Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #26457 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 00:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:15 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:04 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:21 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:46 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:20 +0300
small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:57 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:49 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-26 13:50 +0042
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:13 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:41 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:12 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:03 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:51 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:49 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-23 00:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:49 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:24 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:28 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:58 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:26 +0100
OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 11:58 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:04 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 00:43 +0042
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:46 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:37 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-25 13:17 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <d476a6f5-9eee-5087-5c7e-4d9497e5b191@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26642 |
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > >> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> >>>> It saves all messages in a local spool folder, and since nntp is a >>>> nice and simple retro-protocols, it is trivial to understand the >>>> format. So what you could do, between 2 leafnode servers, is to just >>>> reverse engineer the format and "copy" the spool directory between the >>>> two leafnode installations and all the messages will pop up on the >>>> other leafnode as well. >>> >>> Okay, but the question was to just to confirm my mostly-forgotten >>> recollections of Leafnode. I wouldn't mind working on it to make it >>> peer via NNTP itself. But I would much rather write a completely new in >>> a non-C language. >> >> I wonder if there are any good C to Go converters out there? Would be >> interesting to see how much effort it would take to convert leafnode from c to >> go? Maybe then, it would be an easier code base to work with? > > I know C a lot more than I know Go---nothing. :) I've already began > some work in Common Lisp. > >>>> I think is perhaps somewhat of a downward trend. I feel awe when >>>> talking to the older generations who had to learn the hardware, >>>> program in assembler and so on. >>> >>> I feel the same. Like you, I feel great learning from the older >>> generations. In fact, I often think that they were privileged for being >>> able to be there first. I identified this easily enough to develop a >>> passion for studying the history of computer science, which makes me >>> look very old now because I use a lot of very old tools, which are >>> awesome tools despite their age. I got a web post by Joel Spolsky the >>> phrase that ``software doesn't get dusty''. >> >> True. I have a retro-class on thursday and will show them some nice stuff in the >> form of vim, alpine, and midnight commander. Apart from a shell (bash) those are >> my main tools in the terminal. > > Hey... GNU EMACS. :) Hah... wrong church and religion! ;) I did use emacs at university though, but since I never worked as a programmer but only as a system administrator, I started to gravitate towards vim or vi and after a few years, it became second nature. >>> Nevertheless, I feel obsessed by computers and I try to get close to the >>> hardware by more abstract means. For instance, I've been reading about >>> the 6502 and it seems like such a simple CPU that it makes up for a very >>> great computer architecture first introduction, unlike x86, say. >> >> I remember programming for the Z80 when I was young, on my calculator, and also, >> of course, assembler on the 486. Those were the days! =) > > Lol. You have more experience than I do. I did own a 486 DX2 66 MHz > (that was my first), but I wrote no assembly at all---I didn't even know > there was assembly or machine code back then. I did get to know the > BIOS pretty well, though, but I had not much of an idea how it really > fit into the hardware. (I took four to five years to realize that I had > to get involved with programming to really understand the computer.) > > Pretty funny, though, the first book I read was called ``HARDWARE''. It > was an x86 computer architecture book, superficial, that explained how > the parts connected or something. That book was very influential > because it showed me that, by reading it, I could actually make sense of > taking the computer apart and putting it back on. I consciously > realized---I can read and get knowledge. (Schools always recommended > reading, but they never really recommended technical reading---they > seemed to recommended only national literature.) > > From that point on, I never stopped to read technical books, which gave > me a new realization of how amazingly broken schools are. And the > problem is not so much in the system itself---it's more in the people > who run that system. > > Many years later, as a result, when I was in graduate school, instead of > choosing a topic to write on, I chose an adviser to work with. I > couldn't care less about any topic; I asked my adviser---what are you > working on? Let's work on that. You see? Anything is interesting so > long as the people working on it are interesting. When they are not, > no method will do. True! I don't actually read that many books on technology. My technology exposure these days is more through blogs, usenet, and the occasional networking event. Oh, and work of course, but that is more "organical" exposure, and not really something I do actively.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87zfiast6y.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26649 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> >>>>> It saves all messages in a local spool folder, and since nntp is a >>>>> nice and simple retro-protocols, it is trivial to understand the >>>>> format. So what you could do, between 2 leafnode servers, is to just >>>>> reverse engineer the format and "copy" the spool directory between the >>>>> two leafnode installations and all the messages will pop up on the >>>>> other leafnode as well. >>>> >>>> Okay, but the question was to just to confirm my mostly-forgotten >>>> recollections of Leafnode. I wouldn't mind working on it to make it >>>> peer via NNTP itself. But I would much rather write a completely new in >>>> a non-C language. >>> >>> I wonder if there are any good C to Go converters out there? Would be >>> interesting to see how much effort it would take to convert >>> leafnode from c to >>> go? Maybe then, it would be an easier code base to work with? >> >> I know C a lot more than I know Go---nothing. :) I've already began >> some work in Common Lisp. >> >>>>> I think is perhaps somewhat of a downward trend. I feel awe when >>>>> talking to the older generations who had to learn the hardware, >>>>> program in assembler and so on. >>>> >>>> I feel the same. Like you, I feel great learning from the older >>>> generations. In fact, I often think that they were privileged for being >>>> able to be there first. I identified this easily enough to develop a >>>> passion for studying the history of computer science, which makes me >>>> look very old now because I use a lot of very old tools, which are >>>> awesome tools despite their age. I got a web post by Joel Spolsky the >>>> phrase that ``software doesn't get dusty''. >>> >>> True. I have a retro-class on thursday and will show them some nice >>> stuff in the form of vim, alpine, and midnight commander. Apart from >>> a shell (bash) those are my main tools in the terminal. >> >> Hey... GNU EMACS. :) > > Hah... wrong church and religion! ;) Lol. I have been feeling pretty religious lately indeed. :) >>>> Nevertheless, I feel obsessed by computers and I try to get close to the >>>> hardware by more abstract means. For instance, I've been reading about >>>> the 6502 and it seems like such a simple CPU that it makes up for a very >>>> great computer architecture first introduction, unlike x86, say. >>> >>> I remember programming for the Z80 when I was young, on my >>> calculator, and also, of course, assembler on the 486. Those were >>> the days! =) >> >> Lol. You have more experience than I do. I did own a 486 DX2 66 MHz >> (that was my first), but I wrote no assembly at all---I didn't even know >> there was assembly or machine code back then. I did get to know the >> BIOS pretty well, though, but I had not much of an idea how it really >> fit into the hardware. (I took four to five years to realize that I had >> to get involved with programming to really understand the computer.) >> >> Pretty funny, though, the first book I read was called ``HARDWARE''. It >> was an x86 computer architecture book, superficial, that explained how >> the parts connected or something. That book was very influential >> because it showed me that, by reading it, I could actually make sense of >> taking the computer apart and putting it back on. I consciously >> realized---I can read and get knowledge. (Schools always recommended >> reading, but they never really recommended technical reading---they >> seemed to recommended only national literature.) >> >> From that point on, I never stopped to read technical books, which gave >> me a new realization of how amazingly broken schools are. And the >> problem is not so much in the system itself---it's more in the people >> who run that system. >> >> Many years later, as a result, when I was in graduate school, instead of >> choosing a topic to write on, I chose an adviser to work with. I >> couldn't care less about any topic; I asked my adviser---what are you >> working on? Let's work on that. You see? Anything is interesting so >> long as the people working on it are interesting. When they are not, >> no method will do. > > True! > > I don't actually read that many books on technology. My technology > exposure these days is more through blogs, usenet, and the occasional > networking event. Oh, and work of course, but that is more "organical" > exposure, and not really something I do actively. Yeah. This probably implies you're getting a lot of screen reading time. I like books because I can get off the screen. And, the book being good, is usually so much more carefully written than most papers and blogs. I try to go to the beach every day. Today, for instance, I biked to the beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading. If I'm not reading a book, then I go to Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) and I print out what I find interesting there. It's so much slow and pleasurable to read off screen. At the beach, I cannot just skip too many texts because I have just a few with me. And I shouldn't read too fast because then I have nothing else to read. So I take a long time on every word and so the reading is a lot more fun. I'm even reading non-technical stuff. Since December, I read ``Hackers'' by Steven Levy (1984) and then I also read the book ``No Filter'' by Paulina Porizkova (2022), the model. :) She's an excellent writer. I enjoy the music from The Cars. Paulina was Ric Ocasek's wife. He died in the pandemic, though not from COVID-19. She seemed interesting and I found her book interview-ads while listening to The Cars songs on YouTube. I enjoyed the book, but, yeah, I was just snooping into other people's lives, which perhaps I shouldn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <0fac16c3-0944-07d5-7a30-2e05ae84ce25@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26660 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> >> Hah... wrong church and religion! ;) > > Lol. I have been feeling pretty religious lately indeed. :) ;) >> I don't actually read that many books on technology. My technology >> exposure these days is more through blogs, usenet, and the occasional >> networking event. Oh, and work of course, but that is more "organical" >> exposure, and not really something I do actively. > > Yeah. This probably implies you're getting a lot of screen reading > time. I like books because I can get off the screen. And, the book > being good, is usually so much more carefully written than most papers > and blogs. Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I read a lot of regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the eyes. Reading is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ > I try to go to the beach every day. Today, for instance, I biked to the > beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading. If I'm not Oh, wonderful! Where do you live? > reading a book, then I go to Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) and I > print out what I find interesting there. It's so much slow and > pleasurable to read off screen. At the beach, I cannot just skip too > many texts because I have just a few with me. And I shouldn't read too > fast because then I have nothing else to read. So I take a long time on > every word and so the reading is a lot more fun. Wonderful! Sounds like an excellent idea! I do save online articles and stuff as pdf:s and do the same thing sometimes, going to a café or when flying. I find the effect very similar to yours. > I'm even reading non-technical stuff. Since December, I read > ``Hackers'' by Steven Levy (1984) and then I also read the book ``No > Filter'' by Paulina Porizkova (2022), the model. :) She's an excellent > writer. I enjoy the music from The Cars. Paulina was Ric Ocasek's > wife. He died in the pandemic, though not from COVID-19. She seemed > interesting and I found her book interview-ads while listening to The > Cars songs on YouTube. I enjoyed the book, but, yeah, I was just > snooping into other people's lives, which perhaps I shouldn't. I'm currently reading Mirrorshades by Bruce Sterling (and other authors). Some good, classic cyberpunk. I'm also reading various texts by Schopenhauer trying to figure out if he in fact did independently discover buddhism, as his proponents are very fond of saying. I'm skeptical. But let's see!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87tt8hq2wv.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26670 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> I don't actually read that many books on technology. My technology >>> exposure these days is more through blogs, usenet, and the occasional >>> networking event. Oh, and work of course, but that is more "organical" >>> exposure, and not really something I do actively. >> >> Yeah. This probably implies you're getting a lot of screen reading >> time. I like books because I can get off the screen. And, the book >> being good, is usually so much more carefully written than most papers >> and blogs. > > Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I read a lot of > regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the eyes. Reading > is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of > books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like > throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When I was a freshman, I bought all the books I'd use at the university. I thought it was expensive, but it was worth it---I thought then. On the second semester, I couldn't spend that money again and decided to try to just get the books from the library. If the exact book wasn't available, I'd take another one---a theorem should be the roughly the same in every book, right? From this experiment, I concluded that I'd never buy another book (and that every student should do the same). It was wonderful to always look at other books perspectives. After graduation, I moved to another country. I did my bachelor's degree in a foreign country and then moved to another one after graduation, to eventually move back home. When I was packing to move back home after years away, I decided to buy a bunch of books and take them with me because it would've been more expensive to import them after arrival. I don't regret it because I still have them with me here and these are books I use more or less regularly. Nevertheless, I don't need them for any emergency at all, specially at an age where all of these books are easily available in electronic form. I'm trying to say---it would be so easy for me to throw them all away. Specially if my dear wife is getting annoyed with them, even if unreasonably. Perhaps my action would be to throw them all away and have the house completely empty. Then I might say at dinner---I'd printed this chapter out today because I threw Mr. Smith's publication. Lol. Yes, I would enjoy getting on my wife's skin a bit. :) Of course it's not literal throwing away. You'd give them to a library, say. If that's too hard, you could rent a u-haul-equivalent storage in your country to just put them out of the house. It's not the same thing---you could possibly enjoy the experience of being completely free from these books. If you use a hammer everyday, throwing it away is just plain silly. (Or even if you just use it occasionally.) But, possibly, your wife could be pointing out to you that perhaps you have a unreasonable stock of books, which couldn't possibly be really useful; or, she could be the thermometer to say that something's not quite right. In particular when you say that you can't do it. I'm suspicious because I love to get rid of stuff. :) Also, my books are all stored in big plastic boxes and tucked away in storage at my book. In the house, only those that I'm currently reading. >> I try to go to the beach every day. Today, for instance, I biked to the >> beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading. If I'm not > > Oh, wonderful! Where do you live? Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. >> reading a book, then I go to Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) and I >> print out what I find interesting there. It's so much slow and >> pleasurable to read off screen. At the beach, I cannot just skip too >> many texts because I have just a few with me. And I shouldn't read too >> fast because then I have nothing else to read. So I take a long time on >> every word and so the reading is a lot more fun. > > Wonderful! Sounds like an excellent idea! I do save online articles and stuff as > pdf:s and do the same thing sometimes, going to a café or when flying. I find > the effect very similar to yours. I used to go to cafés too... But they only have bad stuff to eat such as coffee and coffee-like drinks and anything with gluten. :) Coconut water, on the other hand, happens to be better than mineral water. And the Sun is a true doctor on this planet. >> I'm even reading non-technical stuff. Since December, I read >> ``Hackers'' by Steven Levy (1984) and then I also read the book ``No >> Filter'' by Paulina Porizkova (2022), the model. :) She's an excellent >> writer. I enjoy the music from The Cars. Paulina was Ric Ocasek's >> wife. He died in the pandemic, though not from COVID-19. She seemed >> interesting and I found her book interview-ads while listening to The >> Cars songs on YouTube. I enjoyed the book, but, yeah, I was just >> snooping into other people's lives, which perhaps I shouldn't. > > I'm currently reading Mirrorshades by Bruce Sterling (and other authors). Some > good, classic cyberpunk. Sounds interesting. The topic is fascinating. But it might be a little overrated as well. Currently, I don't think our technology is really advanced to warrant all the exploration of cyberpunk writing. What I think we have a lot of hype, which makes sense, given that the industry has taken over the monarchies over the years. You see, rewind history until the collapse of the roman empire; then feuds sprang; then monarchies were established, with help from the churches; eventually the industrial revolution begins and then the bourgeoisie rises. Now it's their prime time---no wonder the hype is all in their favor. > I'm also reading various texts by Schopenhauer trying to figure out if > he in fact did independently discover buddhism, as his proponents are > very fond of saying. I'm skeptical. But let's see! I wouldn't be surprised. I think a lot of ideas from buddhism can be inferred by a sensitive person. Of course, those who sit down to write and publish and have the skills to do it well are much less in number. So perhaps Schopenhauer is one of them. Let me know what you find. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <0a7a6195-5609-1116-7e55-8dacb0d9d20d@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26683 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
>> Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I read a lot of >> regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the eyes. Reading >> is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of >> books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like >> throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ > > I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw > it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When Ouch! My children! ;) > I was a freshman, I bought all the books I'd use at the university. I > thought it was expensive, but it was worth it---I thought then. On the > second semester, I couldn't spend that money again and decided to try to > just get the books from the library. If the exact book wasn't > available, I'd take another one---a theorem should be the roughly the > same in every book, right? From this experiment, I concluded that I'd > never buy another book (and that every student should do the same). It > was wonderful to always look at other books perspectives. I bought last years used books. Usually they weren't that expensive, about 20-30 USD or so per book. But if you bought them new, the price were at least double! > Of course it's not literal throwing away. You'd give them to a library, > say. If that's too hard, you could rent a u-haul-equivalent storage in > your country to just put them out of the house. It's not the same > thing---you could possibly enjoy the experience of being completely free > from these books. Well, for the book throwers, I do prefer to hear that they donate their books to libraries, used book stores, or give them away. =) > I'm suspicious because I love to get rid of stuff. :) I think this must be an inborn trait. My default is to keep everything. I'm probably descended from a squirrel or hamster if you go back a few million years. ;) >>> I try to go to the beach every day. Today, for instance, I biked to the >>> beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading. If I'm not >> >> Oh, wonderful! Where do you live? > > Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Ahh... the country of eternal sunshine and happiness! At least that is what it looks like from here on the surface. But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as the US, that would be really bad for the country. I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many beautiful women, it must be very distracting! >> Wonderful! Sounds like an excellent idea! I do save online articles and stuff as >> pdf:s and do the same thing sometimes, going to a café or when flying. I find >> the effect very similar to yours. > > I used to go to cafés too... But they only have bad stuff to eat such as > coffee and coffee-like drinks and anything with gluten. :) Coconut Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be thankful that you don't have to drink the crap I have here in europe. ;) > water, on the other hand, happens to be better than mineral water. And > the Sun is a true doctor on this planet. This is the truth! >>> I'm even reading non-technical stuff. Since December, I read >>> ``Hackers'' by Steven Levy (1984) and then I also read the book ``No >>> Filter'' by Paulina Porizkova (2022), the model. :) She's an excellent >>> writer. I enjoy the music from The Cars. Paulina was Ric Ocasek's >>> wife. He died in the pandemic, though not from COVID-19. She seemed >>> interesting and I found her book interview-ads while listening to The >>> Cars songs on YouTube. I enjoyed the book, but, yeah, I was just >>> snooping into other people's lives, which perhaps I shouldn't. >> >> I'm currently reading Mirrorshades by Bruce Sterling (and other authors). Some >> good, classic cyberpunk. > > Sounds interesting. The topic is fascinating. But it might be a little > overrated as well. Currently, I don't think our technology is really > advanced to warrant all the exploration of cyberpunk writing. What I > think we have a lot of hype, which makes sense, given that the industry > has taken over the monarchies over the years. You see, rewind history > until the collapse of the roman empire; then feuds sprang; then > monarchies were established, with help from the churches; eventually the > industrial revolution begins and then the bourgeoisie rises. Now it's > their prime time---no wonder the hype is all in their favor. It is an interesting thought that kingdoms faded, were replaced by nations. Perhaps now, nations are fading (slowly) and getting replaced with corporations? Imagine a future were your primary allegiance is to your corporation, and the nation of old, just exists in the background as a faint humming sound, that no one really cares about. What do you think? >> I'm also reading various texts by Schopenhauer trying to figure out if >> he in fact did independently discover buddhism, as his proponents are >> very fond of saying. I'm skeptical. But let's see! > > I wouldn't be surprised. I think a lot of ideas from buddhism can be > inferred by a sensitive person. Of course, those who sit down to write > and publish and have the skills to do it well are much less in number. > So perhaps Schopenhauer is one of them. Let me know what you find. :) Will do! If I find out anything that is. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <vpn45i$2irr2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26709 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 108 lines --] > >>> Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I read a lot of >>> regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the eyes. Reading >>> is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of >>> books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like >>> throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ >> >> I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw >> it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When > > Ouch! My children! ;) > >> I was a freshman, I bought all the books I'd use at the university. I >> thought it was expensive, but it was worth it---I thought then. On the >> second semester, I couldn't spend that money again and decided to try to >> just get the books from the library. If the exact book wasn't >> available, I'd take another one---a theorem should be the roughly the >> same in every book, right? From this experiment, I concluded that I'd >> never buy another book (and that every student should do the same). It >> was wonderful to always look at other books perspectives. > > I bought last years used books. Usually they weren't that expensive, about 20-30 > USD or so per book. But if you bought them new, the price were at least double! The entire university textbook market is one giant scam anyway. Publisshers make minor updates (often just changing the "exercises") to create "volume 4", and then the professors state "vol 4" as the text for the class, duping lots of students into paying full price. One wonders how much of a kickback the professors get for recommending the "updated volume" that is 99.9% identical to the prior volume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <25b01630-792a-07f8-ba5c-a06132e51eb6@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26711 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 108 lines --] >> >>>> Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I read a lot of >>>> regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the eyes. Reading >>>> is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of >>>> books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like >>>> throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ >>> >>> I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw >>> it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When >> >> Ouch! My children! ;) >> >>> I was a freshman, I bought all the books I'd use at the university. I >>> thought it was expensive, but it was worth it---I thought then. On the >>> second semester, I couldn't spend that money again and decided to try to >>> just get the books from the library. If the exact book wasn't >>> available, I'd take another one---a theorem should be the roughly the >>> same in every book, right? From this experiment, I concluded that I'd >>> never buy another book (and that every student should do the same). It >>> was wonderful to always look at other books perspectives. >> >> I bought last years used books. Usually they weren't that expensive, about 20-30 >> USD or so per book. But if you bought them new, the price were at least double! > > The entire university textbook market is one giant scam anyway. > Publisshers make minor updates (often just changing the "exercises") to > create "volume 4", and then the professors state "vol 4" as the text > for the class, duping lots of students into paying full price. One > wonders how much of a kickback the professors get for recommending the > "updated volume" that is 99.9% identical to the prior volume. True. I think it is the same all over the world. I knew a lawyer once who wrote his own book for a university course, but he said in the end, it wasn't worth it. He sold about 30 books per year, so he regretted writing the book and wrote it off mostly as marketing and CV stuffing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <8734fzhg4x.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26711 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 108 lines --] >> >>>> Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I >>>> read a lot of regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much >>>> kinder to the eyes. Reading is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife >>>> gets annoyed at the enormous number of books I accumulate. She >>>> wants me to throw them away, but it would be like throwing away my >>>> children. I cannot do it! =/ >>> >>> I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw >>> it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When >> >> Ouch! My children! ;) >> >>> I was a freshman, I bought all the books I'd use at the university. I >>> thought it was expensive, but it was worth it---I thought then. On the >>> second semester, I couldn't spend that money again and decided to try to >>> just get the books from the library. If the exact book wasn't >>> available, I'd take another one---a theorem should be the roughly the >>> same in every book, right? From this experiment, I concluded that I'd >>> never buy another book (and that every student should do the same). It >>> was wonderful to always look at other books perspectives. >> >> I bought last years used books. Usually they weren't that expensive, >> about 20-30 USD or so per book. But if you bought them new, the price >> were at least double! > > The entire university textbook market is one giant scam anyway. > Publisshers make minor updates (often just changing the "exercises") to > create "volume 4", and then the professors state "vol 4" as the text > for the class, duping lots of students into paying full price. One > wonders how much of a kickback the professors get for recommending the > "updated volume" that is 99.9% identical to the prior volume. Disgusting indeed. It's incredible how non-educational the educational system is. One of the very important things that should be shown to students is precisely how we don't need any new books at all. Taking my chances here in being exaggerated, when I look at books such as Liber Abaci by Leonardo Pisano, omg---what an important book to a student of any intellectual area. Here's a test I sometimes do. (I can argue that I have the privilege of studying with the brightest students in the country.) I ask students to compute a subtraction; they do by putting one number on top of the other. I then ask them to explain whether they could reverse the order---putting the numeral at the bottom on top---and to explain how the method works. But this question is merely a preparation to the test; the real test is---compute the division of, say, 714 by 7, and explain to me why you do what you do. Even the brighest students recognize that if they ever really understood it, it's hard to remember. I do recognize that this test is questionable in the sense that it takes people by surprise. But my point is not that university students have not a real mathematical education; my point is the complete failure of the school system. This test is to be applied to the population out in the streets and you will see how people might even be able to compute arithmetic, but they have no understanding at all of something dramatically important as the number system we got from the arabs. When I was in college, I discovered books such as the ``Discourse on the Method'' and also ``Meno'', to name just a couple. I thought they were profound educational philosophies, even though they were not quite meant as that. They were key sources of studying strategies to me. Considering all of science, what we study in school (including college) is very little. We don't need new books for that at all. We can study it all from public domain publications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87senzfz57.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26709 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: >>> Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I >>> read a lot of >>> regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the >>> eyes. Reading >>> is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of >>> books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like >>> throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/ >> >> I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw >> it all away. But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it. When > > Ouch! My children! ;) Lol. I know. :) >>>> I try to go to the beach every day. Today, for instance, I biked to the >>>> beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading. If I'm not >>> >>> Oh, wonderful! Where do you live? >> >> Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. > > Ahh... the country of eternal sunshine and happiness! At least that is what it > looks like from here on the surface. That's how it looks from my perspective here as well, although I'm aware of so much suffering taking place here every day. > But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist > has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as > the US, that would be really bad for the country. You can definitely say that. This theme is very interesting for people interested in Brazil or perhaps the US. The US has a huge influence in Brazil. A very /small/ illustration is the political system. Like the US, Brazil has a bicameral federal congress---meaning, you know, you have a house of representatives and a senate. We can argue that such a system makes sense for the United States, considering how its republic came about. In the origins of the federation, you have a movement to centralize power from the individual states---let's say a movement from the outer to the inner. In Brazil, it's the opposite: Brazil's republic came about by a distribution of power from the monarchic center to its smaller regions. A bicameral system is a certain conservative system that makes sense in a federation formed out of mistrusting states, unlike Brazil's case. So the bicameral system for Brazil serves more to slow it down than anything else. I could make the case that this was done by Brazil by mere influence on aesthetics---we think they're smarter than us, so let's what they're doing. (Surely this is too simplistic, but I want just a single paragraph here.) But that's only an illustration. Due to commercial reasons, the Brazilian food industry has been following in the foot steps of the American, with the disastrous consequences of a population overweight now (with all of the chronic diseases that are killing the american population, like nearly everywhere else in the world). American influence in Brazil started out strongly in the 40s and 50s, reaching its apex in the 60s. It's an interesting history because it was clearly planned and a good illustration of the current status quo: it's quite useful to study this history if one wishes to understand Brazil today. > I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many > beautiful women, it must be very distracting! You're quite right. It is indeed *very* distracting. In fact, observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite stronger than any will power. I started out reading at the beach so I would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun. So my slow reading doesn't defeat that purpose. I also often go during week days, when the beach is not crowded with people. It worked out so well that it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule. I write in the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, swimming and biking. I cannot do it *every* day because I need to ``the office'' some days. >>> Wonderful! Sounds like an excellent idea! I do save online articles >>> and stuff as pdf:s and do the same thing sometimes, going to a café >>> or when flying. I find the effect very similar to yours. >> >> I used to go to cafés too... But they only have bad stuff to eat such as >> coffee and coffee-like drinks and anything with gluten. :) Coconut > > Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be thankful that > you don't have to drink the crap I have here in europe. ;) I think we produce wonderful coffee, but I also think that wonderful coffee is mostly exported. Makes perfect sense: you sell your best products to your best customers (those that pay more). That's a sorry thing when living in a country with too many poor people: the industry brings the cheapest things for you. But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug to be totally kept on a leash. I don't think we should make regular use of any stimulants---of any drug at all. I am probably a naturalist. If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'', then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body. If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of the system. Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I had on tattoos. So this is another illustration of why I find myself more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever met. >>> I'm currently reading Mirrorshades by Bruce Sterling (and other >>> authors). Some good, classic cyberpunk. >> >> Sounds interesting. The topic is fascinating. But it might be a little >> overrated as well. Currently, I don't think our technology is really >> advanced to warrant all the exploration of cyberpunk writing. What I >> think we have a lot of hype, which makes sense, given that the industry >> has taken over the monarchies over the years. You see, rewind history >> until the collapse of the roman empire; then feuds sprang; then >> monarchies were established, with help from the churches; eventually the >> industrial revolution begins and then the bourgeoisie rises. Now it's >> their prime time---no wonder the hype is all in their favor. > > It is an interesting thought that kingdoms faded, were replaced by nations. > Perhaps now, nations are fading (slowly) and getting replaced with corporations? > Imagine a future were your primary allegiance is to your corporation, and the > nation of old, just exists in the background as a faint humming sound, that no > one really cares about. > > What do you think? I think along these lines. Today I see most of government as just employees of corporations. I think it's very easy to see. Political parties cannot do anything without money. But they're not companies: they produce no product in the typical sense of the word. So where do they money come from? It comes from corporations. Who makes decisions in a company? The owner or the employees? (Who makes decisions in society? The goverment or the real owners?) So when people say that governments don't seem to work in favor of the population, I remark precisely the above---if you owned a company, would you let your employees have the final say in the decisions? That'd be absurd; it's your company; you call the shots. Similarly, corporations (who invest in most of the government officials' careers), should have the final say in nearly everything. What do corporations want? Almost nothing. Because they're in power. The desire of those in power is to keep things as they are. We can make a parallel here with the relationship between monarchies and the church. The church partnered with kings because they were useful to each other: kings won their power by the use of force, which attracts the interest of any other entity of some meaningful power (such as the church). Their partnership is then natural: the influence of the church on the people was useful to install the idea that the power of kings had divine origins. The very idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the industry: when the industry realizes that it was their time to be at the top, they naturally make up a system that reduces the power of the monarchies, with the brilliant argument that individual guarantees are needed. So republics arise and we can make the parallel that governments take the function that the church had in their partnership with kings. People now are busy trying to organize themselves by interacting with the bureaucracy of governments---this is the civilized, legal, democratic way of living. There is, therefore, a natural conflict between public policy and the interests of corporations. The reason governments have, in principle, nearly all the power and still are so ineffective against corporation is a fact that's very illuminating. No fact is a contradiction; all paradoxes are only apparent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <b6aa2793-a698-8396-9c0d-2b46a59d9c85@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26752 |
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist >> has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as >> the US, that would be really bad for the country. > > You can definitely say that. This theme is very interesting for people > interested in Brazil or perhaps the US. The US has a huge influence in ... > Brazil today. Thank you! Very interesting, I had no idea! >> I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many >> beautiful women, it must be very distracting! > > You're quite right. It is indeed *very* distracting. In fact, > observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at > least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite I also imagine that in south america it is still fashionable for women to be women, and that women are feminine? I hope so... I like that! > stronger than any will power. I started out reading at the beach so I > would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun. So my slow > reading doesn't defeat that purpose. I also often go during week days, > when the beach is not crowded with people. It worked out so well that Aha... so that's how you get any work done! I imagine if you would go during beach rush hour, you'd not get a lot of things done. ;) > it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule. I write in > the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, swimming > and biking. I cannot do it *every* day because I need to ``the office'' > some days. Sounds like you have a very nice job there! >> Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be thankful that >> you don't have to drink the crap I have here in europe. ;) > > I think we produce wonderful coffee, but I also think that wonderful > coffee is mostly exported. Makes perfect sense: you sell your best > products to your best customers (those that pay more). That's a sorry > thing when living in a country with too many poor people: the industry > brings the cheapest things for you. Ahhh.... never thought about that. On the other hand, there are counter examples. When I went to japan, I had the best green tea I ever had! Up until that point, I thought I didn't like green tea. It always tasted horrible. Then in japan I went to some kind of luxury tea tasting, and it was really, really good! And what about beef? I heard there are wars in south america over whether argentina or brazil has the best beef? Who is right? > But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug > to be totally kept on a leash. I don't think we should make regular use > of any stimulants---of any drug at all. Ahh... and here I drink between 0.5 and 0.7 liters per day! ;) But I don't have to drink it... from time to time I just stop when I get tired of it and move to tea instead, and never experience any negative withdrawal symptoms. My favourite tea is Lapsang. > I am probably a naturalist. If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'', > then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body. > If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of > the system. Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I > had on tattoos. So this is another illustration of why I find myself > more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever > met. Well, maybe principled? I think religious has many supernatural connotations that I find nto so good to mix up in these kinds of discussions. >> It is an interesting thought that kingdoms faded, were replaced by nations. >> Perhaps now, nations are fading (slowly) and getting replaced with corporations? >> Imagine a future were your primary allegiance is to your corporation, and the >> nation of old, just exists in the background as a faint humming sound, that no >> one really cares about. >> >> What do you think? > > I think along these lines. Today I see most of government as just > employees of corporations. I think it's very easy to see. Political > parties cannot do anything without money. But they're not companies: > they produce no product in the typical sense of the word. So where do > they money come from? It comes from corporations. Who makes decisions > in a company? The owner or the employees? (Who makes decisions in > society? The goverment or the real owners?) I'd say it depends. The government has one thing that corporations does not have, and that is the right to use violence. Also remember that corporations are not the only taxes that the government rakes in. It taxes individuals, it taxes death, trade, and woe unto you if you don't pay, then they use violence against you. On the other hand, you do have a point. Without anyone to tax, the government dies, so it is a balance of terror, although I'd say that the balance tilts in favour of the government. On ther other hand... once corporations become international, they become much harder for government to kill. They are immaterial creatures and can easily leap across jurisdictions, in a way that governments cannot. > So when people say that governments don't seem to work in favor of the > population, I remark precisely the above---if you owned a company, would > you let your employees have the final say in the decisions? That'd be Depends on the decision. If it is technology, I will let my technical partners have the final say. ;) But then again, I run a small business and not a corporation. =) > absurd; it's your company; you call the shots. Similarly, corporations > (who invest in most of the government officials' careers), should have > the final say in nearly everything. > > What do corporations want? Almost nothing. Because they're in power. > The desire of those in power is to keep things as they are. This is true. Everyone is progressive until they get into power. Then everyone becomes conservative. Even socialists. ;) > We can make a parallel here with the relationship between monarchies and > the church. The church partnered with kings because they were useful to > each other: kings won their power by the use of force, which attracts > the interest of any other entity of some meaningful power (such as the > church). Their partnership is then natural: the influence of the church > on the people was useful to install the idea that the power of kings had > divine origins. I'd say in europe there was an unholy (pun intended) alliance between the church and the kings. Both want to be on top, but in the end saw advantages to cooperating and dividing up the spoils. See northern europe for instance, the protestant part. Kings could tired of the catholic church and threw it out in order to start their own christianity, and at the same time, plunder churches and monasteries to increase their wealth. ;) Clearly an example of when the church stepped too hard on the toes of the king. > The very idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the industry: when > the industry realizes that it was their time to be at the top, they > naturally make up a system that reduces the power of the monarchies, > with the brilliant argument that individual guarantees are needed. So > republics arise and we can make the parallel that governments take the > function that the church had in their partnership with kings. People > now are busy trying to organize themselves by interacting with the > bureaucracy of governments---this is the civilized, legal, democratic > way of living. > > There is, therefore, a natural conflict between public policy and the > interests of corporations. The reason governments have, in principle, > nearly all the power and still are so ineffective against corporation is > a fact that's very illuminating. No fact is a contradiction; all > paradoxes are only apparent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87o6ycfj5z.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26773 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist >>> has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as >>> the US, that would be really bad for the country. >> >> You can definitely say that. This theme is very interesting for people >> interested in Brazil or perhaps the US. The US has a huge influence in > ... >> Brazil today. > > Thank you! Very interesting, I had no idea! An excellent reference to how it got where it is is United States Penetration of Brazil Jan Knippers Black, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977 ISBN 0-8122-7720-1. >>> I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many >>> beautiful women, it must be very distracting! >> >> You're quite right. It is indeed *very* distracting. In fact, >> observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at >> least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite > > I also imagine that in south america it is still fashionable for women to be > women, and that women are feminine? I hope so... I like that! Lol. A declaration like that won't get much support around here. :) We're living in a globalized world. Even news casters now use words like ``spoiler''. Literally---no translation needed. My geography teachers in elementary school now seem like prophets. >> stronger than any will power. I started out reading at the beach so I >> would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun. So my slow >> reading doesn't defeat that purpose. I also often go during week days, >> when the beach is not crowded with people. It worked out so well that > > Aha... so that's how you get any work done! I imagine if you would go during > beach rush hour, you'd not get a lot of things done. ;) Lol. You're quite right. One thing that's happening is that I'm a very approachable person and being there nearly every day brings new friends. Now every now then there appears someone to chat. I feel unable to tell anyone to go away, even because---when people approach for chat---it's evidently the case that they're in need of something. (They might also think that I'm killing time.) I never really tell them to go away. That doesn't help the work much. Nevertheless, one of my deadlines got extended by a week and so I was able to get a project's phase done---I'm on time! >> it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule. I write in >> the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, >> swimming and biking. I cannot do it *every* day because I need to >> [be] ``the office'' some days. > > Sounds like you have a very nice job there! It's my favorite ever. My at-the-office phase restarts in two weeks. >>> Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be >>> thankful that you don't have to drink the crap I have here in >>> europe. ;) >> >> I think we produce wonderful coffee, but I also think that wonderful >> coffee is mostly exported. Makes perfect sense: you sell your best >> products to your best customers (those that pay more). That's a sorry >> thing when living in a country with too many poor people: the industry >> brings the cheapest things for you. > > Ahhh.... never thought about that. On the other hand, there are > counter examples. When I went to japan, I had the best green tea I > ever had! Up until that point, I thought I didn't like green tea. It > always tasted horrible. Then in japan I went to some kind of luxury > tea tasting, and it was really, really good! Interesting. > And what about beef? I heard there are wars in south america over > whether argentina or brazil has the best beef? Who is right? I never quite heard of wars, but surely Argentina is known as one of the best bovine meat producers. And so in Brazil's south. Historically, they have a lot of tradition (and still do). So Argentina or not, it's that whole region, going beyond Brazil and Argentina. As a teenager (with my family), I traveled once to a beach place in the state of Rio de Janeiro and one thing got stuck in my memory about a dinner we had an Argentine restaurant. The (small) place was run by the owner himself, who was an Argentine. The meat was unforgettable. Brazil's south is known as people who know how to barbeque like no one. I'm sure the same applies to the Argentines. >> But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug >> to be totally kept on a leash. I don't think we should make regular use >> of any stimulants---of any drug at all. > > Ahh... and here I drink between 0.5 and 0.7 liters per day! ;) That's a huge quantity. > But I don't have to drink it... from time to time I just stop when I > get tired of it and move to tea instead, and never experience any > negative withdrawal symptoms. My favourite tea is Lapsang. If you don't completely, then at least stop as you already do but then don't substitute it for tea or any other caffeine or theobromine intake (such as cocoa products like chocolate). Let your system rest from these substances. The less you take in, the more tolerant you become. The more you do, the less you get. >> I am probably a naturalist. If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'', >> then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body. >> If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of >> the system. Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I >> had on tattoos. So this is another illustration of why I find myself >> more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever >> met. > > Well, maybe principled? I think religious has many supernatural connotations > that I find nto so good to mix up in these kinds of discussions. ``Principled'' it is. Words don't really matter. We need them here, but they're just the tags on the pointers. Remember Juliet? ``What's in a name?''
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87zfhwtgel.fsf@tilde.institute> |
| In reply to | #26830 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > If you don't completely, then at least stop as you already do but then Do yo thing that did fit into comp.misc because if the "comp" in "completely"? -- Trust me, I know what I'm doing...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <0c615f3f-d454-fbca-126b-06b270ff9437@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26830 |
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> Thank you! Very interesting, I had no idea! > > An excellent reference to how it got where it is is > > United States Penetration of Brazil > Jan Knippers Black, > University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977 > ISBN 0-8122-7720-1. Thank you for the recommendation. Sadly I do not think my schedule allows it at the moment, I have way too many philosophical topics on my plate at the moment. =( >>> You're quite right. It is indeed *very* distracting. In fact, >>> observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at >>> least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite >> >> I also imagine that in south america it is still fashionable for women to be >> women, and that women are feminine? I hope so... I like that! > > Lol. A declaration like that won't get much support around here. :) > We're living in a globalized world. Even news casters now use words > like ``spoiler''. Literally---no translation needed. My geography > teachers in elementary school now seem like prophets. What!?! Please don't spoil my dreams of travelling to Brazil meeting loads of beautiful brazilian women who would be naturally interested in a swede with blue eyes! ;) >>> stronger than any will power. I started out reading at the beach so I >>> would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun. So my slow >>> reading doesn't defeat that purpose. I also often go during week days, >>> when the beach is not crowded with people. It worked out so well that >> >> Aha... so that's how you get any work done! I imagine if you would go during >> beach rush hour, you'd not get a lot of things done. ;) > > Lol. You're quite right. One thing that's happening is that I'm a very > approachable person and being there nearly every day brings new friends. > Now every now then there appears someone to chat. I feel unable to tell > anyone to go away, even because---when people approach for chat---it's > evidently the case that they're in need of something. (They might also > think that I'm killing time.) I never really tell them to go away. > That doesn't help the work much. Nevertheless, one of my deadlines got > extended by a week and so I was able to get a project's phase done---I'm > on time! Amazing! You couldn't get further from the swedish folk psyche. In sweden two people could sit next to each other for years, and at most nod to each other. Maybe after a year or two, a small conversation might start. In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence and look at their phones. Only people who know each other talk on the subway. Definitely not strangers. >>> it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule. I write in >>> the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, >>> swimming and biking. I cannot do it *every* day because I need to >>> [be] ``the office'' some days. >> >> Sounds like you have a very nice job there! > > It's my favorite ever. My at-the-office phase restarts in two weeks. Ouch! Hopefully it will not last too long! >> And what about beef? I heard there are wars in south america over >> whether argentina or brazil has the best beef? Who is right? > > I never quite heard of wars, but surely Argentina is known as one of the > best bovine meat producers. And so in Brazil's south. Historically, > they have a lot of tradition (and still do). So Argentina or not, it's > that whole region, going beyond Brazil and Argentina. > > As a teenager (with my family), I traveled once to a beach place in the > state of Rio de Janeiro and one thing got stuck in my memory about a > dinner we had an Argentine restaurant. The (small) place was run by the > owner himself, who was an Argentine. The meat was unforgettable. > Brazil's south is known as people who know how to barbeque like no one. > I'm sure the same applies to the Argentines. Another dream! Except for the women, above, I dream of going to brazil and argentina for a beef and bbq safari! This would be excellent! Maybe I would never leave again? =) >>> But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug >>> to be totally kept on a leash. I don't think we should make regular use >>> of any stimulants---of any drug at all. >> >> Ahh... and here I drink between 0.5 and 0.7 liters per day! ;) > > That's a huge quantity. Really? Just regular coffee. No espresso! ;) >> But I don't have to drink it... from time to time I just stop when I >> get tired of it and move to tea instead, and never experience any >> negative withdrawal symptoms. My favourite tea is Lapsang. > > If you don't completely, then at least stop as you already do but then > don't substitute it for tea or any other caffeine or theobromine intake > (such as cocoa products like chocolate). Let your system rest from > these substances. The less you take in, the more tolerant you become. > The more you do, the less you get. Interesting experiment! I've tried it due to chance a couple of times, but then I get so tired in the evening, so I won't get as much quality computer time in when the wife sleeps. ;) >>> I am probably a naturalist. If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'', >>> then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body. >>> If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of >>> the system. Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I >>> had on tattoos. So this is another illustration of why I find myself >>> more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever >>> met. >> >> Well, maybe principled? I think religious has many supernatural connotations >> that I find nto so good to mix up in these kinds of discussions. > > ``Principled'' it is. Words don't really matter. We need them here, > but they're just the tags on the pointers. Remember Juliet? ``What's > in a name?'' Amen!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87wmcz6lli.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26841 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> Thank you! Very interesting, I had no idea! >> >> An excellent reference to how it got where it is is >> >> United States Penetration of Brazil >> Jan Knippers Black, >> University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977 >> ISBN 0-8122-7720-1. > > Thank you for the recommendation. Sadly I do not think my schedule allows it at > the moment, I have way too many philosophical topics on my plate at the moment. > =( Not really a recommendation; it's an annotation. We're the ones writing, but there's lots of reading eyes for sure. Unless you're particularly interested in Brazil or in the United States influence in the Latin America, I think there's no point in reading a book like that. (The work is of the highest quality.) >>>> You're quite right. It is indeed *very* distracting. In fact, >>>> observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at >>>> least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite >>> >>> I also imagine that in south america it is still fashionable for women to be >>> women, and that women are feminine? I hope so... I like that! >> >> Lol. A declaration like that won't get much support around here. :) >> We're living in a globalized world. Even news casters now use words >> like ``spoiler''. Literally---no translation needed. My geography >> teachers in elementary school now seem like prophets. > > What!?! Please don't spoil my dreams of travelling to Brazil meeting > loads of beautiful brazilian women who would be naturally interested > in a swede with blue eyes! ;) Lol. I think they would be. :) But let me tell you that everywhere in the world I went I found as many beautiful women as I find over here. >>>> stronger than any will power. I started out reading at the beach so I >>>> would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun. So my slow >>>> reading doesn't defeat that purpose. I also often go during week days, >>>> when the beach is not crowded with people. It worked out so well that >>> >>> Aha... so that's how you get any work done! I imagine if you would go during >>> beach rush hour, you'd not get a lot of things done. ;) >> >> Lol. You're quite right. One thing that's happening is that I'm a very >> approachable person and being there nearly every day brings new friends. >> Now every now then there appears someone to chat. I feel unable to tell >> anyone to go away, even because---when people approach for chat---it's >> evidently the case that they're in need of something. (They might also >> think that I'm killing time.) I never really tell them to go away. >> That doesn't help the work much. Nevertheless, one of my deadlines got >> extended by a week and so I was able to get a project's phase done---I'm >> on time! > > Amazing! You couldn't get further from the swedish folk psyche. In sweden two > people could sit next to each other for years, and at most nod to each other. > Maybe after a year or two, a small conversation might start. That's horrible. > In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence and look at > their phones. Only people who know each other talk on the subway. Definitely not > strangers. Reminds me of New York City. I don't think it's too different here in Rio. But I often greet people as a gesture of recognition of their existence. It turns out people do like that. At first you greet people alone; it's too unexpected for them to react. (This makes the greeter feel odd and so people usually stop on the first attempt.) Little by little, though, things change. You need to be okay to do this properly. (If you don't feel like talking to people, you will likely not work.) People like respect. Recognizing their existence is an important gesture. There are psychoanalytical explanations to all of this, but, since it's not obvious, it would take a while to build the result from first principles. At the beach, I don't mean that random people come over for a chat. I mean people who often find me there---people who work there or who often go there as well. They're all used to me being there. And every now and then a friend meets me by chance or knew they would find me there. >>>> it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule. I write in >>>> the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, >>>> swimming and biking. I cannot do it *every* day because I need to >>>> [be] ``the office'' some days. >>> >>> Sounds like you have a very nice job there! >> >> It's my favorite ever. My at-the-office phase restarts in two weeks. > > Ouch! Hopefully it will not last too long! Two mornings per week. I still to get lunch at home---thankfully. >>> And what about beef? I heard there are wars in south america over >>> whether argentina or brazil has the best beef? Who is right? >> >> I never quite heard of wars, but surely Argentina is known as one of the >> best bovine meat producers. And so [is] Brazil's south. Historically, >> they have a lot of tradition (and still do). So Argentina or not, it's >> that whole region, going beyond Brazil and Argentina. >> >> As a teenager (with my family), I traveled once to a beach place in >> the state of Rio de Janeiro and one thing got stuck in my memory >> about a dinner we had [at] an Argentine restaurant. The (small) >> place was run by the owner himself, who was an Argentine. The meat >> was unforgettable. Brazil's south is known as people who know how to >> [barbecue] like no one. I'm sure the same applies to the Argentines. Typos fixed above. > Another dream! Except for the women, above, I dream of going to brazil and > argentina for a beef and bbq safari! This would be excellent! Maybe I would > never leave again? =) I wouldn't. :) I really love this place. And I agree about the women---we really don't have any shortage of beautiful, caring women. But the fact is that that's true anywhere else in the world. It is true that women and men are losing their health early in life, which doesn't favor their looks; still, everywhere I go I am often hypnotized by feminine natural enchants. >>>> But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug >>>> to be totally kept on a leash. I don't think we should make regular use >>>> of any stimulants---of any drug at all. >>> >>> Ahh... and here I drink between 0.5 and 0.7 liters per day! ;) >> >> That's a huge quantity. > > Really? Just regular coffee. No espresso! ;) Huge. If it were espresso, it'd be much worse. Remember the American actor Philip Seymour Hoffman? He likely died out of some drug-related abuse back in 2014. It seems in those days his morning routine included a quadruple espresso. I know kids drink it, but coffee is a drug and it has very strong effects. It seems people hardly notice it. I conjecture that it's because people start with very little and increase it over time. To see the effects, I think you need to start cutting it out, spending a long time off all kinds of drugs and bad food, and then taking it again. (Also, get rid of bad quality coffee. There is no reason we can't roast our own coffee at home, by the way; it's a super simple thing.) You've mentioned being tired without it. There's no miracle when you're under the influence of coffee. You'll pay for it one way or another; that's very certain. Hey, you know where the expression ``coffee break'' comes from? It comes from World War II---reference below. Factories implemented the coffee break so that they could get coffee into people's systems. Coffee (like all drugs) are desensitizers, excellent for war time, in the factories and in the battle field. --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8--- Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship? Peter Andreas, 2019. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 22:57-73 (Volume publication date May 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-103748 https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-103748 --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8--- >>> But I don't have to drink it... from time to time I just stop when I >>> get tired of it and move to tea instead, and never experience any >>> negative withdrawal symptoms. My favourite tea is Lapsang. >> >> If you don't completely, then at least stop as you already do but then >> don't substitute it for tea or any other caffeine or theobromine intake >> (such as cocoa products like chocolate). Let your system rest from >> these substances. The less you take in, the more tolerant you become. >> The more you do, the less you get. > > Interesting experiment! I've tried it due to chance a couple of times, but then > I get so tired in the evening, so I won't get as much quality computer time in > when the wife sleeps. ;) I had a girlfriend once who lived with me. Our relationship lasted for about 3 years and we lived together for 2. I did this, too---she'd go to bed earlier and I'd work until a few hours later. I regret all of that. If I were really serious about my work, I'd wake up a few hours earlier (than her). It's not like I was more productive. What was really happening was that work was also working like a drug---and I was definitely under the influence of coffee and other nutritional life killers. Not going to sleep with your wife is definitely a missed opportunity. If you don't love your wife, you can split; but if you do, you should go to bed with her. (Wny wouldn't you? For work? Nonsense.) In fact, you probably should even be the first to go to bed (and then call her). Without coffee, I'm sure you get to bed very early (though it's not gonna happen overnight). And I wouldn't be surprised if you (eventually) find enough energy to be up first, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <fab5209c-ba9a-70d6-c4f7-615121aa4f2d@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26847 |
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Lol. A declaration like that won't get much support around here. :) >>> We're living in a globalized world. Even news casters now use words >>> like ``spoiler''. Literally---no translation needed. My geography >>> teachers in elementary school now seem like prophets. >> >> What!?! Please don't spoil my dreams of travelling to Brazil meeting >> loads of beautiful brazilian women who would be naturally interested >> in a swede with blue eyes! ;) > > Lol. I think they would be. :) But let me tell you that everywhere in > the world I went I found as many beautiful women as I find over here. You have a big heart! =D >> Amazing! You couldn't get further from the swedish folk psyche. In sweden two >> people could sit next to each other for years, and at most nod to each other. >> Maybe after a year or two, a small conversation might start. > > That's horrible. Well, it can be nice too, if you're an introvert or not in the mood for talking. =) Usually there is a talk about the swedish ketchup effect, when foreigners move to sweden. They try to get to know swedish people, and they get nothing, nothing, nothing, and then everything at once. It can take years to get to know a sweden, but once they consider you a friend, it is a deep connection. I found this difficult when I was living in the US for a year. It was super easy to go by myself to a bar, and talk to some people. It was impossible to get to know someone below the shallow facade. >> In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence and look at >> their phones. Only people who know each other talk on the subway. Definitely not >> strangers. > > Reminds me of New York City. Maybe... I haven't been there for probably 25 year or more. I imagine that smartphones have infected them as they have infected almost everyone. =/ > I don't think it's too different here in Rio. But I often greet people > as a gesture of recognition of their existence. It turns out people do > like that. At first you greet people alone; it's too unexpected for > them to react. (This makes the greeter feel odd and so people usually > stop on the first attempt.) Little by little, though, things change. > You need to be okay to do this properly. (If you don't feel like > talking to people, you will likely not work.) People like respect. > Recognizing their existence is an important gesture. There are > psychoanalytical explanations to all of this, but, since it's not > obvious, it would take a while to build the result from first > principles. It is interesting. Your life situation can also determine how open you are. My father is a widower, and I live in a different country. So he has been quite alone but he has started to get involved in 2 retired peoples associations, and also has a weekly game of boule/petanque as well. That has become his social world, and he has met many new people that way. I think, when people reach retirement age, a lot of the facade drops naturally and they become more open perhaps. > At the beach, I don't mean that random people come over for a chat. I > mean people who often find me there---people who work there or who often > go there as well. They're all used to me being there. And every now > and then a friend meets me by chance or knew they would find me there. Ahh... that makes more sense. >>> It's my favorite ever. My at-the-office phase restarts in two weeks. >> >> Ouch! Hopefully it will not last too long! > > Two mornings per week. I still to get lunch at home---thankfully. That's not too bad! =) >> Another dream! Except for the women, above, I dream of going to brazil and >> argentina for a beef and bbq safari! This would be excellent! Maybe I would >> never leave again? =) > > I wouldn't. :) I really love this place. I've lived in 6 countries and I am still not sure where I would settle permanently. For me, every country has its positives and negatives, and depending on when it was in my life, different countries where attractive. > And I agree about the women---we really don't have any shortage of > beautiful, caring women. But the fact is that that's true anywhere else > in the world. It is true that women and men are losing their health > early in life, which doesn't favor their looks; still, everywhere I go I > am often hypnotized by feminine natural enchants. This is the truth. A very interesting phenomenon at the moment is the global fertility crisis. My bet is that it is a complex phenomenon consisting of chemicals, unhealthy lifestyles, shifting norms, feminism and demographics. A kind of "perfect storm" of things bad for fertility. >>> That's a huge quantity. >> >> Really? Just regular coffee. No espresso! ;) > > Huge. If it were espresso, it'd be much worse. Remember the American > actor Philip Seymour Hoffman? He likely died out of some drug-related > abuse back in 2014. It seems in those days his morning routine included > a quadruple espresso. I do have a percolator, and sometimes I do start the day with a coffee mug of near espresso strength coffee. Sadly it is in sweden, so it only happens about 2 months per year. ;) > I know kids drink it, but coffee is a drug and it has very strong > effects. It seems people hardly notice it. I conjecture that it's > because people start with very little and increase it over time. To see > the effects, I think you need to start cutting it out, spending a long > time off all kinds of drugs and bad food, and then taking it again. > (Also, get rid of bad quality coffee. There is no reason we can't roast > our own coffee at home, by the way; it's a super simple thing.) Never thought of it! But I do buy more expensive coffee, since I loathe the cheap stuff that results in brown dishwater. > You've mentioned being tired without it. There's no miracle when you're > under the influence of coffee. You'll pay for it one way or another; > that's very certain. Lemmy of Motorhead lived til 70, and he drank one bottle of whiskey a day. Let' ssee! ;) > Hey, you know where the expression ``coffee break'' comes from? It > comes from World War II---reference below. Factories implemented the > coffee break so that they could get coffee into people's systems. > Coffee (like all drugs) are desensitizers, excellent for war time, in > the factories and in the battle field. > > --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8--- > Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship? > Peter Andreas, 2019. > > Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 22:57-73 (Volume publication > date May 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-103748 > > https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-103748 > --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8--- Had no idea! But wasn't also WW2 the father of amphetamine for fighter pilots? I know Lemmy (see above) was a huge fan of amphetamine as well. ;) But I never tried any drugs except for alcohol, coffee and tea, and I am very happy to stay that way. =) >> Interesting experiment! I've tried it due to chance a couple of times, but then >> I get so tired in the evening, so I won't get as much quality computer time in >> when the wife sleeps. ;) > > I had a girlfriend once who lived with me. Our relationship lasted for > about 3 years and we lived together for 2. I did this, too---she'd go > to bed earlier and I'd work until a few hours later. I regret all of > that. If I were really serious about my work, I'd wake up a few hours > earlier (than her). It's not like I was more productive. What was > really happening was that work was also working like a drug---and I was > definitely under the influence of coffee and other nutritional life > killers. > > Not going to sleep with your wife is definitely a missed opportunity. > If you don't love your wife, you can split; but if you do, you should go > to bed with her. (Wny wouldn't you? For work? Nonsense.) In fact, > you probably should even be the first to go to bed (and then call her). Well, what I do, to be more precise, is that when she goes to bed, we usually talk for half an hour or so. Then she goes to sleep, and then I get 2-3 hours to myself. I need time for myself and my interests, since she is not into technology and science fiction so the evenings I spend pursuing my hobbies and interests she has no interest in, so that we can do things we both enjoy during the days. > Without coffee, I'm sure you get to bed very early (though it's not > gonna happen overnight). And I wouldn't be surprised if you > (eventually) find enough energy to be up first, too. Waking up early is physically and mentally painful for me. It is torture. Coffee or no coffee, I have always been a night owl. I have been know to pay 200 USD more for plane tickets in order to not have to wake up before 10 in the morning. Now I am in the blessed situation to live +1 hour time difference from my main customers, so that allows me to wake up at 10:00 every day, and start working at around 10:05. =D I don't know if I would ever be able to wake up at 07:30 to be at an office at 09:00, then space out for at least an hour before fully awake, and zombie walk through the day. I remember when I was young, I used to sleep 5-6 hours per night, to still keep my night time hobby time, while having to wake up at 7:30 and go to work. I shudder at the memory and hope I will make it to retirement age, with my current lifestyle! =)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <875xkh3yjn.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26855 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Amazing! You couldn't get further from the swedish folk psyche. In sweden two >>> people could sit next to each other for years, and at most nod to each other. >>> Maybe after a year or two, a small conversation might start. >> >> That's horrible. > > Well, it can be nice too, if you're an introvert or not in the mood > for talking. =) I'd say it can be less scary or more comforting. I don't really believe that any human deep down prefers to be left alone. My first hypothesis is always a psychological thing that makes people uncomfortable with interacting with other people. You know, people can be born with a disease. But look at *most* people: they're born healthy. So, my first hypothesis is always a disfunction of some sort. > Usually there is a talk about the swedish ketchup effect, when > foreigners move to sweden. Ketchup effect? Wow. I had never heard of that. I get it. The whole thing comes down at once. :) > They try to get to know swedish people, and they get nothing, nothing, > nothing, and then everything at once. It can take years to get to know > a sweden, but once they consider you a friend, it is a deep > connection. That's kinda cool. > I found this difficult when I was living in the US for a year. It was > super easy to go by myself to a bar, and talk to some people. It was > impossible to get to know someone below the shallow facade. I observed the same. I also observed this in other cultures. For example, the Dutch culture. I found the Americans way more honest and close than the Dutch. My hypothesis for explaining this was that the United States offers a more trusting community; the Dutch deal with lots of in and outflows of people from all over Europe. Europe has much more loose frontiers, say, than the United States. I think I'm trying to say that the United States is more homogeneous. The Dutch are more smiles on a first encounter and the Americans less so. But beneath that the Americans are really more friendly. Other things I've noticed. The Americans easily trust what you say. (Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.) The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce. Now, having said that, it's one thing to talk of Americans in the Midwest, say. It's another thing to talk of Americans on the East coast, say. The parallel I make here is between small city and big city. It's not unusual for us to find people more friendly in small cities. Try to ask what is it to a local on 5th Avenue, New York City. They are not even going to look at you---you'll likely feel like a ghost. >>> In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence >>> and look at their phones. Only people who know each other talk on >>> the subway. Definitely not strangers. >> >> Reminds me of New York City. > > Maybe... I haven't been there for probably 25 year or more. I imagine that > smartphones have infected them as they have infected almost everyone. =/ My observations are pre-smartphones. Before smartphones, people's faces were buried in books on the subway. They've just replaced the book with the phone. >> I don't think it's too different here in Rio. But I often greet people >> as a gesture of recognition of their existence. It turns out people do >> like that. At first you greet people alone; it's too unexpected for >> them to react. (This makes the greeter feel odd and so people usually >> stop on the first attempt.) Little by little, though, things change. >> You need to be okay to do this properly. (If you don't feel like >> talking to people, you will likely not work.) People like respect. >> Recognizing their existence is an important gesture. There are >> psychoanalytical explanations to all of this, but, since it's not >> obvious, it would take a while to build the result from first >> principles. > > It is interesting. Your life situation can also determine how open you > are. Totally. The inner is the outer. > My father is a widower, and I live in a different country. So he has > been quite alone but he has started to get involved in 2 retired > peoples associations, and also has a weekly game of boule/petanque as > well. That has become his social world, and he has met many new people > that way. > > I think, when people reach retirement age, a lot of the facade drops > naturally and they become more open perhaps. I wouldn't say ``naturally'', but I agree that as you age, you drop the bullshit. Not everyone---surely. Not everyone learns over the years. >> And I agree about the women---we really don't have any shortage of >> beautiful, caring women. But the fact is that that's true anywhere else >> in the world. It is true that women and men are losing their health >> early in life, which doesn't favor their looks; still, everywhere I go I >> am often hypnotized by feminine natural enchants. > > This is the truth. A very interesting phenomenon at the moment is the > global fertility crisis. Are we talking about male fertility? I'm gonna follow that one very closely. > My bet is that it is a complex phenomenon consisting of chemicals, > unhealthy lifestyles, shifting norms, feminism and demographics. I agree. It seems that way. Although I'd remove feminism if we're talking about male fertility. But surely women is also involved in men's everything (and /vice versa/). There's really no separation. There never was. There has ``always'' been a war between men and women. It's a pretty sad one, in fact. It is---to me---much more serious than military wars. >>> Interesting experiment! I've tried it due to chance a couple of >>> times, but then I get so tired in the evening, so I won't get as >>> much quality computer time in when the wife sleeps. ;) >> >> I had a girlfriend once who lived with me. Our relationship lasted for >> about 3 years and we lived together for 2. I did this, too---she'd go >> to bed earlier and I'd work until a few hours later. I regret all of >> that. If I were really serious about my work, I'd wake up a few hours >> earlier (than her). It's not like I was more productive. What was >> really happening was that work was also working like a drug---and I was >> definitely under the influence of coffee and other nutritional life >> killers. >> >> Not going to sleep with your wife is definitely a missed opportunity. >> If you don't love your wife, you can split; but if you do, you should go >> to bed with her. (Wny wouldn't you? For work? Nonsense.) In fact, >> you probably should even be the first to go to bed (and then call her). > > Well, what I do, to be more precise, is that when she goes to bed, we > usually talk for half an hour or so. Then she goes to sleep, and then > I get 2-3 hours to myself. > > I need time for myself and my interests, since she is not into > technology and science fiction so the evenings I spend pursuing my > hobbies and interests she has no interest in, so that we can do things > we both enjoy during the days. Of course, it all makes perfect sense. The burden of the proof is totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things. But I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard. So stay alert. :) You don't need time for yourself and your interests. That's actually false. Time for yourself and your interests is likely a way for you to feel like that day was worth it. But most likely the reason you feel that way is because there's something wrong already, before that. You're living with the assumption that you need to /have fun/ or something like that. Human life does not really require having fun. Fun is not really something we need. There's nothing wrong with having fun. One thing I observe in very young kids is that they need no toys. A little ant, say, is quite a toy. But then they're given a bunch of toys. You know those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle? Babies likely feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine. I claim they need none of that. In fact, that's too much stimuli. You don't need your science and your interests. And I also claim that you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you stop pursuing them. Do your work. That's healthy. You do need to study it. But guide yourself only by a very rational thing. If there is no time for your science, then there is no time for it. It's not a bad life. A bad life is an unnatural life. We've distanced ourselves quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive. Now we need to really walk in a different direction in order to get out of this. >> Without coffee, I'm sure you get to bed very early (though it's not >> gonna happen overnight). And I wouldn't be surprised if you >> (eventually) find enough energy to be up first, too. > > Waking up early is physically and mentally painful for me. It is > torture. Coffee or no coffee, I have always been a night owl. I was a night person as a teenager and carried that on for many years. I never thought I'd say otherwise. But I can easily say it now. If I were to go back in time, I wouldn't lose a single night for any reason---except to stay with someone in the hospital, say. It's just not worth it. Hppainess is physical disposition, which requires impeccable health. > I have been know to pay 200 USD more for plane tickets in order to not > have to wake up before 10 in the morning. That's worth it. :) > Now I am in the blessed situation to live +1 hour time difference from > my main customers, so that allows me to wake up at 10:00 every day, > and start working at around 10:05. =D Enjoy. :) That's also good. > I don't know if I would ever be able to wake up at 07:30 to be at an > office at 09:00, then space out for at least an hour before fully > awake, and zombie walk through the day. Of course you would. :) > I remember when I was young, You're still young. :) > I used to sleep 5-6 hours per night, That's little sleep. > to still keep my night time hobby time, while having to wake up at > 7:30 and go to work. I shudder at the memory and hope I will make it > to retirement age, with my current lifestyle! =) I'm sure you want to keep all the health you have and even recover anything you've temporarily lost. And it's worth it! That's your best retirement plan. Happiness is health in every sense of the word. Do not believe the happy people who've lost their health or youth, which is the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <5cc84f2f-ed16-9695-b6f2-662f713a4c9f@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26866 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> That's horrible. >> >> Well, it can be nice too, if you're an introvert or not in the mood >> for talking. =) > > I'd say it can be less scary or more comforting. I don't really believe > that any human deep down prefers to be left alone. My first hypothesis It's a continuum, not a binary question. I'm fairly sure it is proven that people do have different social needs. I do not know however how common various positions along that spectrum are. >> Usually there is a talk about the swedish ketchup effect, when >> foreigners move to sweden. > > Ketchup effect? Wow. I had never heard of that. I get it. The whole > thing comes down at once. :) Exactly! >> I found this difficult when I was living in the US for a year. It was >> super easy to go by myself to a bar, and talk to some people. It was >> impossible to get to know someone below the shallow facade. > > I observed the same. I also observed this in other cultures. For > example, the Dutch culture. I found the Americans way more honest and Ahh, the dutch! The most loathed culture in europe. They are a pain in the ass generally. Cheap, painfully direct and besserwissers. No one likes dutch people. > close than the Dutch. My hypothesis for explaining this was that the > United States offers a more trusting community; the Dutch deal with lots > of in and outflows of people from all over Europe. Europe has much more > loose frontiers, say, than the United States. I think I'm trying to say > that the United States is more homogeneous. The Dutch are more smiles > on a first encounter and the Americans less so. But beneath that the > Americans are really more friendly. Never trust a dutch guy. He'll happily stab you in the back. I trust americans infinitely more than I trust dutch people. > Other things I've noticed. The Americans easily trust what you say. > (Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.) > The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce. They are a cheap and suspicious lot. > Now, having said that, it's one thing to talk of Americans in the > Midwest, say. It's another thing to talk of Americans on the East > coast, say. The parallel I make here is between small city and big > city. It's not unusual for us to find people more friendly in small > cities. True. It is a continent, so plenty of differences between the mid west, north east and south west. > Try to ask what is it to a local on 5th Avenue, New York City. They are > not even going to look at you---you'll likely feel like a ghost. > >>>> In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence >>>> and look at their phones. Only people who know each other talk on >>>> the subway. Definitely not strangers. >>> >>> Reminds me of New York City. >> >> Maybe... I haven't been there for probably 25 year or more. I imagine that >> smartphones have infected them as they have infected almost everyone. =/ > > My observations are pre-smartphones. Before smartphones, people's faces > were buried in books on the subway. They've just replaced the book with > the phone. Same here. Or no, actually I think the first smartphones had appeared perhaps. I feel very old. ;) >> This is the truth. A very interesting phenomenon at the moment is the >> global fertility crisis. > > Are we talking about male fertility? I'm gonna follow that one very > closely. I think both actually. Not sure however. Maybe you found something? >> My bet is that it is a complex phenomenon consisting of chemicals, >> unhealthy lifestyles, shifting norms, feminism and demographics. > > I agree. It seems that way. Although I'd remove feminism if we're > talking about male fertility. But surely women is also involved in > men's everything (and /vice versa/). There's really no separation. > There never was. My thought about feminism is more about decreasing social fertility. The argument, based on my own experience and observation goes like this. Modern, european feminism is competitive by nature. It makes men and women competitors and antagonistic. Women start to dress and act as men in order to make an name for themselves in the workplace. Men, like me and many others, find this not very attractive and are turned off those women. The ones who do meet a man, end up being focused on work and not having time for children. Most, I think 90% of my acquaintances in sweden have wives from southern europe, eastern europe or south america or asia, where women are more feminine, behave like women and want to form families. This is why feminism contributes to less children being born. > There has ``always'' been a war between men and women. It's a pretty > sad one, in fact. It is---to me---much more serious than military wars. I disagree. I know many people who live in loving relationships full of harmony and respect. >> Well, what I do, to be more precise, is that when she goes to bed, we >> usually talk for half an hour or so. Then she goes to sleep, and then >> I get 2-3 hours to myself. >> >> I need time for myself and my interests, since she is not into >> technology and science fiction so the evenings I spend pursuing my >> hobbies and interests she has no interest in, so that we can do things >> we both enjoy during the days. > > Of course, it all makes perfect sense. The burden of the proof is > totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things. But > I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard. So stay alert. :) You > don't need time for yourself and your interests. That's actually false. Haha, well, this is about what I subjectively value and enjoy doing in my spare time. So you'll have a tough time trying to "prove" to something else. ;) > Time for yourself and your interests is likely a way for you to feel > like that day was worth it. But most likely the reason you feel that > way is because there's something wrong already, before that. You're > living with the assumption that you need to /have fun/ or something like > that. I disagree. I do it beause I enjoy it. Why do I enjoy it? Like Epicurus, joy is its own reason. We cannot go further than that. Why does being happy make me happy? It makes me happy. It feels good to be happy. Why happy? It feels good. That's about it. You can then of course divide happy up into content, satisfied, long term happiness and so on. So doing my own things, that bring me joy are their own reward. Since my wife does not enjoy them, I don't force her, and since she enjoys me being happy, she is happy when I do things that make me happy. The same for her. She has hobbies she enjoys, and that makes me happy even if I do not partake in them. Then we make each other happy as well. > Human life does not really require having fun. Fun is not really > something we need. There's nothing wrong with having fun. One thing I Fun, or rather happiness, is for me probably the strongest reason for existence I know. I believe that the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective and different from person to person. I do not believe science can say anything final about it, except perhaps to inform us when we select our reason for existence or grow into it. > observe in very young kids is that they need no toys. A little ant, > say, is quite a toy. But then they're given a bunch of toys. You know > those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle? Babies likely > feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine. I claim they need none > of that. In fact, that's too much stimuli. Oh, but we must make a difference between long term happiness, short term destructive happiness, and avoidance of pain. Too many toys can give short term happiness, but long term might not be for the best. I agree with you here! > You don't need your science and your interests. And I also claim that > you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you > stop pursuing them. Do your work. That's healthy. You do need to > study it. But guide yourself only by a very rational thing. If there For me, guiding myself based on what gives me joy is the rational thing to do. > is no time for your science, then there is no time for it. It's not a > bad life. A bad life is an unnatural life. We've distanced ourselves > quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive. Now we need to really > walk in a different direction in order to get out of this. I think that natural life is a happy life. I think unhappy lives are unnatural lives. >> Waking up early is physically and mentally painful for me. It is >> torture. Coffee or no coffee, I have always been a night owl. > > I was a night person as a teenager and carried that on for many years. > I never thought I'd say otherwise. But I can easily say it now. If I > were to go back in time, I wouldn't lose a single night for any > reason---except to stay with someone in the hospital, say. It's just > not worth it. Hppainess is physical disposition, which requires > impeccable health. I'm not so sure. I think positive psychology teaches us that peak physical condition is actually not necessary for happiness. Many old people, with ailing health, are way happier than young people in peak health, but with horrible life styles. >> I have been know to pay 200 USD more for plane tickets in order to not >> have to wake up before 10 in the morning. > > That's worth it. :) Amen! =D >> Now I am in the blessed situation to live +1 hour time difference from >> my main customers, so that allows me to wake up at 10:00 every day, >> and start working at around 10:05. =D > > Enjoy. :) That's also good. I am enjoying it immensely! In 4 weeks I'm off to a 2 months vacation in spain, france and sweden. I will do some _serious_ fishing! >> I remember when I was young, > > You're still young. :) Really? ;) >> I used to sleep 5-6 hours per night, > > That's little sleep. > >> to still keep my night time hobby time, while having to wake up at >> 7:30 and go to work. I shudder at the memory and hope I will make it >> to retirement age, with my current lifestyle! =) > > I'm sure you want to keep all the health you have and even recover > anything you've temporarily lost. And it's worth it! That's your best > retirement plan. Happiness is health in every sense of the word. Do > not believe the happy people who've lost their health or youth, which is > the same thing. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87zfhnsl5q.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26885 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: [...] >> Ketchup effect? Wow. I had never heard of that. I get it. The whole >> thing comes down at once. :) > > Exactly! I'm gonna smile when I get an opportunity to use that expression. :) >>> I found this difficult when I was living in the US for a year. It was >>> super easy to go by myself to a bar, and talk to some people. It was >>> impossible to get to know someone below the shallow facade. >> >> I observed the same. I also observed this in other cultures. For >> example, the Dutch culture. I found the Americans way more honest and > > Ahh, the dutch! The most loathed culture in europe. They are a pain in the ass > generally. Cheap, painfully direct and besserwissers. No one likes dutch people. Wow. That goes beyond what I meant, but I guess that gives me one more evidence to my experience. >> close than the Dutch. My hypothesis for explaining this was that the >> United States offers a more trusting community; the Dutch deal with lots >> of in and outflows of people from all over Europe. Europe has much more >> loose frontiers, say, than the United States. I think I'm trying to say >> that the United States is more homogeneous. The Dutch are more smiles >> on a first encounter and the Americans less so. But beneath that the >> Americans are really more friendly. > > Never trust a dutch guy. He'll happily stab you in the back. I trust americans > infinitely more than I trust dutch people. Interesting. >> Other things I've noticed. The Americans easily trust what you say. >> (Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.) >> The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce. > > They are a cheap and suspicious lot. All the things I said sort of implies more or less the same thing about most countries that fit more or less the reality of Holland. But I once heard that the Dutch have a history of commerce---that they were an important piece in the distribution of goods to the rest of Europe (from overseas) in, say, the 16h, 17th century and perhaps 'til recent times. I think commerce is a pretty mistrusting activity and perhaps the Dutch could be reflecting that still in their current culture. Big cities are full of people trying to scam you; it's no wonder you can give someone a 10-second attention in the tourist sides of NYC. I'd believe life in commerce is also full of delicate relationships (for lack of a better word). >>>>> In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence >>>>> and look at their phones. Only people who know each other talk on >>>>> the subway. Definitely not strangers. >>>> >>>> Reminds me of New York City. >>> >>> Maybe... I haven't been there for probably 25 year or more. I imagine that >>> smartphones have infected them as they have infected almost everyone. =/ >> >> My observations are pre-smartphones. Before smartphones, people's faces >> were buried in books on the subway. They've just replaced the book with >> the phone. > > Same here. Or no, actually I think the first smartphones had appeared perhaps. I > feel very old. ;) I read a blog post yesterday written by Lars Wirzenius. He was close to Linus Torvalds in the early days of Linux. He tells the story of some first programming experiments Linus did that led him to writing the kernel. (Experiments we do ourselves, surely.) That was back in 1990, which is pretty much yesterday. It's kind of a hint that 30 years, say, is enough time to make things quite big. If you're Linus Torvalds. But Feynman says he was an ordinary person---and he says that quite honestly. (I mean---I really believe him. Even because I'm like Freud: I observe myself and I conclude the same about everyone else! Lol. And I, too, don't find myself anything other than ordinary. And I even love that---it gives me a sense of being healthy. People who think they're less capable, for example, look quite unhealthy to me, even because I consider that obviously false.) >>> This is the truth. A very interesting phenomenon at the moment is the >>> global fertility crisis. >> >> Are we talking about male fertility? I'm gonna follow that one very >> closely. > > I think both actually. Not sure however. Maybe you found something? Yeah, I agree that we're having a fertility crisis on both sides. But I have a feeling the male fertility crisis might be much worse news---but that's just a feeling from someone who knows very little about the whole thing. >>> My bet is that it is a complex phenomenon consisting of chemicals, >>> unhealthy lifestyles, shifting norms, feminism and demographics. >> >> I agree. It seems that way. Although I'd remove feminism if we're >> talking about male fertility. But surely women is also involved in >> men's everything (and /vice versa/). There's really no separation. >> There never was. > > My thought about feminism is more about decreasing social fertility. Okay, I see now. (But I'd be much less concerned about that than physiological fertility, if you know what I mean.) I honestly don't worry much about these social aspects of feminism, although I feel very sorry for women---who are now even wishing to join this other world without getting much of any break from the previous world. And---the subject is quite complicated---but I have a certain argument that puts forth the proposition that feminism is now in vogue due to industry interests. (Both parents may be earning a salary now, but they still have the same needs as ever---so we can take a part of the money given to the man and pass it on to the woman. And ``that's wonderful''---says the industry---because now I work force that's almost the double as the previous.) > The argument, based on my own experience and observation goes like > this. Modern, european feminism is competitive by nature. It makes men > and women competitors and antagonistic. Women start to dress and act > as men in order to make an name for themselves in the workplace. > > Men, like me and many others, find this not very attractive and are turned off > those women. The ones who do meet a man, end up being focused on work and not > having time for children. > > Most, I think 90% of my acquaintances in sweden have wives from southern europe, > eastern europe or south america or asia, where women are more feminine, behave > like women and want to form families. > > This is why feminism contributes to less children being born. I hear that. I think this is real, but I think that's a more surface-real phenomenon. Deep down, I don't think women or men are too much like that. I could /try/ to compare this to the Donald Trump phenomenon. It's a bit frowned upon to support Trumpism, say, but in the privacy of one's mind, people do support him. It's frowned upon not to ``side with women'' (obviously), but in the privacy of their minds, it could be that the vast majority of women doesn't quite think that things are going pretty well in that regard. >> There has ``always'' been a war between men and women. It's a pretty >> sad one, in fact. It is---to me---much more serious than military wars. > > I disagree. I know many people who live in loving relationships full of harmony > and respect. Of course you're right. But I also think we've historically a problem there, which I'm calling a ``war'' here. And the reason I consider it pretty bad it's because it's an inner war. When men and women don't get along, that's because they're not getting along with themselves. I don't really separate men and women. I think of them as two sides of the same coin. >>> Well, what I do, to be more precise, is that when she goes to bed, we >>> usually talk for half an hour or so. Then she goes to sleep, and then >>> I get 2-3 hours to myself. >>> >>> I need time for myself and my interests, since she is not into >>> technology and science fiction so the evenings I spend pursuing my >>> hobbies and interests she has no interest in, so that we can do things >>> we both enjoy during the days. >> >> Of course, it all makes perfect sense. The burden of the proof is >> totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things. But >> I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard. So stay alert. :) You >> don't need time for yourself and your interests. That's actually false. > > Haha, well, this is about what I subjectively value and enjoy doing in my spare > time. So you'll have a tough time trying to "prove" to something else. ;) It'd be a useless attempt as well. A proof is not a unilateral thing. A common system must be set up---language, definitions, a deducting apparatus. For instance, one thing I quickly notice is our different definitions of words such as ``happiness'', ``enjoy'' and so on. So, a proof could never be means for a dispute; on the contrary, a proof of anything implies a joint work. >> Human life does not really require having fun. Fun is not really >> something we need. There's nothing wrong with having fun. One thing I > > Fun, or rather happiness, is for me probably the strongest reason for existence > I know. I believe that the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective and > different from person to person. I do not believe science can say anything final > about it, except perhaps to inform us when we select our reason for existence or > grow into it. Here in my notebook, I don't bundle ``fun'' and ``happiness''. I also don't bundle ``fun'' with ``joy'', say. It's complicated, of course. If were disputing something technical here---like a lawsuit---, a statement like ``the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective and different from person to person'' seems to easily complicate your life. I'm sure Socrates could throw into wild contradictions because of this. I'm unable to because I'm just the student, but you should see my teachers. :) (Life cannot be quite subjective. Of course people can have wild interpretations of their own, but even interpretations fall into few categories. We could call these categories ``diseases'' and then proceed to argue that people tend to have one of these few diseases, showing clearly how reality is not subjective at all.) >> observe in very young kids is that they need no toys. A little ant, >> say, is quite a toy. But then they're given a bunch of toys. You know >> those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle? Babies likely >> feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine. I claim they need none >> of that. In fact, that's too much stimuli. > > Oh, but we must make a difference between long term happiness, short term > destructive happiness, and avoidance of pain. Too many toys can give short term > happiness, but long term might not be for the best. I agree with you here! You don't agree with me. :) Here in my notebook the word ``happiness'' could not even be further qualified as you're doing it. It's not your fault, of course---I never clarified any of this. >> You don't need your science and your interests. And I also claim that >> you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you >> stop pursuing them. Do your work. That's healthy. You do need to >> study it. But guide yourself only by a very rational thing. If there > > For me, guiding myself based on what gives me joy is the rational thing to do. To translate your comment here to fit in my notebook's framework, I'd probably need to substitute ``joy'' for ``pleasure''. And it would violate one of my theorems---the pursuit of pleasure is not a rational thing to do and it's not even quite pleasurable. >> is no time for your science, then there is no time for it. It's not a >> bad life. A bad life is an unnatural life. We've distanced ourselves >> quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive. Now we need to really >> walk in a different direction in order to get out of this. > > I think that natural life is a happy life. I think unhappy lives are unnatural > lives. Now we totally agree. >>> I remember when I was young, >> >> You're still young. :) > > Really? ;) Really. :) That's what I meant with the Linus Torvalds story above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <ba8563f3-3742-f4fb-4541-3fd4582313a3@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26902 |
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Ketchup effect? Wow. I had never heard of that. I get it. The whole >>> thing comes down at once. :) >> >> Exactly! > > I'm gonna smile when I get an opportunity to use that expression. :) The latest expression I learned was "keeping up with the Joneses". You learn a lot of odd stuff of usenet and mailinglists! ;) >>> Other things I've noticed. The Americans easily trust what you say. >>> (Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.) >>> The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce. >> >> They are a cheap and suspicious lot. > > All the things I said sort of implies more or less the same thing about > most countries that fit more or less the reality of Holland. But I once > heard that the Dutch have a history of commerce---that they were an This is the truth! See the east india expansions. > important piece in the distribution of goods to the rest of Europe (from > overseas) in, say, the 16h, 17th century and perhaps 'til recent times. > I think commerce is a pretty mistrusting activity and perhaps the Dutch Depends. Business builds trust. But it does need a substrate of some kind of "basic" trust before anything can happen. That is why dictatorships and authoritarian regimes never do well in business. They are cut throat, lawless and the rule of the strong applies there. That is basically the worst possible place to do business. The more trust, the more business and the easier it is. Of course it takes time to first build some trust, then business is built in that trust, which builds more trust. > could be reflecting that still in their current culture. Big cities are > full of people trying to scam you; it's no wonder you can give someone a > 10-second attention in the tourist sides of NYC. I'd believe life in > commerce is also full of delicate relationships (for lack of a better > word). True. Big city mentality is definitely a thing! >>> I agree. It seems that way. Although I'd remove feminism if we're >>> talking about male fertility. But surely women is also involved in >>> men's everything (and /vice versa/). There's really no separation. >>> There never was. >> >> My thought about feminism is more about decreasing social fertility. > > Okay, I see now. (But I'd be much less concerned about that than > physiological fertility, if you know what I mean.) Yes, that makes sense. > I honestly don't worry much about these social aspects of feminism, > although I feel very sorry for women---who are now even wishing to join > this other world without getting much of any break from the previous > world. And---the subject is quite complicated---but I have a certain > argument that puts forth the proposition that feminism is now in vogue > due to industry interests. (Both parents may be earning a salary now, > but they still have the same needs as ever---so we can take a part of > the money given to the man and pass it on to the woman. And ``that's > wonderful''---says the industry---because now I work force that's almost > the double as the previous.) I heard the other day the theory that the rich created feminism in order to increase the number of consumers, and the government happily agreed in order to be able to tax the other half of the population! >> The argument, based on my own experience and observation goes like >> this. Modern, european feminism is competitive by nature. It makes men >> and women competitors and antagonistic. Women start to dress and act >> as men in order to make an name for themselves in the workplace. >> >> Men, like me and many others, find this not very attractive and are turned off >> those women. The ones who do meet a man, end up being focused on work and not >> having time for children. >> >> Most, I think 90% of my acquaintances in sweden have wives from southern europe, >> eastern europe or south america or asia, where women are more feminine, behave >> like women and want to form families. >> >> This is why feminism contributes to less children being born. > > I hear that. I think this is real, but I think that's a more > surface-real phenomenon. Deep down, I don't think women or men are too > much like that. I could /try/ to compare this to the Donald Trump > phenomenon. It's a bit frowned upon to support Trumpism, say, but in > the privacy of one's mind, people do support him. It's frowned upon not > to ``side with women'' (obviously), but in the privacy of their minds, > it could be that the vast majority of women doesn't quite think that > things are going pretty well in that regard. Could very well be. The problem with the privacy of the mind, type of arguments is that it is difficult to prove anything. >>> There has ``always'' been a war between men and women. It's a pretty >>> sad one, in fact. It is---to me---much more serious than military wars. >> >> I disagree. I know many people who live in loving relationships full of harmony >> and respect. > > Of course you're right. But I also think we've historically a problem > there, which I'm calling a ``war'' here. And the reason I consider it > pretty bad it's because it's an inner war. When men and women don't get > along, that's because they're not getting along with themselves. Interesting. Could you give an example? > I don't really separate men and women. I think of them as two sides of > the same coin. I think of them as individuals. The logical end point of "woke" when they realise that all groups eventually boil down to unique individuals. Welcome to libertarianism! =D >>> Of course, it all makes perfect sense. The burden of the proof is >>> totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things. But >>> I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard. So stay alert. :) You >>> don't need time for yourself and your interests. That's actually false. >> >> Haha, well, this is about what I subjectively value and enjoy doing in my spare >> time. So you'll have a tough time trying to "prove" to something else. ;) > > It'd be a useless attempt as well. A proof is not a unilateral thing. > A common system must be set up---language, definitions, a deducting > apparatus. For instance, one thing I quickly notice is our different > definitions of words such as ``happiness'', ``enjoy'' and so on. True. This is a common culprit. When I say happy, I tend to mean long term contentment. When most people hear me, they tend to hear hedonism. > So, a proof could never be means for a dispute; on the contrary, a proof > of anything implies a joint work. True. >>> Human life does not really require having fun. Fun is not really >>> something we need. There's nothing wrong with having fun. One thing I >> >> Fun, or rather happiness, is for me probably the strongest reason for existence >> I know. I believe that the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective and >> different from person to person. I do not believe science can say anything final >> about it, except perhaps to inform us when we select our reason for existence or >> grow into it. > > Here in my notebook, I don't bundle ``fun'' and ``happiness''. I also > don't bundle ``fun'' with ``joy'', say. It's complicated, of course. Yes. > If were disputing something technical here---like a lawsuit---, a > statement like ``the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective > and different from person to person'' seems to easily complicate your > life. I'm sure Socrates could throw into wild contradictions because of > this. I'm unable to because I'm just the student, but you should see my Complicate? How come? To me it is one of the most liberating realizations of my life. =) For me it is I guess an honest life, a life where you think through your values and goals, and then strive to realize them and maximize the amount of long term happiness you can get. > teachers. :) (Life cannot be quite subjective. Of course people can > have wild interpretations of their own, but even interpretations fall > into few categories. We could call these categories ``diseases'' and > then proceed to argue that people tend to have one of these few > diseases, showing clearly how reality is not subjective at all.) Oh, this might get complicated. Lived life, as in my subjective experience, I would argue, can never become objectively analyzed, since it is impossible for descriptive science to "get" what it's like to be the subjective me. Life, descriptive, external, life, as understood by science, can definitely be categorized and analyzed. In terms of happiness, you can go so far as positive psychology and statistically analyze "happy" people and draw conclusions about what life factors tend to contribute to their happiness. So science can be used as a tool to inform your values. But at the end of the day, science is descriptive, and our values tend to be normative and subjective, and many (but not all) argue that you cannot derive an ought from an is. When choosing values, you can always ask "why", and that is what (among some) keeps philosophy relevant and alive today. >>> observe in very young kids is that they need no toys. A little ant, >>> say, is quite a toy. But then they're given a bunch of toys. You know >>> those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle? Babies likely >>> feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine. I claim they need none >>> of that. In fact, that's too much stimuli. >> >> Oh, but we must make a difference between long term happiness, short term >> destructive happiness, and avoidance of pain. Too many toys can give short term >> happiness, but long term might not be for the best. I agree with you here! > > You don't agree with me. :) Here in my notebook the word ``happiness'' > could not even be further qualified as you're doing it. It's not your > fault, of course---I never clarified any of this. As you said above... our definitions probably differ, which would lead us to talking in circles. What are your values and goals in life? Why don't you strive for happiness? Tell me! =) >>> You don't need your science and your interests. And I also claim that >>> you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you >>> stop pursuing them. Do your work. That's healthy. You do need to >>> study it. But guide yourself only by a very rational thing. If there >> >> For me, guiding myself based on what gives me joy is the rational thing to do. > > To translate your comment here to fit in my notebook's framework, I'd > probably need to substitute ``joy'' for ``pleasure''. And it would > violate one of my theorems---the pursuit of pleasure is not a rational > thing to do and it's not even quite pleasurable. Why not? And what is the rational thing to do according to you? And how did you reach that conclusion? >>> is no time for your science, then there is no time for it. It's not a >>> bad life. A bad life is an unnatural life. We've distanced ourselves >>> quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive. Now we need to really >>> walk in a different direction in order to get out of this. >> >> I think that natural life is a happy life. I think unhappy lives are unnatural >> lives. > > Now we totally agree. Amen! =) But the problem is then to define "natural". ;) And why is the natural good? Isn't that a value statement that we cannot answer by science? >>>> I remember when I was young, >>> >>> You're still young. :) >> >> Really? ;) > > Really. :) That's what I meant with the Linus Torvalds story above. Ahh... got it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87r02wickq.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26909 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>
>>>> Ketchup effect? Wow. I had never heard of that. I get it. The whole
>>>> thing comes down at once. :)
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>
>> I'm gonna smile when I get an opportunity to use that expression. :)
>
> The latest expression I learned was "keeping up with the Joneses".
Why "Joneses"?
> You learn a lot of odd stuff of usenet and mailinglists! ;)
Indeed. I often recommend it to people who study a foreign language.
Writing it each day is a very efficient way to get the language into
your memory. With the tools we have now, it's even pure joy. But, you
know, so far, I've never seen *anybody* following my advice in this
matter. (I've been making this recommendation for some two decades.)
>>>> Other things I've noticed. The Americans easily trust what you say.
>>>> (Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.)
>>>> The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce.
>>>
>>> They are a cheap and suspicious lot.
>>
>> All the things I said sort of implies more or less the same thing about
>> most countries that fit more or less the reality of Holland. But I once
>> heard that the Dutch have a history of commerce---that they were an
>
> This is the truth! See the east india expansions.
Yeah.
>> important piece in the distribution of goods to the rest of Europe (from
>> overseas) in, say, the 16h, 17th century and perhaps 'til recent times.
>> I think commerce is a pretty mistrusting activity and perhaps the Dutch
>
> Depends. Business builds trust. But it does need a substrate of some
> kind of "basic" trust before anything can happen. That is why
> dictatorships and authoritarian regimes never do well in
> business. They are cut throat, lawless and the rule of the strong
> applies there. That is basically the worst possible place to do
> business.
>
> The more trust, the more business and the easier it is. Of course it
> takes time to first build some trust, then business is built in that
> trust, which builds more trust.
Makes perfect sense.
>> I honestly don't worry much about these social aspects of feminism,
>> although I feel very sorry for women---who are now even wishing to join
>> this other world without getting much of any break from the previous
>> world. And---the subject is quite complicated---but I have a certain
>> argument that puts forth the proposition that feminism is now in vogue
>> due to industry interests. (Both parents may be earning a salary now,
>> but they still have the same needs as ever---so we can take a part of
>> the money given to the man and pass it on to the woman. And ``that's
>> wonderful''---says the industry---because now I work force that's almost
>> the double as the previous.)
>
> I heard the other day the theory that the rich created feminism in
> order to increase the number of consumers, and the government happily
> agreed in order to be able to tax the other half of the population!
I wouldn't quite say the rich *created* feminism. But, surely, like
every agent would do, when they see something (that they didn't create)
can help them in their quest, they use it. Obviously. Rulers often
look into philosophy, say, as an accomplice.
>>> The argument, based on my own experience and observation goes like
>>> this. Modern, european feminism is competitive by nature. It makes men
>>> and women competitors and antagonistic. Women start to dress and act
>>> as men in order to make an name for themselves in the workplace.
>>>
>>> Men, like me and many others, find this not very attractive and are
>>> turned off
>>> those women. The ones who do meet a man, end up being focused on work and not
>>> having time for children.
>>>
>>> Most, I think 90% of my acquaintances in sweden have wives from
>>> southern europe,
>>> eastern europe or south america or asia, where women are more
>>> feminine, behave
>>> like women and want to form families.
>>>
>>> This is why feminism contributes to less children being born.
What is your USENET client or text editors? Look above---your client or
text editor almost does what's called ``embarrassing line wrap''. It's
quite it because it doesn't mess up quote attribution, but it doesn't
know how to fill the paragraph properly. Perhaps your client could
invoke the GNU EMACS so that you can handle this with the GNU EMACS (or
vim). But your client must leave the message alone after you're done.
I think you use alpine, right? Can it do a better job?
(I often fix your quotes, but I won't fix it this time to let you see it
clearly.)
>> I hear that. I think this is real, but I think that's a more
>> surface-real phenomenon. Deep down, I don't think women or men are too
>> much like that. I could /try/ to compare this to the Donald Trump
>> phenomenon. It's a bit frowned upon to support Trumpism, say, but in
>> the privacy of one's mind, people do support him. It's frowned upon not
>> to ``side with women'' (obviously), but in the privacy of their minds,
>> it could be that the vast majority of women doesn't quite think that
>> things are going pretty well in that regard.
>
> Could very well be. The problem with the privacy of the mind, type of arguments
> is that it is difficult to prove anything.
Proving anything is quite useless for regular people. Proving is useful
in math, less in science and that's just about it, I think. (By the
way, when I see people saying things like ``scientifically proven'',
they have no idea what they're talking about.)
>>>> There has ``always'' been a war between men and women. It's a pretty
>>>> sad one, in fact. It is---to me---much more serious than military wars.
>>>
>>> I disagree. I know many people who live in loving relationships full
>>> of harmony and respect.
>>
>> Of course you're right. But I also think we've historically a problem
>> there, which I'm calling a ``war'' here. And the reason I consider it
>> pretty bad it's because it's an inner war. When men and women don't get
>> along, that's because they're not getting along with themselves.
>
> Interesting. Could you give an example?
Can we begin with women in some Arab cultures? Some don't even let them
drive. Doesn't this suggest a certain battle between the sexes?
But let's look at our own culture. Here's a true story. I have a
friend who is considered very sweet and polite by everyone who meets
him. He tells me about all of his dates and girlfriends and whatever.
I never told him because I don't even think he would understand it, but
he objectifies women quite clearly (to me). For instance, he was
chatting with a girl on an app some time ago and they were talking about
meeting up. The girl was a bit unstable with the commitment to meeting
in person and he was losing a bit of patience; another girl came up and
agreed to meet him. As he was telling me the story, he made remarks
such to the effect of---whatever; I get the problem solved.
In other words, he is looking for services; if one company doesn't
satisfy him; he goes with another and that's it. What looks like
someone's impatience with people's complications might actually be
hiding a certain outlook on life, which I call materialism. He can't
see that he's getting involved with people. His outlook is not that of
someone who sees oneself intertwined with everybody else. He seems
himself quite separate from everybody else.
While people often remark how polite and sweet he is---and I like him
too---, I actually say that he has a health problem that makes him quite
insensitive. Who is suffering the most? Himself. His insensibility,
for example, blinds him even to his own nutrition. He's losing his
health slowly year after year.
What about women? Same thing. People are very insensitive because
their sensors are all turned off or broken. (And the mystery goes away
when watch them closely: nearly everyone is drugging themselves daily
with coffee, processed foods, medicine and all the rest of it.)
And that's the case with the most of the world.
Oh, here's an example from today. Today I woke up with my neighbor
having a little party in his house early morning---that means it
probably started a night out. He lives in his house with his wife. His
wife was not in this party. It was actually a two-couple party.
Believe it or not, my bedroom faces his pool directly. (Not much
privacy for sure.) I got up, saw what was going on and did not even
open my window to give him a bit of privacy in his little party.
Chatting went on for a while and then suddenly silence. So I looked and
then his friend was likely inside the house and he was having sex in the
pool.
And that's the second time I spot something. The first was months ago
in a similar situation. Night out followed by coming home with some new
friends. This time the girl was actually cute and perhaps didn't sleep
with him, but he seemed to enjoy kissing her.
I figure he thinks he's enjoying life, but I actually think he doesn't
like his wife at all. So why are they together? There are no paradoxes
in this world. There's some business going on; there is a contract
there. His wife must be getting something from the deal and he's
getting something else.
That's not affection.
Where does this come from? I don't know the beginning of it all, but
surely this goes back to thousands of years. Recently, I learned that
archaeologists discovered human civilizations in the tropical forests
150,000 years ago. Was men and women at war back then? I don't know,
but I would easily guess so. I think the problem goes way back.
The reason men and women live such disputes is that each of us is living
this war with oneself.
The inner is the outer.
What my neighbor does to his wife is the same thing he does to himself:
he has no respect for his own sleeping; his drinking is definitely
killing him; the food he eats and the eating schedule is all perfectly
messed up. How could he care for his wife if he doesn't care at all
about him? He cannot care for anything in the outside if he doesn't
know what's care from the inside. There are no paradoxes in this world.
I don't think his wife cares much more about him either. They often
throw parties here. How do I know? She doesn't care much for
herself---but I'll spare you the details.
Hey, I got to go to bed.
>> I don't really separate men and women. I think of them as two sides of
>> the same coin.
>
> I think of them as individuals.
I know. But we are not individuals. Even evolutionary biologists are
getting there already [1].
> The logical end point of "woke" when they realise that all groups
> eventually boil down to unique individuals. Welcome to libertarianism!
> =D
You lost me there.
Today I read for the first time the essay called ``Politics and the
English Language''. I thought I was reading a blog post from last year
or something. At the end of the essay, I saw the author's name and the
date of 1946. I was so amazed! :) I felt so current, so relevant. That
author was George Orwell.
I always had a certain feeling for the what the essay says. But now I
can actually cite the essay instead of trying to verbalize my own
account of things, which I never did (in a essay, say).
Lola---all of this to say ``let's not use words such as libertarianism''.
Even because I have no idea what it means. Even if I had an idea, I
would have no idea what *you* mean by it. They end up useless.
The same is happening to way too many words.
>>>> Of course, it all makes perfect sense. The burden of the proof is
>>>> totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things. But
>>>> I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard. So stay alert. :) You
>>>> don't need time for yourself and your interests. That's actually false.
>>>
>>> Haha, well, this is about what I subjectively value and enjoy doing
>>> in my spare time. So you'll have a tough time trying to "prove" to
>>> something else. ;)
>>
>> It'd be a useless attempt as well. A proof is not a unilateral thing.
>> A common system must be set up---language, definitions, a deducting
>> apparatus. For instance, one thing I quickly notice is our different
>> definitions of words such as ``happiness'', ``enjoy'' and so on.
>
> True. This is a common culprit. When I say happy, I tend to mean long
> term contentment. When most people hear me, they tend to hear
> hedonism.
When you say that happiness is long term contentment, I wonder what long
term contentment is. :) (But surely you don't have to answer that.)
>> If were disputing something technical here---like a lawsuit---, a
>> statement like ``the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective
>> and different from person to person'' seems to easily complicate your
>> life. I'm sure Socrates could throw into wild contradictions because of
>> this. I'm unable to because I'm just the student, but you should see my
>
> Complicate? How come? To me it is one of the most liberating realizations of my
> life. =) For me it is I guess an honest life, a life where you think through
> your values and goals, and then strive to realize them and maximize the amount
> of long term happiness you can get.
An expert could likely complicate your life by trying to show that it's
either false or meaningless. (Don't ask me to do it---I'm just the
student.) They could attack ``reason for one's existence'' as
meaningless and they could certainly attack ``subjective'' by claiming
that the vast majority of the world is quite objective.
>> teachers. :) (Life cannot be quite subjective. Of course people can
>> have wild interpretations of their own, but even interpretations fall
>> into few categories. We could call these categories ``diseases'' and
>> then proceed to argue that people tend to have one of these few
>> diseases, showing clearly how reality is not subjective at all.)
>
> Oh, this might get complicated. Lived life, as in my subjective experience, I
> would argue, can never become objectively analyzed, since it is impossible for
> descriptive science to "get" what it's like to be the subjective me.
To your content perhaps, but people can infer what's in you by looking
from the outside. The inner /is/ the outer. You're a human being.
Everybody else knows what's like to be a human being.
You can deny it all 'til the end of times.
> Life, descriptive, external, life, as understood by science, can definitely be
> categorized and analyzed. In terms of happiness, you can go so far as positive
> psychology and statistically analyze "happy" people and draw conclusions about
> what life factors tend to contribute to their happiness.
Freud observed himself and made conclusions that apply to everyone else.
Like everyone else, he perhaps made mistakes in the fine details of
things, but he also made huge contributions---from a unitary sample
space.
>>>> observe in very young kids is that they need no toys. A little ant,
>>>> say, is quite a toy. But then they're given a bunch of toys. You know
>>>> those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle? Babies likely
>>>> feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine. I claim they need none
>>>> of that. In fact, that's too much stimuli.
>>>
>>> Oh, but we must make a difference between long term happiness, short term
>>> destructive happiness, and avoidance of pain. Too many toys can
>>> give short term
>>> happiness, but long term might not be for the best. I agree with you here!
>>
>> You don't agree with me. :) Here in my notebook the word ``happiness''
>> could not even be further qualified as you're doing it. It's not your
>> fault, of course---I never clarified any of this.
>
> As you said above... our definitions probably differ, which would lead us to
> talking in circles. What are your values and goals in life? Why don't you strive
> for happiness? Tell me! =)
In my notebook, if you ``strive'', you've already lost a bit of your
health---meaning you're not happy.
Happiness is what I value the most because health is what I value the
most. My happiness has increased considerably because (over the years)
I've recovered a lot of health I had been losing year after year. I've
spent countless nights awake having ``fun'', for example.
In my notebook, I have no values and no goals, which is all very
liberating. I've had lots of them. They were no good.
What I do each day is the right thing. What's to do the right thing?
Impossible to tell because I don't have a method to say what it is. I
know only what the right thing is when the moment of doing it arrives
and I see only a single possible thing to do---the adequate one.
People often ask me---what would you do in that situation? The answer
is always---I don't know. I might know *then*, but certainly not now.
``Oh, come on; please answer it.'' I could give you an answer, even a
serious one; but the fact is that I really only know what I'm going to
really do at the moment I'm doing. (Humorously, if you want to play
around with fiction, I can come up with lots of answers for you.)
This is also very liberating. I make no choices anymore. I only need
to wait, but the wait is not a passive sitting around; the wait is work,
but it's a work with no striving; it's a work in attention, which is not
concentration. This way I have never been happier.
>>>> You don't need your science and your interests. And I also claim that
>>>> you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you
>>>> stop pursuing them. Do your work. That's healthy. You do need to
>>>> study it. But guide yourself only by a very rational thing. If there
>>>
>>> For me, guiding myself based on what gives me joy is the rational
>>> thing to do.
>>
>> To translate your comment here to fit in my notebook's framework, I'd
>> probably need to substitute ``joy'' for ``pleasure''. And it would
>> violate one of my theorems---the pursuit of pleasure is not a rational
>> thing to do and it's not even quite pleasurable.
>
> Why not? And what is the rational thing to do according to you? And how did you
> reach that conclusion?
The destination of every pursuit of pleasure is actually displeasure.
For instance, you have a little coffee and tastes wonderful---pleasure.
Well, then you have another; then another; soon, even the taste isn't
that good anymore---displeasure. The rational thing to do is to listen
closely. You might like a little coffee or a little cocaine or
whatever; but you also do like to stay healthy and rational, so you need
to listen closely to see everything of relevance there is. Drinking
coffee may be pleasurable, but so is sleeping.
>>>> is no time for your science, then there is no time for it. It's not a
>>>> bad life. A bad life is an unnatural life. We've distanced ourselves
>>>> quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive. Now we need to really
>>>> walk in a different direction in order to get out of this.
>>>
>>> I think that natural life is a happy life. I think unhappy lives are
>>> unnatural lives.
>>
>> Now we totally agree.
>
> Amen! =) But the problem is then to define "natural". ;)
Quite right. :)
> And why is the natural good? Isn't that a value statement that we
> cannot answer by science?
Oh, I think that's easy. The natural is good because bad, by
definition, is anything that lost equilibrium. Why does sugar taste
good? Because it is actually good. You developed your taste through
zillions of years: it was made to feel good when the thing is good for
you. If you have too much of it, it will feel bad and the bad feeling
will push you to come back to equilibrium.
Nature is the current stability of things. Interfere with that
stability and you're off of the natural course of things. If the
interference is small, things naturally come back to their equilibrium
(as the system is ``designed'' [if I may] to do that---you can remove
the word ``designed'' but it is a fact that the behavior is to come back
to the equilibrium); if the interference is big and the equilibrium
isn't restored quickly enough, things break.
So the smart thing is to look closely and see what is the equilibrium so
that you can let it be restored when you lose it.
Watch yourself at work: you'll get tired and you're tired you then work
a little more---losing the equilibrium. It's a little bit, so it's
quite unnoticeable until decades later. (And you do this little bit of
this sin against nature precisely because you're already a bit sick.
Your sickness makes you more sick. A natural thing is all quite
balanced: tired, rest; rested, move.)
>>>>> I remember when I was young,
>>>>
>>>> You're still young. :)
>>>
>>> Really? ;)
>>
>> Really. :) That's what I meant with the Linus Torvalds story above.
>
> Ahh... got it!
And you can get younger. Physiological age goes both ways---forward and
backward.
(*) Footnotes
[1] A Radical New Proposal For How Mind Emerges From Matter
https://www.noemamag.com/a-radical-new-proposal-for-how-mind-emerges-from-matter/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web