Your solution is useless for all but the 10% most tech literate users. And also involves carrying around a veritable toolkit of adapters and multiple cables.
But it's still far far more accessible with way less effort & burden than what came before. Functionality comes easier, cheaper, with less weight & more functionality. It is a new domain of knoweldge & understanding than the old ways buts it's better, easier, lower cost & more accessible.
The obviousness speaks for itself & re-defines the antiquated literacy of before.
Eventually the adapters ought go away. Beacuse every peripheral ought, if they give any cares, have a usb-c port. You can do whatever else might help. But do the good thing: have a usb-c lort that works on you device. You should. You should free us from legacy adapters.
I see this response a lot. It's a cop out and deflection. Sure, it's always been political. But there are times when the politics of science has hued much more closely to the pursuit of truth than it currently does. It's not hard to see why when modern, powerful political movements say that "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" or of the "patriarchy." Such positions would have been laughed out of the room in 1980 but now they are widely held within the academy.
> modern, powerful political movements say that "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" or of the "patriarchy."
The statement "objectivity is a tool of white supremacy" is generally used to refer to asserting confidently objective truth exists, which is more of a philosophical statement than a refutation of the scientific method like it's often framed.
The use of perceived objectivity to enforce linear thinking and silence people who react emotionally is why this comes up in the literature you're referring to. You wouldn't tell someone crying at the death of a loved one that crying isn't an objective response to the situation at hand, but this happens in many ways ("why are you so upset about X behavior from a colleague? -> you are behaving irrationally" rather than trying to understand why someone was upset, and knowing everyone reacts to things differently)
> to enforce linear thinking and silence people who react emotionally is why this comes up in the literature you're referring to. You wouldn't tell someone crying at the death of a loved one that crying isn't an objective response to the situation at hand, but this happens in many ways ("why are you so upset about X behavior from a colleague? -> you are behaving irrationally" rather than trying to understand why someone was upset, and knowing everyone reacts to things differently)
This is a topic on science and the example about someone crying over someone's death is a strange example.
It's clear that if it wants to be called "science" then it has to have what you call linear (vs circular?) thinking. And yes there is an objective truth as far as what experience can measure.
Saying "everyone reacts to things differently" is a truism. Then what? As everyone reacts differently, the logical result is to IGNORE the emotional/irrational part of people when we deal about science/technology. As simple as that.
> the logical result is to IGNORE the emotional/irrational part of people when we deal about science/technology. As simple as that.
I don't read it quite this like. “science” concepts still have emotional impacts on people, especially when many things outside "hard" science get framed as science — think about all the management advice that gets passed around as objective fact (that also changes every few years, oops!).
it's not arguing about the truth of how many electrons are in a carbon atom, it's your boss arguing that they have a "scientifically proven" management philosophy that is objective. would you believe someone if they said that? even if they showed you a study?
Methinks you need to read more papers from the 1980s. I keep Susan Bordo's The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought in my back pocket when people try this argument. It was published in 1986. Try again.
Yeah, the work stuff really took off during that decade. Probably a function of the 60s and 70s student terrorists/protestors becoming a significant portion of tenured professors finally.
So it both wouldn't fly in the 1980s and then also really took off in the 1980s? I guess we're just sorta freewheeling with whatever we want to say then? Cool.
I said in 1980 not the 1980s. And this stuff started as a minority viewpoint inside a small corner of the academy. It took many years to blossom into what it is now. People have always been writing stupid things.
Native Americans are allowed to operate casinos on their land, state laws to the contrary be damned. So if there's an Indian reservation near your cities, banning gambling is a waste of time and just gives the Indians a monopoly. Might as well make some of the money yourself.
The first part of the article is basically “I’m sorry, so sorry, that I’m about to say something online cosmopolitan types won’t like, please, I’m so sorry, I promise I don’t mean it like that, I’m sorry, I promise I am not saying that, did I mention that I’m sorry”.
This is what it’s like to share ideas under your real name in modern America.
> This is what it’s like to share ideas under your real name in modern America.
Pretty much all Tesla buyers, when complaining about their car, says "I love the car but". Even if you're anonymous, you need to pay lip service to your groups online, otherwise the online mob well... mobs you.
Its just the internet. In real life, we use subtle clues, like hair-cuts, styles, tattoos, clothing, to differentiate ourselves and indicate our viewpoints / set expectations.
Here on the internet, we only have words to set expectations. "I love the car but" says "I'm a fan of Tesla, don't hate me too badly".
"I like public transportation and live in a city but..." and other such indicators are just real-life emotions seeping into the discussion. As it should be. Its how humans act and its probably best if we accepted it rather than pretended we were unemotional, perfectly rational beings typing away on a keyboard over here.
The vi vs emacs flamewars were intense. I've seen literal death threats thrown out online over which assembly language to use, or PS2 vs XBox flamewars. Trolls, even back in the day, would try to trick people into clicking pornography on children video game forums.
People have always been assholes online.
------
Offline, casual racism and stereotypes rule. Which is why people focus so much on dress and mannerisms, so that your first impression is "correct", and you have a reasonable social interaction. How you talk, or stutter, or accents, or skin color, etc. etc. It matters more often than not.
It "shouldn't", but it does. These things seep into the online discussion space.
In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth.
-- De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, published in 1835.
Not really. Lived in the 90s in the US, people were even more tight-lipped because dissenting opinions on a lot of things were not even mentioned in the first place.
Actually, what you’ve noticed is a symptom of the opposite case being far to prevalent in America.
Because it’s so common that utterly specious and biased critiques are plonked down and basically screamed out by individuals or groups with vested interests the public has become jaded. And on the internet it’s doubly so.
Due to those wolf criers, people have to go above and beyond to establish their credibility and motive to show they are worth taking seriously.
That's not true. Unions are only practically possible because labor laws make it illegal to fire someone for advocating for unionizing, to fire someone for joining a union, and to fire someone for striking (kind of). The law also makes it legally mandatory to negotiate in good faith with a union. Without any of these government interventions, unions could never work.
And a lot of that violence spills over the border into the US. Bloody cartel murders, extortion, and such are common in the southwest US and beyond. The Mexican government and politicians are all somewhere in between being controlled by the cartels and too scared to do anything about them. That is casus belli, legal grounds for war, by any reasonable understanding of international law.
And a lot of that violence spills over the border into the US. Bloody cartel murders, extortion, and such are common in the southwest US and beyond.
One might imagine that but one would do well to actually investigate whether it's true.
I visited El Paso, Texas a few years ago. It has one of the lower murder rates for cities of it's size in the US. It's directly across the border from Cuida Juerez, a city with one of the highest murder rates in the Western Hemisphere.
It's actually quite remarkable how contained the horrible violence in Mexico is.
> That is casus belli, legal grounds for war, by any reasonable understanding of international law.
Perhaps. But anything the US Military could do about it would only make the problem even worse. It being a legal reason for war is irrelevant because it isn't a rational reason for war.
I don't know. Commando raids on cartel leadership sound good to me. Assassin drones too. Just start taking these people out. Put the fear of God in them.
> Just start taking these people out. Put the fear of God in them.
Cartels have been doing this to cartels the entire time. They inflict violence on each other far more brutal than the American military would dare. They've flayed family members of their rivals alive to "put the fear of God in them". More of the same isn't going to solve anything.
It's not more of the same. It's the cartels vs. the NSA's intelligence gathering apparatus, the US military's precision assassin drones, etc. Cartels don't have those at their disposal.
Are you sure the United states cares enough about drugs? The Sacklers are still free and wealthy. The war on drug keeps the prison industry and slave supply rolling.
Common? That's some outrageous hyperbole.
Claims about casus belli against Mexico, America's largest trading partner? Now you've indicted your own intellectual capabilities.
If the US actually started using its military to hit these guys, what would stop them from sending a thousand guys into a large chemical or nuclear plant and creating a disaster that wiped out a city, or more? I find this sort of jingo rhetoric disturbing because the US has never faced an enemy with thousands of troops inside the US and the funding of a nation state. I can imagine an idiot like Trump actually starting something like this up.
> If the US actually started using its military to hit these guys, what would stop them from sending a thousand guys into a large chemical or nuclear plant and creating a disaster that wiped out a city, or more?
I mean, yes, they could, but would they? What would be the realistic result of such an action? Would the US then stop and go “Well, I guess we’ll have to stop antagonizing the cartels.”. I would guess that such a thing would instead be a Pearl Harbor moment, and I think the cartels know this, too. The cartels don’t want to act out your personal nightmare scenario; they want to do things to make the US stop bothering the cartels. Instead of mindlessly scare-mongering, figure out what that action would be, and ask yourself if a war with the cartels is worth it. It might or might not be, but be realistic about it.
Military actions have purposes, which do not include acting out your nightmare scenarios and being as horrible as possible. There’s a reason regular armies don’t do that kind of thing; it does not aid their purpose. And I don’t see how such an action could ever aid the cartels.
War is not a game where each side gradually loses their “restraint”. Instead, each side carefully considers each possible action and its consequences, and then does whatever action seems to lead to the best end result.
Hold on amigo, have you seen how cartels operate? They actually do just do as horrible of a thing as possible, just because the top people want to be monsters and show their enemies they can slaughter them. They hang their gutted enemies off bridges, or decimate a whole neighborhood, or you name it. I think you assume they would play by your rules in a war. They might just decide to erase Houston so they can watch those people die in a gas cloud.
> They actually do just do as horrible of a thing as possible
Yes, the do that when their enemies are individual people, since that tactic works on those. I doubt the same tactics would work on armies or nation states.
> so they can watch those people die in a gas cloud.
You still seem to think that the cartels do things merely for their own cruel amusement. I, on the other hand, believe that cruel amusement is luxury which they allow themselves only as long as it works.
> You still seem to think that the cartels do things merely for their own cruel amusement. I, on the other hand, believe that cruel amusement is luxury which they allow themselves only as long as it works.
I agree with you on this. I also think it would absolutely work, just like it works in Mexico. I also think it would be the first choice of people accustomed to it working.
> I also think it would absolutely work, just like it works in Mexico.
I feel that the U.S. Army would not respond favorably to terrorism.
> I also think it would be the first choice of people accustomed to it working.
Well, that may be true; they might be stupid enough to do that. I couldn’t really say; I’m just a random person on the internet without any special knowledge of their psychology.
> I would guess that such a thing would instead be a Pearl Harbor moment, and I think the cartels know this, too.
What else might that war teach us?
There are 10 million Mexican-Americans by birth in America, and 37 million by ancestry. If America went to war with Mexico, I fear there would be efforts to intern Mexican-Americans as Japanese-Americans once were.
Such a war is a horrible idea for everybody. It would create conditions in Mexico and America that are far worse than the present status quo.
Interning 47M people out of 333M, especially when those 47M represent a large portion of younger, working age people, does not seem like it would go well.
No. I am describing what would happen: the American government wrongfully persecuting Mexican-Americans, as it once wrongfully persecuted Japanese-Americans.
This is not a description of what I think should happen, which is this: American and Mexico should not go to war, because it would inevitably lead to a human rights disaster.
You think that if a thousand cartel guys showed up at a nuke plant with the intention of melting it down that armor and airstrikes would help matters? I think that would just help them actually.
The Mexican cartels are notably wary of messing with U.S police agents and police/military/border security agencies. There are isolated cases of very foolish sicarios or smaller, more irresponsible organized crime cells playing at threats against U.S border agents or at U.S agents inside Mexico but it's rare and often discouraged brutally by the larger cartels. The simple reason why is they know that with the U.S government, the subversion they regularly practice with pathetically corrupt Mexican authorities works much, much less and goes completely out the window if a U.S police agent dies by their hands. The U.S government strongly underscored this with the cartels by spending decades and God knows how much money diligently pursuing every last person they could find who had any connection to the Kike Camarena murder. The lesson hasn't been forgotten by the bigger cartel bosses, even today.
I absolutely do think they could. They operate vast smuggling networks in the US right now with near impunity, as one proof of this capability. Also, US intelligence is pretty bad when it counts. It didn't catch 9-11 or the fall of Afghanistan or the Soviet Union. Why would it detect a raid on a nuke plant?
...Yes. If you kill the people attacking the sensitive site, they will be unable to attack the sensitive site on account of being dead.
A thousand man force is a battalion. The cartels have no real armor and no air support. No heavy weapons. No training.
The US Army fields 31 brigades. A brigade is 5 battalions.
For every cartel member in your theoretical force, there are ~149 trained, armed, active duty service members in deployable condition for combat roles.
That doesn't include artillery, sustainment, the US Airforce or the US Navy. I am also not including guard teams which are another 27 brigades.
Your theoretical cartel force would also have to go through the Texas State Guard (1,700 people) and US Border Patrol.
It's not "jingo rhetoric." Many of the government leaders south of the border are literally in cahoots with the cartels to commit thousands of murders a year, either directly or through peddling fentanyl, in the US. The rest of them have decided to go along with it out of fear. That is an act of war. The US should respond wisely and carefully, but people should remember these are literally ongoing acts of war committed against us. And what you propose the cartels would respond with is unlikely to work and would only elicit the directed ire of the US at the particular groups that ordered it, so would not be a rational move.
We are spending billions of dollars and killing many Russian soldiers and civilians to fight Putin, but Mexico is responsible for more American deaths and mayhem than Putin ever dream of.
And the practicalities of a war would necessitate an effort to stop that, to prevent the spread of enemy combatants behind the front line. Even if you search everybody passing through the border for weapons.. ...it's America. They can get weapons here.
The inevitable result is a massive human rights disaster, that makes the present status quo look like paradise.
It's would actually be really easy to completely close the border if there was the political will for it. The US spends way more money on frivolous things every year than it would take to fully militarily fortify the entire border.
For more than 30 million dollars I wouldn’t be surprised if they give it shot on first amendment grounds. The gamble would be the additional legal fees v.s. the chance of success.
Exploring ideas like panpsychism doesn't mean you're committing to them being true. We can't know everything, and we can't always link new ideas deductively to things we are certain about, but we can notice the inadequacy of current explanations, say "suppose this explanation is true" and proceed from there. Every good philosopher knows that they're doing that. And the fact that people defend their position and attack opposing views is just part of the adversarial process for testing ideas. Yeah, of course ego and pride and hubris happen to many philosophers, and the academic profession is frankly in a bad state, but that doesn't mean the fundamental approach is bad.
That is a fair point in general, but in the specific case of panpsychism, at least one of its most active proponents (Goff) combines an insistance that it is the most plausible explanation of the mind with an apparent lack of interest in saying anything empirically verifiable about what it actually means.
Whether in physics or metaphysics, one can only go so far without facts. Even the mundane world of that which actually is has repeatedly turned out to be stranger than was imagined possible.
