are able to become rich just because you made a really convincing description of your future masterpiece. A whole economy run via Kickstarter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You are all just obfuscating through white noise and disinformation without actually considering the view being presented. drat this guy really does troll himself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I can point you to [url=http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6376]academic articles I've written on the topic[/ur], where I have more control over the tone and presentation, if there is interest in actually developing whatever good ideas exist in this thread. In fact, I've already pointed multiple times in this thread to other word I've done in other (non-SA goony/no D&D contrarian bastards) contexts. Is this an appeal to your own authority?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Seriously, why am I being held to academic standards in a debate thread on Something Awful? Because you repeatedly invoked those standards in an attempt to get people to stop mocking you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not invoking the standards of academic work, I'm referencing that work to demonstrate the basis for the terms and ideas that I'm appealing to, to show that I'm not making this poo poo up out of whole cloth but it is actually where the research and science is. It is support for my claims, not examples of what I think I'm doing. "Hey guys, I study this academically so you have to take me seriously! C'mon, you're being unduly mean by dismissing my arguments. I'm like, published in journals and stuff!" ... "I don't get it, why are you all holding me to an academic standard here? I thought this was casual internet discussion forum, not the submission panel of the open source journals I totally namedropped earlier!" RealityApologist posted:Jesus, it's like you all have never had a civil discussion before in your lives. You're allegedly a smart guy. What's the common denominator in all of your unpopular threads?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I understand it well enough to know the example was both reasonable and correctly illustrated the point being made. You all know it too. In a conversation, some ground must be accepted by all parties in order to make any sort of progress, but I'm not allowed to make even obvious points by way of example in order to illustrate my claims. You have no idea what you're talking about and I feel pity for your students. I know this because I can see the example you're trying to make, the example you're actually making, and the wide gap between both points that you seem unable to percieve. You are not an effective communicator and if anything these poor communication skills lend you false credibility to people who cannot parse your bad arguments and simply assume your authority. You should not be talking to young adults about philosophy. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also people left to their own devices don't always distribute things in a fair and reasonable way. This is a ridiculous assumption that basically manages to handwave away the actually difficult part of a problem - people left to their own devices usually do ok in small family groups but this organization totally breaks down at larger scales or without direct personal interaction and knowledge. Have you considered applying computers to this problem?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Yes, but, computation
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not a great writer. Nevertheless, the trouble you are having interpreting my writing is mostly the result of the deliberately hostile interpretations and echo chamber in this bandwagon thread. Ah yes, it's everyone else's fault that the majority of people who engaged with your words find them overly complex and insubstantial. I guess that is technically true. How would you leverage organizational dynamics to prevent this situation in the future?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Realtalk: if you want to be an academic, writing skills are loving crucial. Seriously, get yourself into some writing classes stat because if you want your job to be to writing and speaking on difficult topics, you better be able to write and speak better than the average person. Yes. If your reaction to people calling out your poor communication skills is to shift the blame then holy poo poo you're going to get eaten alive once you're not a grad TA.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Eripsa's slow descent into angrily blaming others for being unable to comprehend his incomprehensible gibberish arguments is my favorite part of this thread. Seriously dude you post like you've spent years and years generating bullshit markov verbage to fill out thirty page papers and now you're unable to stop. What makes this funny is that you somehow think that this won't be noticed on a forum predominantly frequented by other academic knuckledraggers who have also drunkenly cranked out last minute deconstructive essays about nothing. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:27
|
|