= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think the "liked" tab on your user page displays precisely those articles that you've upvoted. So upvoting an article will make it available there in the future.
And downvoting an article will add it to the "disliked" tab. But please don't vote articles solely for this purpose.
Downvoted for failure to provide the source.
From the bullet at the end, I guess he tried to link it but got the Markdown wrong.
I'm not sure that's worse than what present-day Americans do.
In response to
Towards cause priotisation estimates for child abuse
Well, the numbers you give are frankly unbelievable and I don't believe them.
The fact the the sources appear to conflate spanking and child abuse is not encouraging in regard to their trustworthiness.
Well, the numbers you give are frankly unbelievable
You might be generalizing from one example, e.g. if you were raised by middle-class parents you might not have realistic ideas about how fucked up lower-class parents can be.
...Has someone been mass downvoting you?
Yes, The Artist Formerly Known As Eugine_Nier is doing it.
In response to
Crazy Ideas Thread
(had the idea after seeing this)
Each person's vote should be weighed by their life expectancy given their age.
(ETA: I will downvote any comment in this subthread discussing the object-level issue of whether Britain had better stay in the EU, no matter how reasonable and insightful it is.)
That's ridiculous: whenever I want to comment, I always observe that I am reading 4-year-old arguments and keep on scrolling.
Necro-commenting isn't usually frowned upon around here.
that if we really believe in cryonics
What does "we really believe" mean? That seems like something we categorically don't do. (1) We don't hold group belief but individuals have different beliefs.
(2) We think in terms of probability that are different for different people
It seems criticism like that comes from people who don't understand that we aren't a religion that specicies what everybody has to believe.
If the people who belief that cryonics works with >0.3 are signed up for cryonics when available while the people who think it only works with ~0.1 are not signed up I don't see any sign of irrationality.
If the people who belief that cryonics works with >0.3 are signed up for cryonics when available while the people who think it only works with ~0.1 are not signed up I don't see any sign of irrationality.
Has anybody looked at the data set to check if that's indeed the case?
Carpe diem is more a predecessor of Nike's Just Do It, rather than "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow".
That might be what it has become in present-day popular culture, but the line in the original poem did continue with "quam minimum credula postero".
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Well, I honestly can't. When you tell me that, I picture a real Oreo, and then at its side a cartoonish Oreo with all those weird property, but then trying to assume the microscopic structure of the cartoonish Oreo is the same than of a real Oreo just fails.
It's like if you tell me to imagine an equilateral triangle which is also a right triangle. Knowing non-euclidian geometry I sure can cheat around, but assuming I don't know about non-euclidian geometry or you explicitely add the constraint of keeping it, it just fails. You can hold the two sets of properties next to each other, but not reunite them.
Or if you tell me to imagine an arrangement of 7 small stones as a rectangle which isn't a line of 7x1. I can hold the image of 7 stones, the image of a 4x2 rectangle side-by-side, but reuniting the two just fails. Or leads to 4 stones in a line with 3 stones in a line below, which is no longer a rectangle.
When you multiply constraints to the point of being logically impossible, imagination just breaks - it holds the properties in two side-by-side sets, unable to re-conciliate them into a single coherent entity.
That's what your weird Oreo or zombies do to me.