ValantarSay what now? I think your memory is off here. I didn't pass judgement on a book I didn't read (in fact, the book wasn't really part of the discussion at that point). In the post in question, I argued against your arguments (the first instance where you claimed that social behaviour could be explained through thermodynamics), saying that even if I wasn't familiar with the science you were butchering to make your point your arguments could easily be countered and shown to be false. What I admitted ignorance to was high-level math and physics. Again, your beloved book wasn't a part of the discussion, and I didn't address it. Don't really think I have since either.

And if your argument is "If you read Atlas Shrugged, you'd understand why thermodynamics are relevant to social behaviour" then yes, I'm very happy to dismiss that argument outright, as the entire field of social science (and psychology, really) can easily stand as evidence that this is far too complex to boil down to a single variable like this.
Right back at you, I suppose? At least I argue for mine in a clear and reasonable manner.
Maybe not, but given that you claim to be a Randian "objectivist", one would assume a certain adherence to the principles of that philosophy, no?

I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to try to decipher that word salad. Did I talk about a groupset, or enlarging it? As for the difference between subjective evaluation and evidence-based evaluation, it sounds like you're grossly oversimplifying things. There's no such thing as understanding data without interpretation, so subjectivity always applies, even when one attempts to account for it. Humans are incapable of interacting with the world save through our senses, and our senses are interpreted through our brains - which are complex, shaped by experience, and quite malleable. There's no such thing as a non-subjective evaluation. But, again, you're trying to change the subject instead of arguing your case. We're not here to discuss scientific reasoning, and I'm still missing your arguments on the actual topic here.

Social sciences, the whole SJW preachings, do actually constitute full chapters in the book, but since I need to bring that to you, let me remind you that cultural confines do not limit scientific progress and all your ramblings don't matter much in face of facts - that you fail to register because of a biased cognitively gapped viewpoint.
The whole lottery of spending time for science is to reach statements that are true and readily correlatable between fields since they are 'constant' between measurements. Introduced bias that skews further evaluation doesn't work as a counterargument as there is validation before its proven, however people might attribute folk sciences like yours to be an equal contribution in its right, so I would like to hear your side of the falsifiability window of validation.

Also, since you have little regard of the organisation structure costs of a power struggle that ousting the founder of any organisation brings, I'll hold my reservations on Linus being ousted by an expendable excuse just like the Intel CEO. Notice how the harrassment theme in both organisations that signed the same CoC social bondage.

PS: one more thing, it is super lucky we haven't entered the 3rd licensing protocol. It is difficult enough making a case for personal rights such as property rights which the public jurisdiction bodies entitled here seem to dismiss all too blissfully. Do any of you think Linus did this as a free foundation because he gave reins to any of you? He let you do it for him for free. If that isn't genius, running a corporation without any hiccups till now, I don't know what is.

I think defining humans purely through science has been a disaster. From both "political sides". Humans aren't "natural". They're an anomaly. The human mind is chaotic. And solving social ills/rifts/what have you will never be done that way.

But I'm just one of those pesky religious people. This will probably taint my opinion.

StrayKATI think defining humans purely through science has been a disaster. From both "political sides". Humans aren't "natural". They're an anomaly. The human mind is chaotic. And solving social ills/rifts/what have you will never be done that way.

But I'm just one of those pesky religious people. This will probably taint my opinion.

So long as you can attribute it to your standard deviation, I think you can promote yourself to a confidence interval.
I am religious too, but the kind you would call trouble as you did call her. Constants don't change upon the unit system you use, since they are dimensionless, so I think in a way, any religion or not, you can reach the truth if you spend the effort.

mtcn77So long as you can attribute it to your standard deviation, I think you can promote yourself to a confidence interval.
I am religious too, but the kind you would call trouble as you did call her. Constants don't change upon the unit system you use, since they are dimensionless, so I think in a way, any religion or not, you can reach the truth if you spend the effort.

How would I call you trouble? Just curious.

Ayn Rand is simply an inhospitable person, when it comes down to it. I think tribes in the middle of nowhere, circa Neolithic Age, have a better system for society than she does. You don't need to be a socialist to have a basic kindness.. but she threw out the baby with the bathwater. And promoted it as a core virtue.

edit: Basic kindness to strangers, that is.

StrayKATHow would I call you trouble? Just curious.

Ayn Rand is simply an inhospitable person, when it comes down to it. I think tribes in the middle of nowhere, circa Neolithic Age, have a better system for society than she does.

Well, she had a bitter childhood. The childhood is your motherland, so they say. Humans are indeed very fragile and it is emotionally so, too. You cannot move outside of your perception.
If however, this experience brought her the gift of 'alienation' towards her own US identity, she possibly had use of her alterego to delineate much darker(contrasting in this context) detail in her work. Things granted would still stick out in her attention span.
People don't like her because of her vexing views, but I would only understand if it were her honesty that was being detested. I still have respect for accomplisments rather than the personality.

mtcn77Well, she had a bitter childhood. The childhood is your motherland, so they say. Humans are indeed very fragile and it is emotionally so, too. You cannot move outside of your perception.
If however, this experience brought her the gift of 'alienation' towards her own US identity, she possibly had use of her alterego to delineate much darker(contrasting in this context) detail in her work.
People don't like her because of her vexing views, but I would only understand if it were her honesty that was being detested. I still have respect for accomplisments rather than the personality.

Yes, that part of it makes me sad for her. I don't think she was inherently irredeemable or anything. More like overly defensive... to the point of being offensive.

StrayKATYes, that part of it makes me sad for her. I don't think she was inherently irredeemable or anything. More like overly defensive... to the point of being offensive.

Time to watch a Batman movie!

mtcn77Time to watch a Batman movie!

Batman Returns.. best one. :)

StrayKATBatman Returns.. best one. :)

Noooooo....

You are forever lost.

R-T-BNoooooo....

You are forever lost.

No way. I mean, I love Tim Burton.. but his first Batman wasn't truly a "Burton" film. While Batman Returns is fully him. It's in line with his other films. It's about freaks and misfits.. and he tied it in nicely with a comic book theme.

Plus, Siouxsie did the main song for the soundtrack.. I don't think a comic book film has ever had a better musician or song.

StrayKATNo way. I mean, I love Tim Burton.. but his first Batman wasn't truly a "Burton" film. While Batman Returns is fully him. It's in line with his other films. It's about freaks and misfits.. and he tied it in nicely with a comic book theme.

Plus, Siouxsie did the main song for the soundtrack.. I don't think a comic book film has ever had a better musician or song.

Somehow I misread you as saying "The Dark Knight Rises" which I just plain didn't like (many will hate me for that.)

I can't say I've ever seen Batman Returns to judge either way. But Batman is still the most plausible comic hero, and thus I like me some batman.

Offtopic though.

R-T-BSomehow I misread you as saying "The Dark Knight Rises" which I just plain didn't like (many will hate me for that.)

I can't say I've ever seen Batman Returns to judge either way. But Batman is still the most plausible comic hero, and thus I like me some batman.

Offtopic though.

Don't mean to further go offtopic, but is that the one with Bane? I thought it was OK.. but I still can't figure out what the "theme" was.

I mean, Batman Begins was about Fear. Dark Knight seemed to be about Chaos (something like that.. Seemed that Harvey and Joker both embodied it.. while Batman was the dark side of order.. with him crossing the red line with that surveillance crap). But Dark Knight Rises? I dunno. Was it "Pain" maybe?

Please stay on topic. You can discuss movies and other topics in the appropriate forums.

Heh.. Fair enough. I have to say though... I'm surprised it was Batman, of all things, that finally brought a moderator. This thread has been a trainwreck as it is.

moproblems99Thanks for proving all my points.

...by pointing out that you fundamentally misunderstood my question? Sure, okay. I asked for any examples of human society/culture/behaviour/life where "zero fairness" is the only possible option. It's entirely possible for a fair tax policy to exist - you're even arguing for one yourself! Even if your version of a fair tax policy is "zero taxation", that is still a tax policy, and from your POV, that would be fair. So: fairness in tax policy is possible, even with extremist views like yours.

mtcn77Social sciences, the whole SJW preachings, do actually constitute full chapters in the book, but since I need to bring that to you, let me remind you that cultural confines do not limit scientific progress and all your ramblings don't matter much in face of facts - that you fail to register because of a biased cognitively gapped viewpoint.
The whole lottery of spending time for science is to reach statements that are true and readily correlatable between fields since they are 'constant' between measurements. Introduced bias that skews further evaluation doesn't work as a counterargument as there is validation before its proven, however people might attribute folk sciences like yours to be an equal contribution in its right, so I would like to hear your side of the falsifiability window of validation.

Also, since you have little regard of the organisation structure costs of a power struggle that ousting the founder of any organisation brings, I'll hold my reservations on Linus being ousted by an expendable excuse just like the Intel CEO. Notice how the harrassment theme in both organisations that signed the same CoC social bondage.

So, to sum up:
-All social sciences are "SJW preachings". In other words, wholesale dismissal of several entire fields of science, based on your personal politics. I'm pretty sure this disqualifies you from ever discussing anything related to social behaviour again, as you're clearly ideologically opposed to the examination and study of social behaviour in the first place.
-The "fact" you're referring to seems to be the "fact" that human social behaviour is determined by the biological energy cost of cognitive processes, and thus thermodynamics - which isn't a fact at all, so as such I can't have failed to register it. I don't know what other "facts" you might be referring to, but feel free to enlighten me.
-Have I said that cultural confines limit scientific progress? While this could be argued (laws prohibiting research on human embryos, for example), I can't remember this really being applicable here at all.
-Scientific "statements" aren't "true and readily correlatable between fields" when the fields ask different questions of different things. And, again, there are far too many relevant and significant factors in human social interactions to explain them through natural sciences. This is a classic example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, as there is (and will likely never be) any way to measure and register the energy expenditure from cognitive processes in situ (and, say, "simulating" a social situation inside of an MRI machine would be unrealistic and thus produce unreliable results), and there certainly is no way to neutrally recreate social situations so that the experiment is repeatable. Heck, to see differences in energy expenditure between different solutions you'd have to ask your subjects to "decide" on them each in turn, which would itself dramatically impact the cognitive processes involved. In short: you're trying to apply a specific form of science to a field where it's fundamentally unsuited.
-As for the last sentence of your first paragraph, again I can't make heads nor tails of that word salad. Punctuation might help, perhaps? Still, you seem to be classifying pretty much any science that isn't based on math as "folk science". Again: see my first point. If you're unable to accept that there are questions where the natural sciences are entirely unsuited to providing explanations, you're disqualifying yourself from this discussion, as that is such a fundamental dismissal of the foundations of the discussion that you're making it impossible to communicate.

It's also rather odd for you to compare the Intel CEO being ousted to Linus semi-voluntarily pulling back from his leadership role. Sure, both have been accused of "bad behaviour", but of quite different sorts. The Intel CEO had an affair with a subordinate, which is both an abuse of power, potential sexual harassment (can one be expected to refuse sexual advances from a person who has the power to take away your livelihood?), and quite fundamentally incompatible with serious business leadership. The other is abrasive and foul-mouthed and has challenges communicating with other people. While I've argued above that it seems to be high time for Torvalds to either step down to allow for a restructuring, or delegate his role to a far greater degree, the situations really aren't comparable. I'm not saying that either of these processes come without a cost, I'm just saying that it's far more sensible to take on this cost as early as possible rather than postpone action and make the situation worse. In the Intel case, I don't think it had much of an effect (recent Intel CEOs haven't had much of an externally visible impact on the company, and their current challenges are technical, not managerial in nature), while in the Linux case it's quite reasonable to expect things to have exploded quite badly in time if something wasn't done. Replacing a leader unsuited to the job is of course "expensive" in some way (whether in terms of money, work, time, or all three), but not doing so is usually more expensive in the long run. And, with leadership and management being a complex and many-faceted job, the possible reasons for unsuitability are just as complex and many-faceted.

R-T-BThat said since LGBT AND minorities are underrepresented...

Why, the hell, knows? It is a totally made up statement.
Asian minority is over-represented, 26% of Google's worker, less than 6% of the population.
Oh, Harvard has problem with those pesky Asians too.

R-T-BIn that case it'd be social conservative vs liberal.

I am left leaning libertarian, so, uh, barking at the wrong tree again?

Would you mind to stop labeling people that try to reason with you?

R-T-BSo can I. As a matter of fact, all my work experience save maybe 1 year after high school has been online.

What does your work experience, online or not have to do with anonymous, Open Source, free for all (just keep it open source) projects? (majority of which are small to tiny)

R-T-BGuess what? Sex comes up.

In what freaking context?
Did they also ask with whom you are sleeping? Whom you'd like to have sex with?
Which party do you vote for?
Which pronoun to be used?
Let's get to the crux of it!

ValantarEven if your version of a fair tax policy is "zero taxation"

I am not sure where you got zero taxation from anything I said. But my point that no one here can hold a rational conversation without interjecting phantom words in others' mouths because of one's own personal bias has been proven. I believe you are more intelligent than that. Also, as you said, this is off topic so discussion can end here.

moproblems99I am not sure where you got zero taxation from anything I said. But my point that no one here can hold a rational conversation without interjecting phantom words in others' mouths because of one's own personal bias has been proven. I believe you are more intelligent than that. Also, as you said, this is off topic so discussion can end here.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth (frankly, I didn't mean to say that you were saying that specific thing either), I was simply exemplifying how you misunderstood my question. Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intention. The point was, I asked "can you name a human activity where fairness is impossible", and you replied "this thing in its current state is unfair", which doesn't address the question. And I guess it spiraled a bit from there. Oh well. Yeah, I agree, let's get back to discussing the topic, rather than getting stuck on a semi-silly rhetorical question I posed to someone else :p

@FordGT90Concept Question for you, how come you are pro-regulatory when it comes to the cryptocurrency and forcing everyone to play nice in the sandbox but you are so anti-regulatory when it comes to making everyone play nice in the Linux sandbox?

A market versus open source software. Unregulated markets lead to events like Black Tuesday--the equivalent of an economic weapon of mass destruction. Open source software...who does it hurt when it goes terribly wrong? It gets forked and people move on.

FordGT90ConceptA market versus open source software. Unregulated markets lead to events like Black Tuesday--the equivalent of an economic weapon of mass destruction. Open source software...who does it hurt when it goes terribly wrong? It gets forked and people move on.

But why is it wrong for the organization in charge of development of said open-source software to implement rules and regulations that apply (only) to itself and its contributors? I'd say that's just as relevant and logical for them as it is for any other organization responsible for carrying out complex work with many moving parts.

FordGT90Conceptwho does it hurt when it goes terribly wrong? It gets forked and people move on.

I thought that is why there are 27 pages in this thread?

ValantarBut why is it wrong for the organization in charge of development of said open-source software to implement rules and regulations that apply (only) to itself and its contributors? I'd say that's just as relevant and logical for them as it is for any other organization responsible for carrying out complex work with many moving parts.

"Regulation" is a function of government. Linux Foundation can establish and enforce its own rules within the confines of the law of the jurisdiction in operates from. I never said Linux Foundation couldn't implement and enforce these rules; I said the rules, and how they were adopted, are flawed. I also pointed out a general unwillingness of Linux Foundation to enforce rules.

moproblems99I thought that is why there are 27 pages in this thread?

Completely different scales. When economies collapse, you get situations like unfolded in Zimbebwe and now Venezula, and soon Turkey. People can't get the bare essentials and start fleeing the market as a function of survival.

As for Linux Foundation and damages ("hurt"), McHardy already did under the old Code of Conflict. A lot more people have grounds against the Code of Conduct than they did against the Code of Conflict but, that's for plaintiffs to decide in a court of law.

The thing that everyone likes to conveniently forget when they write stuff like the OP is that warfare doesn't happen without at least two parties fighting each other.

Somehow, miraculously, it's not social justice warfare (conducted by social justice warriors) when it's action from the point of view of the side that agrees with that point of view! No. It's authentic correction. It's not even politics!

It's pure magic.

Personally, I think this issue is a distraction from Linux succumbing to the same problem that Windows and macOS have: capture by spies. Let's give them a nice and juicy paranoia social issues wedge steak to divide and conquer. Pay no attention to the spies behind the curtain...

I'm a lot less interested in Torvalds' ability to post profanity than I am in how he, by virtue of his US citizenship, is under the thumb of secret courts. The UK is worse, too.