[1] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

I don't think you're really disagreeing with the original sentiment? However, I think you're taking a much broader view of "code" than is intended by the original statement.

In your framing, you're kind of confounding code with architecture. Code is really just the act of making a computer do a thing you want it to do, for some definition of "thing you want it to do". Architecture is more about understanding which things you want the computer to do, and in which ways.

There are a million ways to code a task. That's the "code" the original statement is talking about. Understanding which of those ways is an appropriate way is a separate skill, whether you call it architecture, or something else.

... No?

I'm not sure anything I said implied otherwise. I mean, I literally mentioned government in my second paragraph...

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about? Flock cameras have definitely involved in detecting people who come into SF in stolen cars or with stolen plates, who proceed to go on sprees of breaking into cars and stealing things.

I really dislike Flock as a company, but their cameras absolutely do get used in the way they're publicly pitched.

Flock doing bad things does not justify coming into this thread and stating as fact things that are patently false.

I think you misunderstand what disruption means in this context? Disruption means pursuing the same market as some incumbents, with the express goal of serving that market better/faster/more efficiently.

The impulse is hostile to the incumbents, but (in principle) good for the market: the market is getting competition, and competition is one way to make things cheaper/better/etc.

Obviously what this looks like varies by market, but the principle is very different from how you're presenting it

One of the core tenets of capitalism is that one person's profits are another person's opportunity. If the latter can do the work/obtain the capital to break into the industry, they can capture some of those profits by offering competition at a lower price point.

I don't think the person you're bagging on is saying it's easy to do; but they are saying that if people feel strongly about changing something, perhaps they should try doing it themselves, instead of just complaining about it and wishing someone else (i.e. government) will fix it for them

You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?

Yet, when you are handed evidence that this is objectively true, you move the goalposts.

You're clearly not arguing in good faith. As such, I'm done with this conversation

Turns out they were right, but instead of losing the attitude, they doubled down on the toxicity. When I admitted they were right, they doubled down again.

So yeah, pretty obnoxious, all told.

I feel like I've read something about the effects of reducing sulfur production already: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/unintended-warmin...

You don't know what you doing know, after all.

I mean, noise cancelling works by producing more noise, not less; and there will be plenty of times when what's outside with destructively interfere with what you're listening to, or vice versa.

This may be hard to do in a city, but a good test is to go outside on a quiet night, wearing only on one ear, and then turn your head back and forth to alternate ears while trying to listen to specific distant sounds. It'll really highlight just how many things are still being filtered out.

Or it'll demonstrate how much more deaf you might be in one ear :P

Even watching someone else walk around a city with headphones/earbuds in is something that makes me uncomfortable by proxy. It's like someone deciding that walking around with beer goggles is a good idea

I mean, isn't that what we're supposed to do in science? Listen to the folks who have the expertise? Like sure, don't believe that they have the expertise or whatever, but ask for proof of the expertise, don't just handwave it away because you don't agree with the expert. Nothing that they've said has appeared to be inconsistent with their claim of expertise, however.

So... maybe trust the person with the experience? Or, if you have a contrasting experience, present that instead. But this is not what you're doing.

> What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty?

My read is something like this: Their point is that the scientific method (aka "science") is fundamentally about rigor. If some science doesn't have rigor, it's fair to question its quality, because without rigor, you can't trust any of the results. There's too much possibility for error. The social sciences are notorious for lacking rigor. It's part of the reason there's a repeatability crisis in the field.

> My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'.

That's really not what they're saying at all. You keep trying to spin it that way, but I haven't seen that indication of that particular intent.

> Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."

No! They're not saying "these questions don't matter", they're saying "the people doing the science to 'answer these questions' are doing it badly, because they know what good science looks like, and that ain't it."

You were clearly implying that the person you were responding to was saying it was some kind of conspiracy. I'm not buying this sudden retcon.

> We're talking about adults, right? In any event, it would be interesting to see some stats or hear some anecdotes on the matter.

Thats... literally what you were replying to in the aforementioned post! Here's the link again, in case you forgot: https://www.aei.org/articles/partisan-professors/ It's literally a lack of diversity, just like there used to be an equally stark lack of diversity in tech, etc.

I'm almost positive you're just trolling at this point.

Guess you're right, though

Personally, I think he was a bot.