Good sentence from Tyler Cowen, someone with whom I normally disagree.
Once you understand endogeneity, it should come as not a huge surprise that “the candidate you want” so often ends up resembling “the candidate you don’t want” more than you had expected.
The system tends to produce people like Macron, and even if someone is not like Macron, they tend to become more like Macron than expected when in office (see Hollande the “socialist” for an example).
Finally got real internet again:
Yep, that is our home connection.
Wait, this is real?
The people responsible for this 100% real abomination of political messaging all think universal health care is unrealistic and uninspiring pic.twitter.com/Kcls1l74Pk
— Will 🐋 Menaker (@willmenaker) July 5, 2017
I thought this was a parody. It couldn’t be real. But it is.
Democrats plan to never win another election I see.
If you are ever put on a so-called performance improvement plan at work, just quit.
It’s not to improve your performance, it’s to give them an excuse to fire you with no blowback.
Just as the surest sign in the corporate world that something is going to happen is if HR or management holds a meeting claiming it won’t, a PIP just means that the only performance they are going to improve is their efficiency in firing you.
It looks like self-driving cars will be like global warming: there will be legions of people (as there are now) lined up to tell you it’ll never happen, meanwhile it is happening and will continue to happen.
Self-driving cars are a done deal.
Strangely enough, many of the self-driving car doubters are claiming the impossibility of ideas and applications that are already being used in the real world every day.
That I just can’t explain.
Typical STEM grad nonsense.
I see this sort of talk from STEM grads all the time — that their degrees are the only ones with value, and that they are the only ones who have any chance of getting a job. What’s funny is that the average STEM grad is almost invariably the most clueless person in the room about anything not directly related to their limited area of focus — and they have also have no inkling of just how very incompetent and ill-informed they are. I do like listening to them for the comedic value, though, depending on my mood.
Meanwhile, even if you just focus on the financial aspect (which is in itself a problem):
The narrative that any degree in the humanities is useless and bad has nothing at all to do with reality — it is that humanities degrees are threatening because they lead to the examination of societal problems and ways of being that many STEM grads wish we could just not think about.
STEM of course is vital to society. But so are people who know things about philosophy, about sociology, about history, about art, about music, and all the other myriad fields that make STEM grads whine.
Smartphones ruined the internet.
Not only, but they were the largest single factor.
Was it worth it? Not to me.
No, no, no. The amount of military understanding Twitter-folk have could not be revealed even with a scanning tunneling electron microscope.
A “show of force” is a military exercise. You almost always (cannot think of any exceptions, really) want the opposing power that is the reason or the cause of the show of force to be aware of the exercise, for two reasons:
1) So that there aren’t any mistakes, such as accidentally starting a war if one side doesn’t realize it’s not actually an invasion or an attack.
2) So that the other side can observe and see how imposing and how prepared and how effective your military in fact is.
Military exercises are dangerous — both to the side conducting the exercise and for everyone else.
So yes, Twitdiots, we should just do something that might appear to be an invasion or attack on North Korea. That sounds like an awesome idea!
Fuck.
Strange that so many people get so angry at Chris Arnade for doing something that journalists should’ve been doing 10 or 20 years ago.
The truth, though, is the most offensive and most triggering concept of them all.
“In other words, in the structure of the commodity-form it is possible to
find the transcendental subject: the commodity-form articulates in
advance the anatomy, the skeleton of the Kantian transcendental subject
– that is, the network of transcendental categories which constitute the a
priori frame of’objective’ scientific knowledge. Herein lies the paradox of
the commodity-form: it – this inner-worldly, ‘pathological’ (in the Kantian
meaning of the word) phenomenon – offers us a key to solving the fundamental
question of the theory of knowledge: objective knowledge with
universal validity – how is this possible?
After a series of detailed analyses, Sohn-Rethel came to the following
conclusion: the apparatus of categories presupposed, implied by the scientific
procedure (that, of course, of the Newtonian science of nature), the
network of notions by means of which it seizes nature, is already present
in the social effectivity, already at work in the act of commodity exchange.
Before thought could arrive at pure abstraction, the abstraction was already
at work in the social effectivity of the market. The exchange of commodities
implies a double abstraction: the abstraction from the changeable character
of the commodity during the act of exchange and the abstraction from
the concrete, empirical, sensual, particular character of the commodity (in
the act of exchange, the distinct, particular qualitative determination of
a commodity is not taken into account; a commodity is reduced to an
abstract entity which – irrespective of its particular nature, of its ‘use-value’
– possesses ‘the same value’ as another commodity for which it is
being exchanged).”
-Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, Second Edition