zorga

6 ms·

1.
by zorga 8y ago
> Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault. Yes they are. > The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted. Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainl
2.
by zorga 8y ago
Look in the mirror, running around calling people juvenile is juvenile. I understand addiction just fine, addictions can be broken: that is a fact; you can break your body of any such dependency and that you can, means it's your respon
3.
by zorga 8y ago
You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself. Want to break a sugar addict
4.
by zorga 8y ago
I fail to see it's remotely related.
5.
by zorga 8y ago
> This implies you don't understand what privilege is. It's very literal. There is no blame in having it. It's not an "us vs. them" thing. And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very polit
6.
by zorga 8y ago
The desire is generally for high availability now and ability to scale out in the future; while a single write db is generally more than enough performance wise, it doesn't give you high availability which is the main desire.
7.
by zorga 8y ago
There's nothing you can do to eliminate the high speed trading case short of outlawing automated trading. As long as computers can trade, they'll compete on speed and nothing you do can prevent that. You could forcibly slow down
8.
by zorga 8y ago
In theory yes (Einstein) though we know this theory is wrong at the small scale so in reality probably not given what we know of quantum mechanics.
9.
by zorga 8y ago
70% is extremely high, you can easily get rich with a 51% advantage and making enough small bets to invoke the law of large numbers.
10.
by zorga 8y ago
Absolutely not. > It doesn't matter how you got that information. Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.
11.
by zorga 8y ago
Roman numerals still presume you're playing on a harmonized scale in a key; not all music fits that as many rock musicians don't know what a key is and pick chords randomly by sound, not by knowing anything about music theory.
12.
by zorga 8y ago
I always thought of diatonic as playing within a harmonized major/minor scale, even if you change keys. What I'm talking about is music that doesn't obey the rules at all, doesn't have a key, doesn't change keys, i
13.
by zorga 8y ago
Assuming they remain diatonic, much music doesn't.
14.
by zorga 8y ago
Which OS? There are many, which is why they won't.
15.
by zorga 8y ago
> Life is everything. No it isn't, a rock is not alive. > Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication. > Why w
16.
by zorga 8y ago
If you can see it for even a fraction of a second, you do have a minds eye; those with aphantasia can't see anything at all for any length of time. If you can see anything at all, you can improve that with practice.
17.
by zorga 8y ago
That would only work for songs that always stay in key, many don't. Normalizing to C is a better approach.
18.
by zorga 8y ago
Was there something about ropes, ladders, and shovels that wasn't clear? Wall's can't stop someone determined to get over/under it; security doesn't come from a wall, it comes from boots on the ground. It's no
19.
by zorga 8y ago
> How do you know that being a business leader or politician doesn't induce psychopathy? Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made.
20.
by zorga 8y ago
> Trump is asking for less than 1/1000 of our annual budget for border security. No, he's asking for it for a wall, not for border security; wall's are't security, they're security theater. Actual security requir
21.
by zorga 8y ago
Not in this country.
22.
by zorga 8y ago
A business has no responsibility to financially support an ex-employee. If it does so, it's a gift, not something that should be expected.
23.
by zorga 8y ago
> Incentive to live is different from incentive to work. Incentive to live is the primary but not only incentive to work. Wealth is what you need when you're trying to survive, only after that's achieved do other incentives ma
24.
by zorga 8y ago
> There's so much more to it than 'people producing wealth'. That's pretty much going away - almost all manufacturing is already automated, and the rest will soon be so. That's not going away, automation doesn&#x
25.
by zorga 8y ago
> Not entitled to life? We owe someone else and the only form of payment for most is to produce wealth for others? There's no other way to organize an over-abundance of basic, life-sustaining resources for the common good? You have
26.
by zorga 8y ago
It's not "my" programming, it's the reality of the world. You've haven't offered any alternative because there isn't one. I'm really trying to understand you here, but you're not offering anyth
27.
by zorga 8y ago
Working == income. You need to stop being so pedantic that you actually think you're saying anything different than me, you're not.
28.
by zorga 8y ago
> The universe is rarely best described by boolean logic. All models are wrong, some are useful, boolean logic built the modern world. It's a damn useful model most of the time. > There are other options that are currently not fe
29.
by zorga 8y ago
> You're still speaking in terms of our current system being the product of some immutable natural law of the universe. Because it is. Your entire response is so strikingly naive one has to wonder how old you are. > The very id
30.
by zorga 8y ago
And where do you find clients with one off needs like that?

More ›