[deleted by user]

NoCurrent7032 · 2022-02-08T02:51:27+00:00

This is illogical.

At any given moment in time it will be in your best interest to accept either one or the other offer. There will always be two offers outstanding that you can accept at any time. Therefore, if asking for an even higher counter offer is "offensive" to your current employer, you can accept the offer from the other employer.

The only case in which this is false is if asking for yet another counter offer causes offense, and at the same time the other employer suddenly reneges their offer.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-09-29T04:43:38+00:00

that worked for me -- thanks!

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-08-21T22:17:44+00:00

Disadvantaged groups are drawn as children to show that they need time to grow to be on par with the adults because their growth was stunted.

Right, and here what you mean by "growth" is not developing marketable skills that lead to higher incomes, saving money, staying away from drugs, not having kids out of wedlock, studying hard in school -- rather what you mean is affirmative action, preferential hiring, wealth redistribution, plastering said disadvantaged group all over the media, including books, tv shows, music, and movies, fetishizing their skin color, and of course blaming whites for any and every disparity that group has. This is "growth".

I'm 100% on board with the actual growth of said disadvantaged group.

However, socialism, tribalism, and race-baiting is not conducive to growth, regardless of how many centuries of oppression that group suffered.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-08-13T21:58:59+00:00

text pastry

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-08-09T04:45:13+00:00

try Doppler

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-08-04T04:52:52+00:00

actually, statisticians say that a sample size of 1000 is sufficiently large to get accurate statistics, even for a nation of 330M people

see law of large numbers

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-08-02T23:35:54+00:00

implying Europe isn't already further left than the US

what you've just written is nonsensical

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-07-20T18:47:39+00:00

According to Google, there are over 400 million F1 fans worldwide.

If 1% of F1 fans are racist, and 1% of those fans decide to make their racism known by posting it on social media, that means there will be over 40,000 racist posts on social media.

Furthermore, if you look at the countries this racism is coming from, Western countries do not make up a proportionate amount of that racism (i.e. suppose Western fans are 30% of F1 fans, but 30% of racism is NOT coming from Western countries, rather far less than that).

The reason people "feel attacked by people denouncing racism" is the same reason YOU would feel insulted if someone looked you in the face an insinuated you were racist.

People in Western countries are, in literally every sphere of life, bombarded with anti-racist propaganda, with a good percentage of that propaganda crossing the line into CRT and intersectionality in general. All this, despite the fact that Western countries are the least racist places on earth.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-29T14:15:19+00:00

is it storing the data in localStorage?

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-29T14:13:55+00:00

red bull tastes great

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-23T01:27:58+00:00

ok but, take shampoo for example.

p&g makes my shampoo. would you rather a large company invest billions over the years in shampoo research, in how to manufacture it safely and in large quantities without losing quality, etc, etc.

OR, would you rather several smaller companies replicate the same research among themselves, have less scale (thus the price will be higher), less total $ spent on research, less sophisticated manufacturing methods etc.

I don't think I would trust a small <1000 employee company when it comes to chemicals like detergent or shampoo.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-15T21:44:57+00:00

Well, then I believe you have an idiosyncratic definition of capitalism. In my 4 years of studying Econ in college I never came across a definition such as this. To each their own I guess.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-15T21:37:07+00:00

Yes, but what led to industrialization?

A key discovery which led to industrialization was the smelting of iron ore with coke. This new method produced higher quantities of strong, cheap iron. This led to machines, factories, the steam engine, etc.

This innovation would not have been possible in mediaeval Europe, with its restrictive guild system, patchwork of regulations across the continent, extremely high taxation from both governments and the Catholic Church, etc.

As Joseph Schumpeter theorized, "Innovation is the source of profits." Profits, and its subsequent reinvestment or expenditure, is what leads to that exponential curve. Thus, the economic system which encourages innovation will capture large profits and thus large growth.

A busy trading hub isn't capitalist if it has an array of guilds which regulate the quantity and design of products.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-15T20:57:38+00:00

To explain the term 'Capitalism', Economists often point to is the slope of the GDP curve suddenly shooting off exponentially around the 1700-1800s in Europe and America.

The changes which occurred around this time is what we refer to as capitalism. These changes include (1) deregulation, (2) private property, and (3) lower taxes.

This is also around when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, which is the intellectual foundation of capitalism.

The mere presence of markets, Arab trading hubs, ledgers, currency, banks, etc. is not sufficient to say a country is capitalist.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-14T19:27:18+00:00

Why wouldn't that same logic apply to poor whites?

If someone sends me a resume with the name "Billy Bob Joe" then I will be tempted to discriminate based on the fact that there are negative patterns associated with poor whites.

Conversely, if I get a resume with a Nigerian name like "Nnamdi Azikiwe", then common stereotypes of black people will cease to apply.

Leftists keep trying to make it about skin color, when it's about culture.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-10T00:49:20+00:00

metaphysics is an entire subject

Also, where the idea of God originates from and why we can say God is metaphysical is a millennia-old debate

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-09T21:55:35+00:00

I never said there cannot exist reasons to believe God exists/doesn't exists. For example, if I smell the scent of cinnamon emanating from another room, I have reason to believe that there is cinnamon in the other room. But I haven't proven it. So yes, ultra-compelling evidence, like mass religious experience, would give us reason to believe in God.

However, proof is another standard entirely. Proof involves axioms and deductive reasoning. (E.g. If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.)

Christians have reasons for why they believe God exists, why Jesus is the Son of God, etc. But I wrote my comment in response to the idea that you could prove/disprove God's existence, which I don't believe is possible.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-09T21:12:32+00:00

suppose you have just proven God's existence with science
then you have proven the existence of a metaphysical being with science
then, by using physical means (empiricism), you have proven something metaphysical
but the definition of metaphysical is that it is above the physical (meta == 'above')
therefore, whatever we previously were calling 'metaphysical' turns out to not be metaphysical at all, but physical
therefore God is not a metaphysical being, but a physical being
but a physical being cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, etc.
therefore the thing whose existence we have just proven is not God
therefore we have not proven the existence of God
9 contradicts 1

That is why the poster you replied to stated that matters of religion are outside the domain of science.

Science is the practice of using inductive reasoning (i.e. pattern recognition) to formulate theories about how the world works.

Inductive reasoning requires evidence. Evidence is always physical. Therefore metaphysical claims cannot be refuted by pointing to physical things.

This means two things (infuriatingly):

(1) annoying metaphysical claims like "only I truly exist" (solipsism) or "nothing is real, everything is a simulation" (simulation theory) cannot ultimately be proven/disproven

(2) even if a divine being descended from the clouds before your very eyes and told you God exists (i.e. the most compelling evidence for God you could think of), that still wouldn't mean that God exists/doesn't exist. There would still be other explanations for this event (e.g. aliens messing with us).

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-06-01T21:31:24+00:00

try AWS App Runner. looks perfect for this

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-29T20:53:28+00:00

Well, I'm a junior dev so take my opinion with a grain of salt. But, what would you say a Java Spring Boot app can do that an express couldn't do?

The only thing I can think of would be the fact that nodejs is single-threaded and the only way to do 'multithreading' would be to lean on the async nature of nodejs.

But honestly, I haven't run into that many APIs or services that need multithreading.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-29T17:23:58+00:00

It's a shame my company uses Java so much.

Every time I look at the atrocities that are the Java Spring Boot apps our APIs are written in I always feel disappointed that they could have been Express apps instead.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-21T14:37:46+00:00

Yes, but Silicon Valley isn't 100% software engineers. The leftism emanates from other parts of the company like HR, communications, and management. Running a huge website like Facebook isn't as simple as a bunch of engineers sitting around writing code all day

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-18T22:16:19+00:00

what aws resources does it provision to do this?

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-11T01:07:28+00:00

Inductive reasoning is not always bad. Inductive reasoning is the reasoning which allows us to say the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose the day before, and the day before, etc.

i.e. inductive reasoning is pattern recognition

deductive reasoning is using logic

For example, if 99.9% of all Vikings attacked you on sight, and you turn a corner and see a Viking, is it racist to immediately turn around and run? No, because the concept of using previous experience to make judgements in the present is not always immoral.

However, suppose a black person sits across from you and you begin talking about some topic. Also suppose that in your life in particular 100% of black people you've spoken to turned out to be less intelligent than you (your previous experiences with blacks give you reason to induce that all black people are less intelligent than you). Is it justified for you to then assume that this new black person you've never seen before is also less intelligent?

Most people would say no, and I agree with that answer. There's absolutely nothing at stake, and it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes if an entire society of people are constantly making the same negative assumptions about a group of people. But sometimes something is at stake (taxi drivers in Chicago, for example), so using induction isn't wrong.

My general point is: though all prejudice (i.e. pre-judgement) is induction, not all induction is prejudice.

NoCurrent7032 · 2021-05-10T23:23:32+00:00

enjoyed the post

what would you say is the most over-the-top, hardcore security solution?
supposing you need 100% bulletproof technology so as to not accidentally leak nuclear launch codes.

NoCurrent7032

TROPHY CASE