I disagree with the author when they say something along the lines of “why don’t we use buttons instead of using these new assistive technology? Buttons are much faster, and I proved humans like fast.”
I think that’s false. Why after 10 years of software development I haven’t learned EMACS? Because I’m lazy, because I don’t think it’s the bottleneck of my work. My bottleneck might be creativity or knowledge and conversational interfaces might be the best thing there are for these (in the lack of a knowledgeable and kind human, which the author also seems to agree with).
Anyway, I don’t know, I found the title a bit disconnected from the content and the conclusions a bit overlappingly confusing but this is a complicated question. In the end I agree that we want a mix of things, we want a couple of keyboard strokes and we want chats. But most of all we probably want direct brain interface! ;)
Built-in components do as much work as possible directly on the client. Any Python code however runs on the server. This makes it dead-simple to e.g. connect to your database and also gives you the full power of real CPython, not just a cut-down WASM/transpiled version.
I wonder why they claim they need this... Tor seems to be doing fine as an organization without collecting user data? Why maintaining Firefox is much more expensive?
I guess the codebase for Firefox is much larger and in the end Tor is a fork of Firefox, right? So maybe they do need much more resources?
Not to say I'm not disappointed with Mozilla once again.
Tor is (was?) heavily subsidised by secret services in a.o. the US.
> likewise, agencies within the U.S. government variously fund Tor (the U.S. State Department, the National Science Foundation, and – through the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which itself partially funded Tor until October 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28network%29?wprov=sfla1
While it has had funding from some sources we don’t necessarily trust, it’s still entirely open source and the code has been combed through repeatedly.
When it comes to privacy apps, I’d place significantly more trust in something like that than literally anything closed source or unscrutinized to that degree.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that we should not trust it.
I was merely implying that there's a major difference between the model behind TOR and that of Firefox.
And also similarities: if TOR is funded by entitities we don't trust and it turns out to work fine, then Firefox, being "funded" by Google should not have to be a severe problem either.
>And Mozilla leadership is associated with radical left politics, just as an extra.
Do you have proof for this? I'd be curious.
I also fail to see how is that related to the collecting data by default thing. Is that a leftist thing now?
Whether you agree or disagree with what the Mozilla foundation does, it seems fairly matter of fact to say that they are pursuing liberal policies and that posts from the leadership, like the couple below, employ a good bit of leftist rhetoric.
Getting people to identify corporate PR speak with "radical leftist rhetoric" is perhaps one of the most darkly genius angles of the conservative culture war in recent memory.
Who even read these dumb company blogs before this?
Radical right: “Almost nothing great has ever been done in the world except by the genius and firmness of a single man combating the prejudices of the multitude.”
Far-right: “I know there are some who become sick when they see black uniforms… but those who come to fear us at any time must have a guilty conscience before the nation.”
Right: “This means that every Canadian will see their income taxes go down. This means more money to pay the bills, to save up for your kids' education or maybe even finally afford a family vacation.”
Centre: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.”
Left: “To put it bluntly, no one should be faced with a choice that says, in effect, “your money or your life”. “
far left: “ The role of the police and the military is growing, and the links between these enforcers of ruling class power and far-right and fascist parties and movements, are becoming more visible.”
Radical left: “ They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
Socially left in the American sense (same with "liberal"). You're just insisting on the Old World economic sense, which is totally irrelevant in America.
Oppressing workers is fine, but it better be inclusive oppression.
I've been meditating pretty consistently for the last year 20 min meditations or more every day and though I've put way more than the time the OP put in trying to achieve jhanas I couldn't even reach the first one.
I wonder what I'm missing!
I went on a Jhourney retreat with about a year of daily practice under my belt. I didn't reach jhana, and was a bit discouraged after finding out that almost everyone else around me had! I think around 75% of those who attended based on my calculations. Including those with almost no background in meditation at all. But also some people who came to the retreat had already had access to these states. I do credit the retreat for reinvigorating my practice though, and reinforcing that jhana or no you should be aiming to be relaxed and joyful after most meditation sessions or you're probably doing it wrong.
If you're a beginner, you'll need to work your way up to at least 45-minute sessions. You're not going to be able to enter jhanas in 20 minutes unless you're very experienced and entered them consistently for a long time. For me, it was when I got to 1 hour sessions when I started to experience the deep absorption for jhanas.
I find that multiple sessions is the way to go. not necessarily longer. Like, dedicate 3 days to chill stuff (walking, cleaning...) and meditation. Meditate, say, 6 times a day for 20-30 minutes. That'll do it. Fasting helps too.
I'm in a similar boat. I wish it were possible to externally verify in some way. I'm a bit skeptical of how easily a lot of newcomers to meditation claim to have reached them.
Although I agree that a lot of people may be overblowing their experience, either by mistake, through ignorance, or else for clout/internet points, think about it this way: when the Buddha was alive, the jhanas were standard practice, and had been for as long as yogis could remember. The Buddhist teaching almost assumes a familiarity with the jhanas and doesn't really explicitly teach how to access them. The entire teaching is based on the Buddha learning the jhanas from various teachers of the time, mastering them, and eventually finding them unsatisfactory. Yogis who came to the Buddha seemed to already have an understanding and background with jhanas, which the Buddha then taught them to use to realise what he himself had realised. What this tells us is that jhanas aren't some kind of lofty, difficult to achieve thing that only a select few ever achieve; instead, it seems to suggest that it's something that's available to anyone with enough dedication and is something that transcends traditions or religions, and has been known about for millenia.
I moved from Transcendental Meditation (which I had learned previously) which doesn't quite get you into these states to concentration and insight according to this book and it got me there.
It took me much more time (~3 years) than the author here. I meditated following a book. And the what is described here as J7/J8 happened while meditating. But, J9 happened where I didn't expect it. My dad learned yoga from a guru, and he taught me some Pranayama to ease my breathing, as I have chronic cold often. That works, but I experienced J9 (here) while doing those Pranayama rather than Sati meditation. I didn't expect it or was "trying" anything, but it happened there.
The author sheds no light in their state of learning or lifestyle. If I had to venture a guess, I would think that they play significant role..
Following Buddhist eight fold path as much as you can, serving the needy, leading a mindful life, and knowing the basics of mythology, philosophy, etc. probably will help.
> The author sheds no light in their state of learning or lifestyle. If I had to venture a guess, I would think that they play significant role..
I think that's an excellent point, though the author sets up the article in a scientific way, describing the practice as mechanical - a lot of the ability to access these states comes from coming into it with a wholesome and cleaned up mind, which comes about through doing wholesome actions, saying wholesome things (and not lying), and generally the practice of "sense restraint" - not allowing unwholesome influences into your life. Otherwise, you sit down and your mind is a well of negative thoughts and feelings that completely cloud your ability to access jhana.
Of course, if you're the sort of person that behaves, speaks and thinks that way in general, you may not realise that that's one of the main things that allow you to access the jhanas.
Do it longer. 20 minutes is just a settling in period. The more you do it the better you get.
Physical exercise first can help one mentally calm down quicker.
Finally, studying others methods is helpful. The book "the six dharma gates to the sublime" was helpful for me personally for jhana practices, and there are lots of other great resources and teachers available if you look.
I spent two decades following this approach. I didnt know that I didnt know what meditating was until I did a 10 day silent Vipassana retreat. But even a decade into learning Vipassana I couldnt get the jhanas and took me two years pretty heavy practise for it to click.
some of us just take a lot of work to get there. monkey brains maybe.
there's no real difference between you, me, and Mr. Gautama in mental structure. circumstances of course matter, but instruction, especially the interactivity is decisive.
yes, there's a practice element, to do the dissociative steps well, to get the right body sensations amplified with the right mental ones, etc.
the start-up-y way is not better or worse for you if it works. the traditional way(s) work vy constraining as much of the circumstances as possible, so the originating mind state is "exactly" as the one the instructor had.
I think the startuppy way might be a little worse, in terms of how it can set up more craving and comparison with others, particularly if you're convinced you need to experience the full Visuddhimagga jhanas to get the really real insight practice going, and others are ahead of you somehow.
I've experienced both the Sutta jhanas (in a TWIM retreat) and the VM jhanas (spontaneously after a lot of practice). They're wonderful and the VM jhanas in particular really boost sensory clarity and concentration which is certainly helpful for insight practice, but a sustained practice or rather, sustained intention to practice well have been more helpful to me over the years.
> there's no real difference between you, me, and Mr. Gautama in mental structure.
This is just not true. There are athletes with sub 100ms reaction time. The average person is over twice of that. It only makes sense that there are meditative athletes whose abilities surpass those of the average guy.
The ancient meditation wizards of yore preferred to recruit those with "habitual one-pointed attention" (these days we call them aspergers etc). Because they are uncommonly good at concentration.
it's not that simple. (neither meditation nor Aspergers [high-functioning autism].)
there are at least a hundred[0] traditional techniques for meditation. one needs to find those that work. for someone with a highly monotropic autistic trait techniques that work with a singular focus are probably more well-suited, while someone with "kind of the opposite" (hello ADHD people) should try those that are more cognitively active, have mindfulness elements, and build rich imaginary worlds.
It's crazy to see people denying that (meat) factory farming is a problem. You'd expect most of the public of this website to be rationalists in one way or another. Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases. Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?
>> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases.
Of some diseases. It also prevents other diseases. Isolating animal species, specifically separating their waste, prevents cross-contamination. Google the stories of people getting parasites from lettuce grown on a "small organic farm" downhill from the pig sty. Want to eat raw lettuce and undercooked steak without getting sick? Those privileges come from factory farming techniques.
(I grew up in an area where we washed vegetables in diluted bleach. And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.)
"'There are more and more people wanting products like triple-washed bagged lettuce, but bagged salad is a great vector for E.coli growth,' he said. 'And farms have expanded closer and closer to animal feedlots and dairies, and these are now more prone to flooding.'"
> And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.
That's more likely to speak to a lack of food safety regulation in the supply chain, from farm to slaughterhouse to store to table. It's entirely possible to properly process an artisanly raised organic cow in a way that avoids spreading E. coli all over it.
>> Outbreaks of E. coli, listeria, giardia, etc. are common in factory farmed bagged lettuce.
Common, in that millions of people eat the food and a vanishingly small number get sick during the rare outbreaks. Compare pre-industrial farming, where nearly everyone got sick on a somewhat regular basis. Read British history. Everything was boiled for a reason. Today we can get away with lightly washing our food. Most everyone opens a salad and eats without question. That is new. That is because of modern farming practices.
It's because of a multi-factorial societal shift involving vaccines, sanitation, germ theory, hand washing, water treatment, safety regulations, inspections, refridgeration, etc.
Pretending it's all because of factory farming is just silly.
The key to being able to eat rare meat is not to smear cow shit all over it and store it at 65 degrees for a day in an alley market. The key to being able to eat a salad is washing and cold storage of a product that inevitably gets exposed to pathogens in farm fields unless you raise it hydroponically in a hermetically sealed warehouse.
> Isolating animal species, specifically separating their waste, prevents cross-contamination.
Not even close to true. The act of isolating (concentrating) animal species, pumping them full of antibiotics, and concentrating their waste is a significant danger to human and animal health alike. It breeds antibiotic resistant strains of disease and the waste is never isolated - it always gets into the soil, air, and groundwater of the surrounding communities increasing the risk of cross-contamination downstream. These are well-documented, peer-reviewed, large scale impacts that you somehow ignored when googling for n=1 anecdotes to confirm your bias.
> Google the stories of people getting parasites from lettuce grown on a "small organic farm" downhill from the pig sty.
It sounds like the problem is maybe farming of animals in general? Obviously a farm being small and organic doesn't automatically equate with everything being fine. Even on factory farms animal waste seeps into groundwater and can cause tons of environmental issues, which reminded me of a report from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNutjzkXDqY
Remember, the disease spread from an animal factory farm (even in your comment). TFA is about a disease among animals. GPs comment was arguably about animal factory farms. Of course we need industrialized agriculture, but do we need animal farms?
A slightly more on topic, and more generous interpretation of GPs comment removes any contradiction.
> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases.
Modern industrial farming has been the greatest source of limiting disease, parasites and sickness. Before modern industrial farming, human life was rife with food-born parasites, disease and sickness. So much so that it severely limited people's physical and intellectual development.
> Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none.
We can survive without meat. But being omnivores, we probably need meat to thrive. Though too much of a good thing can be harmful.
> How is that even a question?
As a self-proclaimed rationalist, why does that surprise you? Rational people question things.
> Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?
A sweeping statement, that betrays ignorance of the many people that are tremendously helped or healed from terrible illnesses by eating more meat (or even, only meat). I'm not advocating everyone eat only meat, nor do I think most people would want to, but there are also MANY people who would fall gravely ill if they did so.
Again, it's fine to voice an opinion, but this kind of categorical statement that isn't supported by empirical evidence is not. I'm very well acquainted with the subject myself, having dealt with severe autoimmune issues, and if I was forced to eat only plant matter, my health would be completely compromised. It's something I have heard from thousands of others, and if you are so interested I will provide links. There is also "scientific" data to support this, though as someone who has lived through it, I don't care for it, but it exists. Anecdotes, again, by the thousands, many with ex-vegans for whom a plant-based diet took a huge toll.
It’s not perfect, but HackerNews seems to have one of the most intelligent pool of users I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with. It’s not perfect, of course, but the discourse on a HackerNews thread is light years ahead of what you’ll find on Reddit.
With HN it depends on the topic. With Reddit it depends on the subreddit. Both have their high points and their low points. If you take the topics for which HN is very well-behaved and looked at their equivalent subreddits on Reddit, then you'll find they're likewise well-behaved.
In both cases you know exactly where the brush fires are.
> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases. Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none.
Of course, life with less meat consumption has a lower quality, and life with no meat consumption is utter misery.
Cities are an aggravating factor for the spread of disease, but I’d hardly argue that they should all be dissolved: the benefits are worth the costs. Likewise with meat. Eating meat fulfills one aspect of our natures as humans; a life without meat is thus a less humane life. No thanks.
So is any travel especially public. Should we just do permanent lockdown. Only allow people in essential jobs or jobs that can't be done from home to get outside their houses?
If we really wanted to stop diseases from spreading, we could go back to lockdowns. That would clearly be effective way. And also it would be effective in combating climate change.
>Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?
I have personally been helped by a diet of mostly meat (and frozen raspberries) which I stayed on for a few years. It helped me to stay somewhat productive while I slowly recovered from a complicated illness state.
These years I get most of my protein from beans and almonds, but those foods do subtle cumulative damage to my gut (even if I pre-soak, pressure-cook, then refry the beans and blanch, then toast the almonds) so once a year or so I take a break from them, and since I cannot handle eggs, grains or dairy protein, and since I seem to need a lot of protein, during the breaks I eat a lot of grass-fed lamb.
If I lost access to meat, I would be less healthy.
Those words require “as proven by” and then the sentence that follows.
The claims you make are so trivial as to almost be tautological. You make no quantitive claims except “none” for meat consumption. The most extreme possible position.
Rationalists put forward measured testable arguments that can be defeated by fair reason. Rationalists don’t frame the arguments for what they oppose in purely negative terms and what they support in purely positive terms.
Factory farming has had massive benefits to the health and well-being of humans on the planet. It is undeniably cruel. No meat consumption for many would lead to mental and physical health issues for many. It would also end some of humanity’s cruelest practices.
Wonder how many people here who are reacting to what you posted negatively are also convinced about the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2 origins...
People get worried about serial passage "gain of function" experiments in a lab with a dozen lab animals being involved. Meanwhile in farming a virus can get passed through millions and millions of animals in nice compact bioreactors.
It’s not a question, we can. I don’t think anyone here said we couldn’t.
But it’s also not a question of if we’re going to, we won’t. Meat consumption goes up a little every year (on average) and we’ve known these things for a long time, so clearly we’re not convinced.
As to the benefits and drawbacks of factory farming, there are a lot of both. It’s overly-simplistic to call it a problem.
I mean yes, we're programmed for it, the problem is that quantity used to be hard to come by, hence it was desirable. Now that we have essentially no limits we can see how maladapted we are
