China did it better - most of their managers are engineers. US needs to make use of this pattern. Oh, and add an IQ and an EQ test as a requirement to being a president.
I think this post has a lot of preconceptions about life. I bet it wouldn't be biological any more, even our society is moving to digital: AIs , drones. Even if it were, why support the whole body, if supporting the brain is enough? I bet future space space ships won't be piloted by humans because we are sensitive to acceleration, temperature, radiation and are pretty short lived. Also we don't have much redundancy and are not very energy efficent. Just look at the trend with mobile phones.At one point in time we used notes to extend our memory, then digital things like PDAs now phones and watches and at some point it will become an implant in our head, extending us as humans. The human of tomorrow will have little in common with human of today, so you can't judge the form of life will take and its requirementfrom a more advanced civilization.
I disagree, removing sanctions will make them stronger when the conflict comes. Also as I see it, all nations don't care much about people's suffering in some other country, they care most about their inner affairs, which is understandable geopolitically. Most of the people also don't care or else they would vote with their money. Are north koreans worth nuclear escalation - I don't think so.
> all nations don't care much about people's suffering in some other country
> Most of the people also don't care
I think it may be quite the opposite, albeit usually not genuine "caring", rather just "focusing". Whether nations want to redirect people's attention away from problems at home, or people want/let their attention redirected, they'll focus more on the crap happening in another country. An enemy or an issue are always created somewhere far away, something as contrasting as possible with the apparent situation at home.
Take the example of prisons and prison labor in the US. People know millions are imprisoned at home, many forced to work, with inhumane conditions. But that's a bitter taste when they know it's at home, that it's a democratic country, that this could be changed but isn't. So it's made better by looking at how much worse it could be.
It's an easy mental and moral release and people need one especially when there's a discrepancy between the image they have of their country and the reality. The bigger the discrepancy, the easier and more attractive it is to look at the speck/plank in someone else's eye.
This happens everywhere in the world because it's human nature: it's where people's desire to comfort their conscience and leaders' desire to manipulate that intersect.
Why hate yourself? Violence is a part that makes us human. Without it we are not human If we will not learn to control it, we will die. But in the end everything does.
Also, being prepared is important.
Si vis pacem, parabellum.
I just had another thought about this: without violence - you cannot have peace. Sure, you can threaten violence if peace is not kept, but if you are not prepared to use violence to uphold your threat - your threat is useless. I think Putin is a great example for this. He showed us, that violence is actually a valid tool to achieve your goals nowadays. I mean sure I and people like me don't like violence but just because we don't, doesn't mean others somewhere else also don't and won't use it. We cannot avoid being confronted with violence at least at some points in society. We need to understand that it is also part of us and be able to deal with it or channel it. When I read the definition of violence I found on google: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
Is there really any human who at least in some way didn't somehow use force to hurt someone, even as a kid? Don't we actually nurture application of violence in soldiers? I just have a feeling, that there is some insight here, that violence is not all that useless and maybe is a trait that made humans at least in part successful. OK, it make bring our downfall through nuclear war, but what other catastrophes wouldn't? We will fall down one way or another if we will not prepare. Also, what is a benchmark for success here?
Is humanity that survived 300,000 years better than the one that survived 400,000 and who will be there to measure it?
It is not what I said. I meant violence is part of being Human. If you do not use it does not mean that you do not have it. It is not about blindly applying it. It is not only a negative thing, it is an evolutionary advantage versus species which is not violent.
It is just another tool of enforcing you will over the will of others. For example some people have to obey the law because of a threat of violence of the state. I mean if you remove all our societal conditioning and learning, it all boils down to violence, like it was for first humans.
I do not advocate violence, I think hating humanity for it is not rational.
Clauzewitz said: "War is the continuation of policy with other means". So essentially violence is the continuation of policy when you can not achieve your goals by other means.
This is just my view on it, take it or leave it.
The problem is that an industry can be used as leverage by China to hurt the economy. See Putin and Gazprom, Tawianese Chips and so on.
Globalization is good, because it makes production of consumer goods more cost effective. But cost alone is not worth much if the supply is not reliable and can be leveraged by a potential opponent.
Nope, math is invented, without people there is no math. Math is a logic system invented by humans. You don't have to use math to describe relations between things. Math is a language, it describes real world and is not real world itself. So math is invented.
Nope, math is discovered, without people also there is math. Math is how the universe works. When you describe relations between things, that is Math. Math is notated using many languages, but the real world itself cares not for which notation you use. So math is discovered.
----
Have a look at how various cultures around the world did maths before meeting Europeans. You will quickly stop thinking "Math is a language".
Hell, even European maths wasn't entirely European. The most popular number system in use to this day, arrived in Europe via Arab traders and itself originated in ancient India. A culture that developed its own entirely different set of ways to explain some the logic of the universe.
While the ancient Indian system of arithmetic would look very different to anyone with a standard school education today, both systems describe the exact same things: addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division of things.
If we were to meet an alien civilization, who'd undoubtedly have their own language(s) and culture(s), the fastest way for us to learn how to communicate with them would be to look at how they do maths. Because, while their language and notation of maths may be different, what they describe is going to be same fundamental laws of this Universe.
Nobody's making the claim that Euclidean geometry is all of maths. But the part of the universe that Euclidean geometry represents has always, still does, and will continue to work even when the last traces of Euclidean geometry vanish from recorded knowledge and memory.
> ... link to Gödel's incompleteness theorems
That's a proof of some limits of formal systems — particularly those that want to formalise everything under one unified set of axioms — not limits of mathematics. Mathematics / the universe does care one iota if you use this particular set of axioms or another. Or even any. It continues to work without a care for your need to have a grand unified theory. That you cannot discover all of its secrets because you restricted yourself is not its concern.
Maths is how the universe works, whether you understand it or not.
----
But thank you for linking to Gödel's theorems. Your link directly answers the topic being discussed. You'll notice the text never says "invented" when talking about these or related theorems; it says "discovered".
> Euclidean geometry does not describe the universe, even if it's useful.
A statement that doesn't disprove the thesis in the slightest.
eg: There's non-Euclidean geometry which some say is handy in a post Newton Einstein universe.
If that fails, I feel there'll be something else again that conforms better to the universe as we understand it to be.
> the fact that math is not how the universe works was proven with math
Another statement that fails to prove the thesis; the universe itself is sufficiently complex that there can indeed be things out there that we will never 'prove' to our satisfaction.
You need to do some lifting here (perhaps a little more than 'some') to prove that Godel|Church|Turing results demonstrate beyond doubt that maths cannot underpin the workings of a universe.
Your comment reminds me a little of Gödel's ontological "proof" .. full of sound and fury but not really landing.
Mathematical notation is a language, but actual math isn't. For example, the concept of there being one of something is an inherent feature of our reality, but drawing short vertical lines for them is a thing we do. Similarly, we didn't invent 3.14..., that's just how circles work. We only invented the shapes I just used.
Russia is a vassal state of china and shows the direction emperor Xi wants to go, but can't afford to. They wanted to show that dictatorships are more powerfull and efficent than democracy but even the market (inkl Mc. Donalds) showed that they aren't. I wonder if humanity will survive the next maybe indiect conflict with China...
Dictatorships are much more enjoyable for the elite and top class. Especially, when they have free access to all goods, services, and progress created in free countries.
I've got a Mac at work and I hate it with passion. I now use my own linux Laptop instead. There is no del key, no home, ctrl and alt are swapped in some aplications and not the others. Login screeen does not remember the language and animations come back after every update even when I explicitly disable them. Muscle memory from other 99% computers I use doesn't work and most of the games don't. I feel like mac os is in contempt of me and I really hate it when I have to use it for mandatory tasks. Mac doesnt fit for me at all, I use Linux for Production and Windows for games
Ctrl+a. Also: Ctrl+e for end-of-line. Like in emacs. Also Ctrl+fbpn.
Works best with CapsLock->Control, which is a native GUI option, not something you have to install/CLI for (linux) or something you have to registry hack (windows). I really miss these on Windows and Linux, though not enough to fight the native layout. It's a rougher fight than you might imagine, though.
> Login screeen does not remember the language
It does for me, but more importantly: it shows it. Windows likes to swap the keyboard layout out from under me and doesn't show it. Mix with a 3-strikes-you're-locked-out policy at work, and it turns into pain.
> animations come back after every update
Yeah, that's fair.
> Muscle memory
That's not.
> I feel like mac os is in contempt of me
I feel like windows is actively malicious towards me and linux desktop doesn't care enough about me to do even minimum viable bugfixing. It's definitely a "pick your poison" situation.
The last time I had to use MacOS regularly, the thing that killed it for me was the lack of a tiling window manager.
I use xmonad in Ubuntu and I haven't dragged a window on my personal laptop in years. Not only was that option missing on MacOS, the underlying OS abstractions actually made it impractical to build the last time I checked; windows were owned by the application, there was no language to move another application's windows except asking the application to move its own, and doing that required the application to be frontmost. So tiling was a context-switch morass and a bad UX.
However, it appears the Accessibility Manager may since have grown enough feature hooks to support what I want, and https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst may do the job. I'll have to test it the next time I have my hands on a MacBook of some flavor.
Delete forward is Fn + delete, Home is Fn + up. It's not a specific key, obviously, but all those keys don't fit on a laptop. However, if you plug in your own keyboard I'm sure they'll be recognized.
My experience is that the only apps that use actual Ctrl on macOS are GTK apps, like Inkscape, and terminal apps (because Ctrl-C should be quite different from activating the menu item corresponding to the Cmd-C shortcut). Unfortunately, if you use non-native apps, you're going to get a non-native experience.
