There has been way less terrorism in general too. I'm always curious whether the war on terrorism is that effective, or there's major socioeconomic factor that matters most (or there's just less lead in the air).
Back in the day you needed to get onto TV and into newspaper headlines to get any attentions besides your neighbours. Today you can do that with a Facebook page and send your ideas worldwide.
And that works the back way too: instead of the news of bombing in some remote country you can't even find on the map you can get a funny cat videos to fill in.
In the 1970s everyone and their grandma was a member of some left wing revolutionary group, and half of them were working on some terrorist plot, bombing an embassy here, taking hostages there, hijacking an airplane, etc. etc. And in the 1980s every right wing reactionary had joined a right wing counter-revolutionary group, and 99% of them were plotting terrorist attacks (most of them targeting minorities). </exaggeration>
Today the cops are doing the job of the right wing counter-revolutionary groups, and relatively rarely do we get the right wing counter revolutionary terror attacks (but we definitely still do; just not as much). Meanwhile the left has pretty much abandoned terrorism as a viable tactic. It is mostly employed as part of an anti-colonial struggle of an oppressed minority sometimes under literal occupation of their colonizer’s military. But alas we only have a fraction of colonies today relative to the 1970s and the 1980s.
I really appreciate this article. It continues some series of introspection [1] that emphasizes a part of game that's ironically very underrated, gameplay. A game can be good not (just) because of its visuals (you can just see paintings), not because of its plot (you can just read books), not even because of both (you can just watch movies). But it's the interactivity that can elevate a game beyond the sum of its parts, and it can be done despite mediocre visual or plot.
Realizing this, it can be very disappointing that some discussion about video game art do only emphasize plot or visual, because that's what we understand as art. In this way, Roger Ebert is right, video game can only be art the more it resembles movie or book. But I hope not, and in time, this discourse can be moved especially when there will be more interactive medium out there to be invented (somehow). The treasure is the journey afterall.
Yeah I thought the point is not necessarily safety but to organize things so everyone can move faster. In some of my intersections everything runs fine without traffic light but once it gets crowded, someone comes down and organize things.
It's always ironic seeing Arab Spring in hindsight. I've seen western observers celebrating Arab countries society upheaval, when the very same thing will also happen to them in less than 10 years.
I feel the same. I found that blog from SSC/ACX and I still much prefer SSC/ACX despite gwern discussing topics that are much much more relevant to my interests (sw dev, Haskell, anime). I can't formulate why but your analysis sounds close enough.
Yes, Scott has a natural talent for writing (there's an article where he explicitly says he isn't proud of his prose because it just comes naturally to him, but is immensely proud of getting a B in Calculus back in pre-med, or something along these lines).
I wonder how correlated is this to how (un)contested California results are (?). I think the main test will be whenever a case like Bush vs Gore happens.
Yeah I think the funniest meme about impostor syndrome is "Am I even good enough to have impostor syndrome?". This is why I don't really subscribe to the Former Gifted Kid Syndrome myself despite having the symptoms (I think). It feels too narcissistic to describe myself as that. And turns out, it may not ever be special after all!
I mean it sounds like they're firing tons of people, competent and incompetent. If it's the only way to do it, no wonder the incompetent doesn't get fired.
Other has mentioned it, but I think it's worth quoting it directly for easier reference
> I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond. These paragraphs cured me of my misgivings: after his death is by far the best time to disagree with Scott Adams.
Also I don't think this is a slander article only published after death so no one can answer. If anything I see this as a beautiful article from someone who (used to?) love him and it raises his image in my (not really cared about it before) mind.
a) my initial comment was a response to someone who called the essay "brutal." Indeed, there are some tender passages, but it feels like on balance, Alexander was more interested in getting his attacks in than the nicer stuff. In my opinion.
b) yes he tries to make an excuse for "curing his misgivings" and ignoring his initial doubt but it's an awful one. Can you succinctly describe what it is about the quoted paragraphs that would indicate "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
reply