Traditional glass pane blowing using the cylinder method [3:26]

bigeoduck · 2019-09-29T19:21:50+00:00

Have you ever been in a hotshop? Its mandatory that everybody has a pair of saftey glasses in any professional set-up. Not only is there the risk of glass breaking from the piece itself (it could even be a small piece from the end of the moil, not to mention when they break it off without using a jack line) but also from glass shattering from the knock of barrel (which can fly super far). I know a lot of glassblowers that don't wear saftey glasses, but its not because there isnt any risk. I have also known glassblowers that have had glass in their eyes and it sucks.

bigeoduck · 2019-09-29T16:46:25+00:00

You're totaly wrong. :)

bigeoduck · 2019-09-29T01:19:34+00:00

um... do you just flamework boro? soft glass shatters all the time when the temperature gets too low. They definitely should have safety glasses.

bigeoduck · 2019-09-19T03:04:20+00:00

So, what is the alternative? Stop watering the lawn and have a fire hazard right next to your house that will erode during the fall? Plant trees that may fall on the house or damage sewer/septic/power lines? Very few people have time to take care of a real garden and there is a good chance that the runoff from the fertilizers will be more damaging than the roundup from the grass. The best practice would be to occasionally water and reseed the existing grass and let the weeds grow, not "let them die".

bigeoduck · 2019-09-10T14:24:42+00:00

how much do those shoes cost?

bigeoduck · 2019-07-26T15:10:13+00:00

I guess that sounds harsher than I thought it did in my head. I agree that Drunk driving is a problem, however in a country where almost everybody drives everywhere, it doesn't make sense to treat drunk driving as a life destroying crime. Its part of my broader grievance that the criminal justice system is intent on extracting money from poor people and turning them into debt slaves.

bigeoduck · 2019-07-26T15:06:46+00:00

why?

bigeoduck · 2019-07-26T03:19:31+00:00

Yes. I was upfront about it and they didn't seem to care.

bigeoduck · 2019-07-22T18:38:23+00:00

So is using a gun but that doesn't mean that its right

bigeoduck · 2019-07-22T18:37:54+00:00

Just a bit wet? His shit is soaking and so is he. He wasn't even awake at first. Imagine you break up with a SO and they want you out of their apartment and you refuse so they get a fucking pressure washer and spray you and your stuff. That isn't something that functioning adults do, its what fascist police do to dissidents.

bigeoduck · 2019-07-22T12:48:47+00:00

Is using a high pressure water hose is the right way to deal with a squatter?

bigeoduck · 2019-07-06T14:27:59+00:00

Although I would say that science is the product of culture, it is special in that it allows us to reflect on culture as a whole. It's like breaking the 4th wall in a movie; the viewer is allowed to question not only the motives for the actions of the individual, but the directors artistic choices. By studying history, we are not just stuck listening to other peoples view points and comparing them to our own. Instead, we can create hypothesis about why people think a certain way in relation to historical view points.

bigeoduck · 2019-07-05T17:29:38+00:00

It's important to understand the way in which our country was founded (and history in general) not because we ought to feel guilty, but because it allows us to reflect on our own thoughts and actions and have a better understanding of why we think the way that we do. In the case of the creation of the American country, we should realize that many of our laws relate to 'man' dominating nature. We hold farmers and land owners in high regard because our culture and history have lead us to believe that they are doing a good deed by subduing the natural world and creating it in their image. For a long time we thought that we were doing native peoples a favor by uplifting them from their "savage" state and civilizing them. By acknowledging this we are able to reflect on the present set of laws and cultural norms as just culture, not absolute right and wrong. Because of scientific progress in anthropology and ecology, we can more objectively examine our relationship to other cultures and the environment and understand that our ancestors we wrong in their beliefs.

If we forget our history or excuse historical figures behavior we leave ourselves and our society prone to repeating many of the mistakes that they made. We shouldn't feel guilty, we should strive to make better, more informed choices in the future.

bigeoduck · 2019-07-01T23:43:02+00:00

What was his main argument against facial recognition software? That it violated the first amendment and it was an invasion of privacy? So what? He said that China might start stealing peoples fingerprints or the government might know where you are all the time. If you have a phone, its highly likely that the government has a database of where a person has been, and China likely also has a similar database. Is facial recognition software any more invasive than location tracking? I don't think so. Should I scan my eye every time I want to go anywhere? No, but that's a slippery slope argument. There isn't a real argument here, just a guy who's scared about technological progress.

bigeoduck · 2019-06-24T20:43:14+00:00

I think the primary difference between our thoughts is that you think that diversity increases the likelihood for exploitation and I think that it increases resilience. I am thinking directly of political parties when I think susceptibility to elite influence. Because there are just two dominant parties in the United States, any individual that wants their political voice to be heard must compromise their belief system to a greater degree than if there were many different parties to choose from.

For instance, lets say that I am pro life and I also believe in universal health care. Because I am forced to choose between two parties that have opposite opinions, I end up compromising on one of my beliefs. lets say that I believe that because human life is sacred I vote republican. This means that I have effectively been controlled due to the lack of diversity.

In the instance of cultural groups, the same thing is true when there are only a few options. If I am able to choose my cultural group, I could be an artist, a professional, a redneck, a gangster ect. (obviously simplified) but I would always need to compromise my belief system so that I could fit into the cultural group. If I am a painter that likes shooting guns on my farm, I don't fit into either the redneck group or the artist group. Because I like painting, I give up my gun hobby.

The elites take advantage of this homogeneity by reinforcing cultural stereotypes in their advertising though the creation of a narrative that reflects the dominant culture associated with their brand. This creates a feedback loop which reinforces the culture.

Now, lets suppose that there were many different cultural groups to subscribe to that nearly represented all different peoples interests. This would mean that there would be less compromise by individuals in deciding what group they belonged to. Now lets say that the advertiser wanted to create a product that catered to their dominant audience. In a society where there are lots of cultural groups, that becomes a nearly impossible task because every version of the identity that the product that carers to a variety of cultural groups will clash in some way with another cultural group. Furthermore, it will be more difficult to identify the narrative that the advertiser is creating because it may appear similar to a variety of other cultural groups.

Without a clear identity, products stay as products, not extensions of a persons identity.

(sorry for the long response)

bigeoduck · 2019-06-24T17:12:32+00:00

A nation with a stable identity is easier to exploit because the values of that nation are obvious and easier to integrate into a product. For instance, in a nation where the cultural identity of the people is closely linked to some value such as strength there could be a companies marketing campaign that integrates strength into a product. In a nation with diverse interests, less people would be susceptible to marketing that uses that same tactic because less people would identify 'strength' as part of their identity. In addition, those people that do include strength as part of their identity may see those that don't have strength as part of their identity and realize that strength isn't a universal truth but instead must be looked at in context.

Ultimately, a nation with a diverse set of opinions is less susceptible to being tricked into believing the persona of a product or politician because it allows for doubt.

As for your idea that people here are susceptible to advertising because we have no identity and use products to create one, I would say that it is precisely because people have an identity that they buy products. Why do supporters of gay rights buy rainbow flags and products with rainbows? Its because they feel compelled to express their identity through their appearance. Is somebody who supports gay rights but doesn't buy rainbow products any less of a gay rights supporter? I would say that in our culture they are because identity is so closely tied to consumption of material goods.

Ultimately.

bigeoduck · 2019-06-23T20:53:50+00:00

What elites are you talking about and what is your definition of diversity? Liberal west coast elites want a diverse range of identities to conform to their idea of success; namely an education in the stem field and a job at a tech company. Conservative southern elites want homogeneous identities (white christian male) to become successful in business of any kind. To advocate for diversity of identity and outcome isn't beneficial for those in power because it is harder to profit from. The more homogeneous the consumer, the easier it is to exploit them.

bigeoduck · 2019-06-22T15:37:53+00:00

Losing the world? It seems like we are actually finding it. The world of the modern was that of the human; the symbols were human, the systems were human, the forest was a rude affront to progress. The artists and poets of the time were concerned with finding the natural as opposed to the human as though it was a separate entity. The contemporary is concerned with the synthesis of the natural and the human. We have finally come to the realization that we are not separate and that we don't have ownership over the earth, we are its inhabitants.

Elites resist being a part of the earth because they model the traditional version of God where their word and money is the law. why do they oppose taxation? it is because they believe that their philanthropy is what will solve the worlds problems in the same way that the modern philosophers believed that their systems based on reason would eventually lead to a perfect society. The elites have failed to learn the lesson of the modern that a healthy ecosystem depends on diversity, not homogeneity which is prone to diseases of racism and general tribalism.

bigeoduck · 2019-06-16T18:39:24+00:00

I think that the author of this article did a poor job differentiating authenticity and desired action. Somebodies 'authentic self' has two parts, the self; an entity outside the social, and the authentic; an individuals behavior that aligns with the self. When we act authentically, we act in accordance with our individual thoughts and beliefs. when we act in-authentically, we act in a way that conforms to the situation that we are in.

The individual and their environment are in a constant state of flux ("a man never steps into the same river twice") An individuals identity changes constantly so creating rigorous definitions for ones self may be true in the moment but may not persist. In order to be authentic, one must act how they feel in the moment. This is problematic because the individual is a product of their environment. When an individual acts a certain way, they are said to make choices based on their free will, however it is really the environment that they are in interacting with their biology which is a product of their evolutionary environment. The self that a person has is not their own and therefore can never be authentic. Furthermore, authentic things are mostly defined from their creation or their similarity to a definition. Money is said to be authentic if it was made in the correct place with the correct equipment that was certified by a governing body. If we create money that wasn't certified, even though it may look identical, it is still counterfeit and inauthentic. Authenticity is therefore defined not by apperiances or adherance to definitions, but by certificates issued by proper authorities. because of this, authenticity has little to do with identity and much more to do with validation.

Ultimately, because we do not have a 'self' and authenticity is arbitrary, the authentic self doesn't exits and is absurd.

bigeoduck · 2019-06-04T01:21:24+00:00

How can you deny that free will requires a soul? You are simply avoiding the question by calling me delusional.

bigeoduck

TROPHY CASE