That’s why I’m very happy with the prosecution of Carlos Ghosn in Japan. Yes, this maybe part of an international power game between the two car vendors executives but if there is charges against him he’s not clean either. In France he would had a fake trial like all influencing people have and be sparred from jail or any real consequences. In Japan he risks jail like everyone regardless of his status.
It have a lot of functions but it is still very lacking on the UX side. I launched it today for small image correction and had to wait literally for minutes. Also, no native file picker, dialog boxes losing focus and becoming unclickable, no way to find how to move text object, all that frustrating things happen in the same 15 minutes of use.
I doubt it'll be GIMP, but i'd like to see a program that follows the UX of Paint Shop Pro (especially PSP7, the last good version IMO before they rewrote the UI and then sold it to Corel that gutted it out) which i always found much easier and more intuitive to use than both Photoshop and GIMP.
For a little while i thought Krita would be it, but i quickly realized that they just copied Photoshop for the most part.
That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.
Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.
It quickly becomes very much a moral question if any of the women become pregnant.
I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.
And I'll just add that the link between sex and children is nowhere near completely severed. I am aware of tons of people who have had children A) before they planned to, and B) with someone they weren't in a serious relationship with.
Morals and evolution are tightly coupled. For starters, if you consider the practical morals society lives by, many of them are about controlling reproduction. That's one of the primary purposes of our moral institutions (religion).
At a deeper level, both morality and evolution are all about encouraging survival of genes.
>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill.
In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women.
Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.
Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it?
A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.
They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
>Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it?
Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter.
>A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.
These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success.
>They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.
Some women pursue this strategy. But I don't think it's anywhere near most. Having a husband who will prioritize providing for you and your children above anybody else is a really valuable thing to have.
> George Clooney is probably at least 1000 times richer than Joe Average. So he could provide better for 50 women than Joe Average for one.
Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.
Exactly this. And having a mate who is exclusively committed to you can have a much better distribution of outcomes at the bottom end than an allowance from some rich guy who isn't very invested in you. After all, if somebody isn't committed enough to make you their one and only, why should you believe that they'll keep sending money your way.
I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that it is a minority of women who pursue that strategy. The vast majority of women are seeking a monogamous and exclusive relationship.
I'm not convinced. Yes, they do, because in Western societies that is the main option (thanks to monogamy mandated Christiantiy, presumably). That doesn't imply it is their preference.
Maybe their preference would by monogamy - with George Clooney. But since that is not an option, the bets are off. In general, there may not be enough rich men willing to take on multiple women for a significant number of women to choose that option.
Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.
A survey about how much sex respondents are having doesn't tell you WHY they are having less sex.
Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range.
Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.
The sentence reads "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man." - in my browser it is directly above one of the charts.
I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.
Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.
As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
I don't understand what you mean? Surely the MGTOW movement is not increasing the proportion of men who successfully reproduce, given that they seem to be about not reproducing?
Don't forget about the 'ATTACH DATABASE' option as well. It is great for linking up individual SQLite databases when you need to do a broad-based query across multiple
sources.
If you use a GUI front-end like SQLiteStudio (https://sqlitestudio.pl/), attaching databases is ridiculously easy to do. Just add the database name from the left column in front of the table or table.column label for the database you want to reference. Most SQLite GUI's will do the attach command for you internally.
I add the database name to my queries instinctively now in SQLiteStudio, so that no matter which DB is currently in focus/opened the query runs on the one I intended it to run on.
You might also be interested in https://github.com/src-d/go-mysql-server , a Go library for putting a MySQL-compatible frontend over a custom virtual data source.
As a Canadian I would tend to agree. My take on things is that while both countries spy, the reasons they do it are what matters. Broadly speaking the US spies to prevent terrorism and violence, where as China spies to steal IP, control their international diaspora for political purposes at home and abroad, and to destabilize democracies. The CCP worldview is incredibly cynical.
I'm actually not sure I agree. I have the nagging feeling that China spying on me is most likely to have zero consequences for my daily life, while the US spying on me can get me on a no-fly list or something.
False equivalency. The US has not been caught on the scale of China and its forced tech transfer policies. US may have some limited targeted activity, but they aren't wholesale strip mining industry IP.
The US is not regularly directing its hackers to break into the worlds companies to steal all their IP and then put it into play across all industries. The amount of blatant copying is insane... just head to any market in Asia to see the abundant fakes that flood the markets. There is no comparison.
Every single time China appears on HN these days, it seems that it's nearly impossible to make headway in the threads because of the whataboutism that inevitably crops up. I was recently told that it's not _actually_ whataboutism, it's $SOMETHING_ELSE.
They also don’t have re-education camps for religious minorities, a social credit score, and no rule of law. The U.S. is deeply flawed, especially when you take their war on drugs into account, but I’d still prefer them over China any day of the week.
The US does have execution drones that target people based on metadata [1].
> In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.”
> According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.”
I am not a Chinese dissident. China is not going around the globe putting people in execution vans there. So my personal consequences of Chinese surveillance are rather limited. The possible impact on my life is in no way comparable to the possible impact of the same by the US. I would like to not be mistook landing on no-fly lists, being banned from international banking as well as from making business with any company.
> I am not a Chinese dissident....So my personal consequences of Chinese surveillance are rather limited.
I would recommend that you think of yourself as a dissident, including as a foreign dissident, even if you aren't actually one. I think that attitude can be a great source of moral guidance and perspective.
Which has nothing to do with the question of what would be preferable to European citizens, US surveillance or Chinese surveillance. The possible effects are rather clear cut, which is why I dont understand why anyone would views this differently. I understand that for a lot of people this becomes a moral question quickly, but thats not whats up to debate here. Its not about the justifications for surveillance programs but their direct effect on people living in Europe. I also have less to worry about from North Korean surveillance, simply because I am not a north Korean. We dont have that luxus with the US, despite not being a US citizen. Or more fittingly because we are not US citizens.
> Which has nothing to do with the question of what would be preferable to European citizens, US surveillance or Chinese surveillance.
> Its not about the justifications for surveillance programs but their direct effect on people living in Europe.
That's a bizarre question and pretty self-centered. Also, as a European, if you're trying to somehow choose between one or the other, wouldn't you want to most strongly oppose the surveillance run by the regime that's least aligned to European/Western values?
Its the post we are responding to though. And the notion, that if you could chose, Europeans would prefer to be spied on by the US is absurd. My posts are about nothing more. The threat analysis for most Europeans is rather straight forward on what will have a larger potential to have a larger negative impact on your live.
> The threat analysis for most Europeans is rather straight forward on what will have a larger potential to have a larger negative impact on your live.
I did it a bit further up. Like you can ask the toddlers who ended up on no fly lists, mistakes happen. And if you are not a US citizen, you dont have any legal recourse. And if you end up with a case of mistaken identity, you can not just be put on no fly lists, but be banned from international banking as well as having any company doing business in the US be banned from engaging in any transactions with you. Which is basically every company. Not even mentioning the worst cases of illegal renditions and being put in torture black sites as well as drone killings if you went on holiday in the wrong region of the world.
And even if you assume a perfectly working surveillance system, there are still people being targeted for legal behavior, like being employed by someone who has business relations with Iran or something trivial like having your PayPal account canceled for transactions to Cuba.
Where as with china, what exactly is the possible personal impact for non Chinese citizens? Having my bosses IP stolen? Not being allowed to travel to China?
As an American, I would rather get spied on by the US than by China, too.
All of the pro-China downvoters on this and many other HN threads.... I do not understand you. I recall from my political sciences courses in university that a hallmark of progressivism was being against imperialism. The basic idea here is that imperialism involves deliberately expanding a government's control of physical territory through violence, subjugation, cultural appropriation, theft, and many other means.
The idea why imperialism is a moral BAD was that it inextricably involves suppressing the human rights of others.
Now, China is an imperialist power. Full stop. It wants more land and more people. It has killed and is killing to get more land and more people.
The same cannot be said of the US.
So why the constant whataboutism on China issues here on HN?
I'm not sure the US isn't imperialist by your definition.
At the very least the second Iraqi war hints to the contrary. It appears the main agenda there was a grab for oil and not a security threat.
Not to mention its behavior in South America during the cold war.
Now, I prefer the US over China, because its ideals are at least against imperialism and pro human rights, democracy and freedom. They might not always do what they preach, but these ideals combined with soft power approach, is (was?) A source of good.
(If only they didn't hate socialism so much, and didn't prefer corporation freedom over human freedom, it would have been even better... well, let's hope the EU can survive)
The interesting part about oil is not so much who can extract it but who controls if it gets extracted. Which in turn means who can control the oil price by extracting more or less of it.
The only companies that participate in PRISM are government security contractors. You appear not to have understood what PRISM is, which is astonishing given how much documentation we have about it.
Reading the answers to your comment, can get pretty depressive. As people are just taking spionage for granted, trying to choose who we would want to let spy on us.
Please, can we try, or at least pretend we are trying to defend our rights to privacy of data that should be private?
I dont want to have to choose who should spy on me. We are entering into this dystopian reality, and somehow we are fine with it.. but there will be a time, we will understand it's too late, and theres no going back.
I hope we wake up sooner than that. Dont just accept it as it is, it will have severe consequences to our future, if we let them to have all of our data, because this means complete control of our lives and the end of the little free will we still have.
It feels to me like choosing which mob lord would be the less evil to me.. We need to understand we dont actually need to make this kind of choice. Resist. Dont let them have it.
Probably some negative impact. Sci-hub is the primary and in some case only way to access paywalled papers at master and undergrad level. I’m not sure how PhD students get access to them but if it through libraries this is bad for them as the opening days and hours of such institutions is limited. Even more so which strikes which sometimes close a library for weeks.
You can typically get any paper your university library has a subscription to via the libraries online portal or if you are in the university network already at the undergraduate and masters level. If some journal is not available at the library you can request an interlibrary „loan“ which just means that someone at another library will copy the article and send it to you, typically for free.
I have been registered as a student in 5 French universities and I can tell you that even if I can get "any" paper if I can enter a library (which is a joke in itself), sci-hub is 10 times more convient than the bureaucracy involved. The only time I requested a book from the stock, the librarian didn't even give it to me pretexting it was lost... probably because did like me as I had an unopened sandwich in hand.
Well as I said at least in Germany the universities have a web portal through which you can access pretty much any article you want electronically. The workflow for a student of medicine is something like:
- Search for an article on PubMed in the university library portal
- Get a list of results
- Download the article as pdf from the publishers website
Additionally many journals are accessible just by navigating to the publishers website (science, nature, physics journals, ieee journals) depending on which university vpn you are logged into. This covers most use cases, I am sorry to hear it’s not the same in France.
As an researcher I typically only encounter a paywall when I‘m not logged into my institutes VPN. In the rare cases I want to read something the university is not subscribed to, Scihub is indeed a good solution. Open access just moves the cost of publishing to research groups and disincentives proper peer review, because the journal’s revernue is tied to how many paper it publishes. See for example the 15+ Frontiers in ... Journals, which are just barely not predatory and basically publish anything with a pulse. A mix of preprint severs like arxiv and (much later) journal publication seem like a good compromise.
Journals don't incentivize proper peer review, open access or otherwise. Peer review is just something that professors and their assistants are expected to do as part of their research. Which means it's usually paid for by the public, ultimately.
Anecdotally, this is true for me. My Arch machine runs for months with no issues. My XPS running 10 blue screens once every several weeks, and generally has issues after running too long.
To be fair it could be due to the general buggy-ness of the TB16 Thunderbolt dock.
Yeah of course, different people will have different experiences. Mine was being never able to make wifi work, random destruction of the GUI when I plugged an external monitor, difficulty to install and configure eastern languages IME, sound issues, etc. That was a very instructive period as undergraduate in informatics, but I got tired after a while to constantly fix my system instead of getting things done. Still using it as a server OS, where it shines.
I've jumped from Debian 7 to Debian 9 without issue, and the Gnome Software Center makes installing apps a point and click process (reminds me of Click N Run from Linspire...).
There are notable fit and finish issues with other distros, but from what I've seen the Debian package maintainers consistently make decisions to protect the package archive from breakage, whether that be holding back a FreeCiv point release over a buggy UI element, or stripping out non-free parts of Chromium that upstream bundles.
It depends what distribution you're running (and what time we're talking about, ten years ago was a different situation), but if you're on a mainstream long-term release like Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse and so on, it's pretty smooth nowadays, on average at least.
Yes, there's still the 1-2% of roughness around the edges, but as OP pointed out, on linux you can actually fix stuff. It is definitely not an "april fools" worthy statement. Linux is really stable these days.
> I’d say learning how to write those characters is mostly a waste for anyone other than historians
You are totally wrong here: this is a useful skill for anyone living there because, like it or not, this is how people are actually writing their languages. Also have a look at any scientific paper written in Korean and you will see how comical it is: every conceptual word is follow by its writing in Chinese characters in parenthesis because there is so many homophones for all the loan words coming from Chinese that using a phonemic script makes the text un-understandable.
You must have misunderstood, when I said "write", I meant handwriting, with stroke order and all. There's no need to learn to write this way, at all, for almost anyone.
Oh I see. But then, handwriting taken appart, stroke order does matter and is a feature for more easy remembering. One actually only have to rote learn 500 characters to get a feeling of the system and then handwriting get optional. Anyway, how would you recommend to learn the characters instead?
Like Prof Victor Mair says, if someone is a beginner, I don't recommend learning characters at all for the first 2-3 years.
(If you are a Japanese learner, learning kana wouldn't hurt, it takes a few weeks at most anyways vs years for kanji - and it's not like you "master" kanji after those years, as any native speaker would be able to demonstrate).
2-3 years is an awfully long time to spend learning a language without being able to read, though. And if you plan to learn it later anyway, you might as well start with it from the beginning.
Yeah I should've said "I don't recommend learning how to write the characters by hand in the first 2-3 years, or ever".
As gibolt said, it's much easier to just learn to recognize characters, without being able to write them by hand.
If you learn Japanese for, say, 2 years, even without consciously trying to learn the characters (e.g. by using rikai-chan/kun) when reading articles, you'll encounter the same words over and over so you'll be able to recognize them, even if you can't write them by hand. And that's good enough.
Most native Japanese speakers cannot write words like 咀嚼 or 憂鬱 by hand, but many more can pronounce them just fine.
Pr Mair have his opinion on the matter, I have mine. And while he his famous in his field, given I have formal education in Japanese at the MA level, some self taught Chinese proficiency (mostly reading) and linguistic knowledge (mostly phonology) about both these languages and some of their older varieties, I would not blindly follow his advice that I think is misleading.
That doesn't mean Chinese education is perfect right now, and I also think that traditional characters, while seeming more complex can be better for beginners as the system has a more regular internal consistency. And it's easier to learn simplified when knowing traditional than the reverse.
Yeah, I'd recommend actually learning the language (vocab, pronunciation etc), rather than trying to learn the characters and trying to improve the retention of them.
