lorry

I understand why a clinical psychologist might think that most people need to talk to someone else to organise their thoughts, after all, that is literally his job. No? Most people are possessed of an arrested capacity to introspect and conceptualise. I understand this. But still, speech is not though.

Make something interesting, and share it.

.

Give him something he wants.

Not sinning at all, brother! I did that because I though that if someone else picked up on what I though they picked up on that would trigger it. Does that make sense? I meant it sort of like "Hey guys, can anyone else smell that?". Communicating over the internet is really hard because we all lack so much context about each other to be able to communicate effectively, you know? I think that was a tangent, I'll explain what I mean about JP below. Hi, barn. Thank you for the reference. I did watch the interview and so I can refer to that. Pretty simple really. The position, so far as I can tell, is "we need free speech for true though" ~ 4:00+ I guess at ~ 2:50 Peterson asserts "... for most people, talking is how they think". So, speech == thought, which implies, free speech == free though. So the defense of free speech, as in the Cathy, N. interview goes straight into a defense of free thought. I disagree that speech == thought. I think that speech is the communication of the produce of thought, the flow of it if you will. Just as heat and work are flows of energy, but they are not energy as such.

Has anyone else noticed that Jordan Peterson's defense of free speech doesn't actually involve speech?

If they did, Europe would have to compete economically. Closing off immigration from the Europe permits economic stagnation. Should God Emperor blesses us with European immigration, the EU is fucking done.

Probably. That is what I am thinking about hash graph. Bitcoin has 1 guy with 1 miner burning XYZ kWh hashing. Hashgraph has 1 guy with 1000 miners burning a total of XYZ kWh on random selection. What is the difference?

You said people have the right.... A right is a guarantee to you, and an obligation on everyone else in a collective. General ex: You have right: X, everyone else has an obligation to uphold your right to X. Specific ex: You have the right to health care, everyone else has the obligation to uphold your right to health care. If you are an individual bereft of a collective, then you exist in a state of war with everyone else. There is no one upon whom your rights are obligations. You have no rights. If you are an individual in a collective, and you want the right to benefit at the expense of the collective, you are a selfish parasite.

For a bunch of people, randomly selected, IQ is race.

The individual is sovereign over their property, the state is sovereign over the country. I don't see the issue. p.s. Individual rights in absence of a group upon whom is placed the obligation to fulfill said rights? I never understood why this is hard to understand. You have no rights in absence of the group because the group has to fulfill said rights. In what world should the group fulfill rights which are detrimental to the group as a whole? Libertarian >> I want the right to do X Group >> No, X will screw us over Libertarian >> Muh Locke (or whatever)

Check out the Ayn Rand lexicon. There is an online version. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/quote_of_the_day.html

Yes I can. And I can because you run a business. And because you run a business you segment your customers, don't you?

Great debate. It was nice to see something a bit more combative. Libertarians BTFO! How will they ever recover?

I don't think so. TBH, I think the question you are digging around is 'What is value?'. And I think that the concept of value is being mixed in with the concept of capital to create 'archetypes', like a kind of value realism. So instead of capital being capital, and values being values, capital is transformed to capital and values, hence why it has colours to denote purpose. I could be wrong. If not, I think you might find useful The Objectivist Ethics, it is 14:02 onward here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4QJheclsQ

Statisticians, please respond!

It is more like statistics. So they have a population of transactions, but it is held across a whole bunch of different nodes, and it evolves in time. So they just have the nodes at time t sample each other from time t - 1 and infer which node at time t - 1 has propagated the most information about the population at time t -1 into the population at time t by looking at how many times it was randomly sampled. This is a weird system. Nodes don't have to do work like in bitcoin, they don't have to solve problems as such. The devs think they will save cpu work on solving math but in reality the work will then be done by running infinite virtual machines competing to be the node randomly sampled the most times. I don't like how they obfuscate what they are doing behind bullshit language, votes, famous nodes, seeing, strong seeing. I think they want to hide that getting your transaction approved is going to be completely random. I mean, if you can't just create multiple nodes with the same transactions on them so that your transaction gets sampled alot because it is already on alot of nodes so it will get approved faster (which, if it can be done, will be exactly what happens within 1 day) then your looking at uncertainty in the time to be approved that you can't pay a miner to fix (by including transaction fees in bitcoin).

Consider a mobile framework. When I was going to do this (can't now, I've committed the time to another project) I was planning on using a hybrid framework so I could program in Js. If you don't know Js, there is Xamerin for C#. I know python (kivy), C# and Js (there are many for Js), so those were the three I was looking at. But a quick search return a cross platform (iOS and Android) framework for your language of choice.

*Teleports behind you* "Heh, Austrian economics doesn't waste its time with predictive models. Nothing personal, kid".

The realization you have failed to make attempted to avoid, is that you are a coward. You don't have to be, but so long as you choose to act so, you are a coward.

I don't understand what you think you are doing. If think you have a new theory, then you need to reduce it to something. You can reduce it to something that is self evident. You can reduce it to some law of science (itself, reducible to the self evident). Link to philosophical reduction. http://www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/ Took me a while to find that resource, hope it helps you like it helped me.

How we know Harry Binswanger.

No worries

"Is math related to science?" -- Katy Perry Stefan Molyneux.

Thanks, Kikker. I never thought about that.