jhiska

6 ms·

1.
by jhiska 9y ago
Another way to see it is the Internet was supposed to make sharing what one understood as truth easier; instead, what it did was democratize Chomsky's propaganda model by making entry into becoming the media much cheaper; the Internet-
2.
by jhiska 9y ago
In meat sports, if someone has a legitimate use for a stimulant then they are barred from competition nevertheless. In practice, this is better than someone getting the edge because of a medical condition.
3.
by jhiska 9y ago
So much for the lie that Trump would "end big gov". More like end having a sustainable budget.
4.
by jhiska 9y ago
Buzzword-heavy, dreamy-optimistic speculation on how the Internet might change. What's the author's interest in this pitch?
5.
by jhiska 9y ago
It's not a sonic attack (experts agree), but it's very likely not mass hysteria either (an unproved speculation from a medical doctor not involved in the investigation). More research is needed (and not by journalists looking to c
6.
by jhiska 9y ago
It's not "interesting" because the media industries have been doing this everyday for at least 2 centuries. Maybe more interesting is how people keep getting amnesiac about this. We can attribute any of it to "the Intern
7.
by jhiska 9y ago
Because what works in animal studies doesn't often work in humans. This is why you hear about a novel cure for cancer in the news every month -- it's always animal studies. If you want something to get your hopes up, look for stuf
8.
by jhiska 9y ago
Whenever you hear about amazing breakthroughs in medicine, look to see if it is an animal study. Those usually do not translate into results in humans. Do not get your hopes up just yet.
9.
by jhiska 9y ago
Is Bitcoin a currency?
10.
by jhiska 9y ago
It's a calming, reassuring article about something that will destroy people's lives and societies in unpredictable ways and disrupt the balance of power for worse. At least there's always the soothing "solution" of
11.
by jhiska 9y ago
None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.
12.
by jhiska 9y ago
Like Slashdot and Reddit, once Hacker News became influential enough it was taken over by political actors. It makes sense from a political actor's point of view to push their message on whatever platform reaches the most influential p
13.
by jhiska 9y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. One can argue that both almonds and cannabis take a harmful share of water in drought-prone areas and that both will be controlled.
14.
by jhiska 9y ago
This story again? This is bananas!
15.
by jhiska 9y ago
All in all, from a certain perspective it's a nice list, but keep a critical mind while reading it because the author sometimes seeks to rewrite the terms used to advance his own views on what is valid and what isn't.
16.
by jhiska 9y ago
>Is it possible that people who learn or do something focussedly over a long stretch of time (practice music 4 hours a day) show larger development over those same areas than the average distracted person? It's more than possible --
17.
by jhiska 9y ago
>Although this initial research, focused on intergroup comparison of brain structure, could not directly address the Sanskrit effect question (that requires detailed functional studies with cross-language memorization comparisons, for wh
18.
by jhiska 9y ago
>How about creating a new aphorism [based on Hanlon's razor]? The whole enterprise is sabotaged by the simple fact that the logical foundation behind that aphorism can be bluntly, but better, summed as: "Choose the most adequat
19.
by jhiska 9y ago
The keyword in the rule of thumb known as Occam's razor is neither that the explanations be simple or complex, but that they be adequate to a knowledgeable person, and that given two (or more) highly adequate explanations -- one simple
20.
by jhiska 9y ago
Ah, yes; the Russian defense. I know it well. How did it go? "The hard-coded backdoor that was found can't be a hard-coded backdoor, because Western Digital would never be so crass and incompetent as to put a hard-coded backdoor h
21.
by jhiska 9y ago
I am more aware than you might think, but not as worried about what can be stolen in a few hundred pages as what can be stolen in hundreds of thousands of documents. I'm also not enthusiastic about how it's more secure from govern
22.
by jhiska 9y ago
Or just use pen and paper. It's an easier tech for Joe Dilbert and easier for them to understand how to keep it secure.
23.
by jhiska 9y ago
Yes. Want my job?
24.
by jhiska 9y ago
Because you can't easily get away with several million documents in your trenchcoat. A data breach would be catastrophic for us. We lose less money this way.
25.
by jhiska 9y ago
Oh, god. At this point I no longer trust ANY computer for mission-critical business at my company. We're going back to pen and paper. The extra safety makes the hassle worth it.
26.
by jhiska 9y ago
So... I read the article and I still don't know what, exactly, is the T2 chip or what, exactly, makes it different from other ARM / Intel hybrids, other than several different ways of expressing "it's incredibly, totally
27.
by jhiska 9y ago
>If the NSA is going to spy on us, wouldn't you like that to be as secure as possible? I'd rather those perverts not peep on us; this isn't an unreasonable request.
28.
by jhiska 9y ago
Humans are liars; systems are dehumanizing. More precisely, humans are interested in preserving themselves, including their ego and social standing. One example of this is when we say "humans are liars" we are not thinking of ours
29.
by jhiska 9y ago
>Tinder doesn't supply any statistics or analytics about member usage so I had to collect this data myself. The most important data I needed was the percent of men that these females tended to “like”. I collected this data by interv
30.
by jhiska 9y ago
It's a politically-charged selection from the data and was quoted out of full context on a non-scientific, mass-appeal paper. A lot of things are possible. Maybe Trump supporters are more likely to harass or maybe they surprisingly are

More ›