|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yes, but given that some people have tracked down his RL information using google+ and stuff, he's apparently also a graduate student or has graduated. Unless he's faking someone else's identity. His posts are bad enough that I almost question if this is a classmate playing a prank on him.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Attention is attention dude. In StrangeWorld, Bill Maher and Ann Coulter would amass so much wealth through trolling that they would transform themselves into sentient clouds of liquid metal and just go from city to city stripping people's flesh and organs from their skeletons. Michael Critchton already wrote a book about this exact scenario.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:His posts are bad enough that I almost question if this is a classmate playing a prank on him. I wonder what sort of terrible graduate student would earn this kind of prank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I wonder what sort of terrible graduate student would earn this kind of prank. Those guys that posted above about how it ain't no thang that a philosophy TA don't understand no basic math, ask them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Eripsa, let's go back to your very first post: RealityApologist posted:Despite my reputation on this forum, I'm not interested in pop speculative futurism or idle technoidealism. I don't think there's an easy technological fix for our many difficult problems. But I do think that our technological circumstances have a dramatic impact on our social, political, and economic organizations, and that we can design technologies to cultivate human communities that are healthy, stable, and cooperative. The political and economic infrastructure we have for managing collective human action was developed at a time when individual rational agency formed the basis of all political theory, and in a networked digital age we can do much better. An attention economy doesn't solve all the problems, but it provides tools for addressing problems that simply aren't available with the infrastructure we have available today. My discussion of the attention economy was aimed at discussing social organization at this level of abstraction, with the hopes that taking this networked perspective on social action would reveal some of the tools necessary for addressing our problems. RealityApologist posted:The primary critique of the proposal is that I don't know economics. You are literally proposing that a specific economic theory "provides tools" for solving economic problems and then stating the fact that you don't understand economics is not an indictment of your theory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Those guys that posted above about how it ain't no thang that a philosophy TA don't understand no basic math, ask them. As if you actually need math in philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:As if you actually need math in philosophy. I would watch the gently caress out of a show where you and Eripsa have to share an office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Adar posted:You are literally proposing that a specific economic theory "provides tools" for solving economic problems and then stating the fact that you don't understand economics is not an indictment of your theory. Fool, just because he doesn't understand the flaws of current economic theory doesn't mean that his proposal doesn't address them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:For simple math, the solution is use a calculator to do it and answer it that way. No need to actually know how to do it, particularly when there's not much in the field demanding it Haha, hahahaha, hahahahaha, Holy poo poo. What do yo do again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Nine times out of ten invoking Dunning-Kreuger is just a lame way of shutting down an idiot. Adar posted:It would probably be helpful to your cause if you could at least point out why Captain Dunning lost Napoleon the war with his reckless charge right into Corporal Kruger's forces. RealityApologist posted:I don't give a poo poo about anything in this post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Haha, hahahaha, hahahahaha, Clearly, not math.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:An unwillingness to engage with critics after throwing out an ambitious proposal I'm really disappointed that this has become the caricature of my style. I've come back to this forum for years to talk about and refine my thinking about different aspects of this theory, and I spend a lot of time responding to criticisms and providing interpretations and elaborations on my work. I really feel like the strangecoin proposal demonstrates some improvement, both in focus, organization, and technical clarity, of anything I've written about on these forums. I feel it represents a good faith attempt to meet a lot of the legitimate criticisms that have been put forward. I feel like I get no credit for this work on this forum, especially given how ambitious it is. The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. People are coming out to proudly admit how little they know about anything but their specific technical field, and admit to being clueless about how it fits in with the rest of science as if it is something to be proud of. I don't understand this sentiment at all. I completely agree that if I were an economics phd doing academic work in economics, then the OP would be embarrassing. Its not professional quality work. I'm not a phd in economics, though, and I'm not claiming expertise in the area. My academic work is on an entirely different topic, and this material never sees the inside of my classrooms. I'm just a dude who is interested in social organization, and I'm to describe those ideas with the vocabulary and knowledge I have, and I'm trying to learn the vocabulary I don't have so I can better articulate these ideas. I post these threads explicitly asking for help, especially with the math. I state up front that these ideas are incomplete, and that I'm not capable of making good on such an ambitious proposal on my own. So my impression is that the very idea that I would attempt to articulate an ambitious proposal, despite my incompetence, that is generating all this ire. The suggestion is that no one is actually capable of such a thing, so I'm a fool to even try, especially given my apparently obvious and severe cognitive disabilities. I really think that no matter how clear and controlled my prose, I'll never be able to recover from this caricature. It's really frustrating, especially because I really care about this poo poo. quote:hiding behind credentials, contacts, I've not done any of these things. If anything, I've used my credentials to explain why I don't know certain things, not as proof that I do. I referred to Baez when someone requested a citation because he's an influence on my work; providing a citation on request is not hiding behind contacts. quote:and technobabble Okay fine. quote:a failure to understand that one's field can't be applied to all of life's problems I've repeatedly insisted that the proposal is not intended as a solution to any problem. quote:and using a PhD to claim authority in fields far outside of his area. I never did this. Look, even if I am guilty of everything you mention, it again amounts to a claim that I'm a poor writer and I'm out of my depth. This seriously implicates half of academia, and about 80% of anyone with an op ed column in a major periodical. I've been in the academy long enough to know I'm performing well within the norms. This thread would be more interesting if we all stopped pretending like I'm the harbinger of a new dark age. All I've done in propose a model of social organization on an internet comedy forum. Let's try to be reasonable adults.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. People are coming out to proudly admit how little they know about anything but their specific technical field, and admit to being clueless about how it fits in with the rest of science as if it is something to be proud of. I don't understand this sentiment at all. Eripsa, as a philosophy grad student, you have probably heard of Socrates saying "I know that I know nothing". Would you say Socrates was proud of that statement? Conversely, would you be surprised to learn that there is a 20th century corollary to this statement that has been mentioned on this very page?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
People are pretending you're a lovely writer who is self-acknowledly writing in an area you have no clue in. You hosed up pretty basic math along the way, you dodge questions faster than a grad student can snag a free donut. You might be perfectly fine at writing if you stuck to writing about the philosophy of the mind and AI, but for some hosed up, stupid reason you decide that ignorance about economics doesn't mean that you can't write about economics. You change your argument when it's under threat, shuffle bits around, and you use your own private language of words like 'develop' which you use synonymously with 'affect'. You think that 'ambitious' is an innately good thing. Yadda yadda. Why not write something about the philosophy of the mind as it applies to AI, since that's, y'know, your actual area? Why humiliate yourself over and over again in these threads? I really don't get the payoff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. quote:I've repeatedly insisted that the proposal is not intended as a solution to any problem. Hell, if it isn't a solution, why bring it up at all? What's the motivation for the idea?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Nothing you've done is ambitious. Much like a grad student hiding like a parasite amongst the flesh of academia, an overly-broad unspecific tract making claims to larger fields of study is the product of bougie 'idea-guys' that lack the ambition to promote active change in their world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Look, even if I am guilty of everything you mention, it again amounts to a claim that I'm a poor writer and I'm out of my depth. This seriously implicates half of academia, and about 80% of anyone with an op ed column in a major periodical. I've been in the academy long enough to know I'm performing well within the norms. Thomas Friedman is both much more right about everything and a better writer than you, sorry. RealityApologist posted:So my impression is that the very idea that I would attempt to articulate an ambitious proposal, despite my incompetence, that is generating all this ire. The suggestion is that no one is actually capable of such a thing, so I'm a fool to even try, especially given my apparently obvious and severe cognitive disabilities. Your impression is wrong; your proposal itself is generating this ire because it's terrible. The cognitive disabilities you're exhibiting are the reason we think it's funny enough to keep posting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm really disappointed that this has become the caricature of my style. I've come back to this forum for years to talk about and refine my thinking about different aspects of this theory, and I spend a lot of time responding to criticisms and providing interpretations and elaborations on my work. I really feel like the strangecoin proposal demonstrates some improvement, both in focus, organization, and technical clarity, of anything I've written about on these forums. I feel it represents a good faith attempt to meet a lot of the legitimate criticisms that have been put forward. I feel like I get no credit for this work on this forum, especially given how ambitious it is. Boy are you going to be disappointed with your academic career! Would you say that your actual academic writing for courses or publications or whatever it is you do is of a similar quality to your OP? Because you should probably quit academia if that's your standard of writing. You will never get anywhere if you can't handle basic criticism like "you have utterly failed to explain the purpose of this work please try again", or if you can't even formulate an idea that doesn't immediately provoke that reaction. RealityApologist posted:I completely agree that if I were an economics phd doing academic work in economics, then the OP would be embarrassing. Its not professional quality work. I'm not a phd in economics, though, and I'm not claiming expertise in the area. My academic work is on an entirely different topic, and this material never sees the inside of my classrooms. I'm just a dude who is interested in social organization, and I'm to describe those ideas with the vocabulary and knowledge I have, and I'm trying to learn the vocabulary I don't have so I can better articulate these ideas. I post these threads explicitly asking for help, especially with the math. I state up front that these ideas are incomplete, and that I'm not capable of making good on such an ambitious proposal on my own. Do your own homework.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm really disappointed that this has become the caricature of my style. I've come back to this forum for years to talk about and refine my thinking about different aspects of this theory, and I spend a lot of time responding to criticisms and providing interpretations and elaborations on my work. I really feel like the strangecoin proposal demonstrates some improvement, both in focus, organization, and technical clarity, of anything I've written about on these forums. I feel it represents a good faith attempt to meet a lot of the legitimate criticisms that have been put forward. I feel like I get no credit for this work on this forum, especially given how ambitious it is. This is the second time you've pulled a BernieLomax defense, and I'm no more inclined to let it go unnoticed than I was back in the "world run by software" thread. Adar posted:Thomas Friedman is both much more right about everything and a better writer than you, sorry. Jesus, man. That is harsh. Let's not say things we can't take back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I dunno I don't think Eripsa is dumb per se, just delusional and 100% invested in the type of techno-fetishist thinking discussed in that other thread recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
quote:I've repeatedly insisted that the proposal is not intended as a solution to any problem. Then why, and this is super important so really think about this and answer well, why should we even care at all?! Who What Now fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've repeatedly insisted that the proposal is not intended as a solution to any problem. E: Hah, same question, posted one minute apart. Maybe this is a cue that you should, you know, answer it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I completely agree that if I were an economics phd doing academic work in economics, then the OP would be embarrassing. Its not professional quality work. I'm not a phd in economics, though, and I'm not claiming expertise in the area. My academic work is on an entirely different topic, and this material never sees the inside of my classrooms. I'm just a dude who is interested in social organization, and I'm to describe those ideas with the vocabulary and knowledge I have, and I'm trying to learn the vocabulary I don't have so I can better articulate these ideas. I post these threads explicitly asking for help, especially with the math. I state up front that these ideas are incomplete, and that I'm not capable of making good on such an ambitious proposal on my own. OK, got it. Really! I really understand that you are trying to communicate. Your posts are obviously in good faith, they always are. But why do you have to postulate some never-before heard of framework and defend it (vaguely) to the hilt, instead of just talking with us about the specifics of all the little problems we're trying to solve. You know, "little" problems like financialization or the temperature of the ocean or all these other issues you mention that you'd like to solve. To dive into the specifics of these issues constitutes, brother, the true quintessence of life. But for some reason you are stuck on Grand Unified Theory Island and are refusing utterly, almost on principle, to zoom in with us. Wait a minute. Oh my god:  
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. People are coming out to proudly admit how little they know about anything but their specific technical field, and admit to being clueless about how it fits in with the rest of science as if it is something to be proud of. I don't understand this sentiment at all. First, the consensus in this forum seems to be that you're a weaselly, pretentious idiot. I don't really give a crap about you one way or another but -from what I've seen- the consensus is spot-on. Second, I am pretty sure than most communities are fine with pretty much anybody presenting their ideas, dumb as they may be. But when an expert appears and tells that person that their ideas suck it is then than the other person must show that he/she knows their stuff or shut up. You pretty much come and say "I think these is a great idea but I'm also totally unqualified to know if it is, can someone tell me if it as good as I think?" which is perfectly fine. But then some people who know their poo poo tell you that your idea sucks a whole lot and -instead of trying to understand why they are telling you that- you start a bizarre defense that consists in you being like an Alchemist or something. (The fact that D&D is so easily trolled helps continue with this topic, since it is obvious that you don't have any intention of having an actual productive conversation).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
This is the closest I've found to a 'thesis' in the thread about StrangeCoin, but like the promises of the Singularity (which is happening any day now), it really doesn't deliver anything concrete.RealityApologist posted:Of course they do. I'm not saying I'm measuring anything that's impossible to measure in other ways, I'm just saying that the framework of our existing currency isn't set up to do these things very easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I dunno I don't think Eripsa is dumb per se, just delusional and 100% invested in the type of techno-fetishist thinking discussed in that other thread recently. Techno-fetishism is much easier and makes more sense than this. You start with the premise of a Singularity, then push to get there, then ???, then supercomputers solve all our problems as the universe shrinks back in on itself and the cycle repeats every few trillion years. It's not even self-contradictory. A couple of hundred years from now there'll probably be a real religion based on the concept. This is more of an arbitrary decision to turn the world into a pile of skulls because it sounds cool and then doubling down whenever he's called on it. trucutru posted:(The fact that D&D is so easily trolled helps continue with this topic, since it is obvious that you don't have any intention of having an actual productive conversation). Oh come on these are some of the only readable threads in D&D exactly because he's serious about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:As if you actually need math in philosophy. Real talk: over the last five years ago I really have studied a lot of math. I have a computer science background and I'm fine with symbolic logic and computational complexity, but I never studied pure math beyond the requirements of an engineering undergrad. It wasn't until I stumbled on the problem of organizational complexity that I realized I needed way more math skills than I had, and I've spent the last five years trying to catch up, which is why I took those grad classes in the first place. I've always been attracted to Carnap and positivism, but I've never been more confident that philosophical problems aren't real problems unless they can be expressed as math problems. For instance, I find it absurd that people still practice analytical armchair metaphysics and ask about the possibility of material simples, when quantum mechanics and its theoretical extensions literally give a theoretical framework for discussing exactly this issue with mathematical precision informed by the best available empirical evidence. If there are any interesting metaphysical questions, those questions are being talked about by theoretical and mathematical physicists. Some of those physicists are also philosophers (David Albert is a good example), but the vast majority of philosophers don't know the first thing about QM. I suppose, for this reason, I really do sympathize with a lot of the criticisms in this thread. I don't know anything about economics. But as so many people have already pointed out, the proposal here really has nothing to do with economics in the traditional sense. I'm describing a framework of social organization; I just happen to be describing it in terms that are familiar from economics, in terms of trading coinds. There is a sense in which Strangecoin is an economic network, but that's in the extended, original sense of "household management" and not at all in the sense of the global systems of industrial production and distribution that manage the economy. So I don't think my lack of knowledge in economics completely undermines my proposal. If anything, it is more informed by work in social complexity that I know fairly well. My model is similar in some ways to work in that literature, but again I don't know a model that works exactly like mine. Perhaps a reasonable next step for this kind of project would be to develop a simulator on NetLogo and see how it behaves, to give you some flavor of my megalomaniacal plans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
His verbose writing style may very well get him a lot more positive feedback in places where minds are less critical or more aligned with his ideas (like Hacker News). However, beyond that into areas or more critical analysis, his poo poo gets torn apart like so much tissue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. People are coming out to proudly admit how little they know about anything but their specific technical field, and admit to being clueless about how it fits in with the rest of science as if it is something to be proud of. I don't understand this sentiment at all. No the consensus of this forum is that your idea about the attention economy is very nearly incoherent, is definitely impossible to implement, and more importantly, solves no real world problem, seems to have no real benefits whatsoever, and generally reeks of techno-fetishist utopianism. Even if this is a thought experiment or whatever, you still haven't convinced anyone why this is actually worthwhile in any way or what problem it solves. What's the point of the marble economy? What I've gotten from your posts is that you think social networking and making relationships through technology is valuable, so we should encode that information into money, but that's not even an obvious statement. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then why, and this is super important so really think about this and answer well, why should we even care at all?! I'm going to stop being mean for a moment here, no joke: this, Eripsa, is one of the most important things about real academic work. All my committee members, both for comps and dissertation, always cautioned me that no matter what I found interesting, I had to be able to answer the "so what?" question someone might toss at me after asking what I was working on. I've found it very helpful to remind myself when writing that other people might not give a poo poo about my ideas just because I, personally, find them interesting. That I find them interesting does not necessarily mean they have value, or even interest, for literally anyone else at all. I always, always need to have at least some justification for what I'm talking about and how it fits into/contributes to the historiography of the field. You've babbled on at exceptional length about how neat you think strangecoins are, fine; so what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I suppose, for this reason, I really do sympathize with a lot of the criticisms in this thread. I don't know anything about economics. But as so many people have already pointed out, the proposal here really has nothing to do with economics in the traditional sense. Adar posted:Every single transaction type Eripsa specified in his word salad of an essay already exists in very basic banking and contract law using existing non-pseudointellectual dollar bills and contracts. The only thing that would change from today is a basic income coupled with an account balance cap as an incentive to spend. If you ignore the word salad and incoherent babbling your proposal as stated in this thread (and this thread only) is making what is already there much more complicated and also hyperinflationary and murderous, but doesn't contain anything unknown to economics. The Attention Economy as stated elsewhere is certainly new, though (in the sense that the piles of skulls would be larger and also look shrunken from dehydration)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I suppose, for this reason, I really do sympathize with a lot of the criticisms in this thread. I don't know anything about economics. But as so many people have already pointed out, the proposal here really has nothing to do with economics in the traditional sense. Can you name one other person who argued that this has nothing to do with economics? I suppose there was at least one person who argued that StrangeCoin doesn't really qualify as a currency, which you should realize is a pretty strong indictment of your proposal for a currency. Otherwise any sane person would say that currencies have something to do with economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You know, "little" problems like... Right, but like I said, I'm a philosopher. Of science. My training and all my philosophical heroes approach the task of philosophy of science by developing or critiquing systematic, big picture, unifying frameworks that touch on many domains in the sciences. My thesis drew extensively on research in computer science and psychology, and required that I become familiar and conversant with at least some of the literature in those domains. The project I'm working on here (which again let me stress is entirely done in my free time, with no financial support from any institutions, as a passion project) draws on economics, social psychology, complexity theory and network theory. It's a big-picture, systematic framework, and I've spent most of my time studying networks and complexity so I clearly don't know enough to take on a project like this. But I know enough to sketch some of the contours of the issue, and to put down some proposals like Strangecoin that make explicit my thoughts on these topics. I feel like the reaction I'm getting to these proposals suggests they are at least somewhat interesting and novel, and deserve further work and refinement. Maybe I'll develop a stomach for reading about economics and come back in the next thread a little smarter and slightly better able to articulate the ideas. I feel like that's been the trend and I wouldn't want to stop. If you think these thoughts are lovely or useless, there's nothing I can say to make you care. Have a nice day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I feel like the reaction I'm getting to these proposals suggests they are at least somewhat interesting and novel The other day as I was walking along a major road I saw a bird that had been run over by a car, and its corpse was both interesting and novel. You keep hiding behind the self-purported brilliance of your ideas without ever engaging in the idea that people find you pompous and verbally evasive. Until you remove this tendency from your communicative style you won't find much success in academia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
AR, please answer this:Who What Now posted:Then why, and this is super important so really think about this and answer well, why should we even care at all?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Can you name one other person who argued that this has nothing to do with economics? I was thinking about this post in particular: Guy DeBorgore posted:Eripsa this whole project of yours is really not a "currency" in the way anyone uses the word, it's an entirely new form of social organization. It would be sort of interesting, except that by focusing so much on the "network" you've completely neglected to explain details like how people work and spend, how they finance their business, how demand and supply are matched... He meant it as a criticism, of course. Now I'd like to work on developing the nepotism example, because I thinks its the most interesting outstanding question of the many dozen that are still left open.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I feel like the reaction I'm getting to these proposals suggests they are at least somewhat interesting and novel, and deserve further work and refinement. By you or by somebody else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:By you or by somebody else? I would be overjoyed if someone else stripped off all the poo poo and did something useful with it. edit: especially if anything about these ideas are novel outside of science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I would be overjoyed if someone else stripped off all the poo poo and did something useful with it. I too would like to see someone create something from nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
eXXon posted:I can't speak about philosophy specifically, but you can get into graduate school without demonstrating critical thinking skills or being able to write well. Once you're there, you're usually required to be a teaching assistant for a few semesters, which can include leading tutorials or even teaching classes if the professor is away frequently or just plain lazy. Some programs also come with guaranteed funding if you maintain good academic standing, and what that means exactly can vary wildly. It could be as little as not failing a course or two, if your advisor sticks up for you and makes excuses for poor performance. Generally grad students make so little compared to postdocs and professors that they can linger for years without contributing anything of note. Hell in the UC system some departments are even being sleazy and just keeping TAs for teaching pretty much all undergrad work, rather than hiring adjunct or having teachers that aren't practically slave labor. It's kinda slimey. Oh and fun thing I saw today http://www.vice.com/read/bitcoin-could-revolutionize-voting OP this by the way is half your thesis. Also presented as less word salad. While I don't necessarily agree with it, this is how real people communicate. I was totally looking for an earlier post-date, but no this thread went live before the article. It's weird because I can see where some of the strangecoin ideas look like a weird game of telephone from a few of the things I've read saying "Well, here's what we can actually kinda learn from bitcoin if we squint really hard." For those too lazy to click through and read the big thing about it is using a block-chain like function to track voting and political influence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:48
|
|
