Phi for All

Show us some interesting Theoretical Computer Science threads, and post them in Computer Science. Bump out all the repair threads, attract the traffic, make it look like we need a sub-section for theory. One day you may turn your computer off, and when you turn it on again, your dream will have come true.

Discussion should still be explored. Please start your topics in the most appropriate places, and as StringJunky says, we may later decide to group those discussions more specifically along the lines you suggest.

I want you to know my opinion is based on the thousands of fake accounts created by the Russians claiming to be UK or US citizens, spreading fake stories that made hundreds of thousands of people feel like their fellow citizens were rallying behind a cause. It's one thing to spread rumors that Hillary eats babies spread on toast, or that the EU will be kicking back millions for healthcare, and quite another to pose as a fellow citizen with supposed first-hand stories of foreigner rapists and rabid packs of immigrants gypsying off with our children.

I have to disagree here. I think Russian influence made the difference in both the Brexit vote and the US presidential election. Both were just that close, and whether or not the feelings were present is immaterial. Those feelings were exploited by Putin's troll farms and pro-authoritarian/anti-immigrant media campaigns with the intent to disrupt and skew. I don't think the UK would have voted to leave the EU, and the US wouldn't have elected Trump, without the Russian involvement. When a bad actor knows just the right buttons to push to goad someone into a fight, and they do it and a riot ensues, we hold them responsible for incitement, right?

I thought it was pretty well known that Russia used similar tactics in the UK and the US. http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-russia-presidential-election-donald-trump-hacker-legitimate-527260

To be fairer, in the US we have little access to news without an entertainment/political profit/private investment agenda. The folks who make it easy for the authoritarians struggle for information that doesn't lead them right back to where they are. And yes, it's a known tactic, but it's everywhere now, and it's being exploited like never before in modern times. It's pretty biblical for invaders to drive out the undesirables and force their neighbors to deal with them, further stressing the resources of the next target of invasion.

The authoritarians are extremely wealthy, using the Republicans to achieve control over free markets. The more they get, the richer they make themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's rumored Putin is worth four Bill Gates. The fear these monsters are injecting into the world is helping them gain access to even more power and money, and eroding all the protections we have against 100% capitalism, where they own the streets and sidewalks and all the land attached, and 99% of humanity will just rent their whole lives. First they stirred up the Middle East, and now they scream in fear about all the refugees fleeing the region. It reminds me of a business model I saw where the principals of an architectural firm also owned a pest control business. These folks knew where construction would likely cause infestations in the surrounding neighborhoods, and had their exterminators go door to door scaring people about bug problems.

Scotty99 has been banned permanently. His "intuitive" beliefs are always going to clash with rigorous explanations, since they bond emotionally with what he wants to be true, and that makes discussing science with him like listening to a sermon. We wish him luck in his search for intellectual equals.

Quantum321 has been banned for abusing the PM system. Folks, the rules are really clear, and no matter how passionate you are about your ideas, please remember we're all here voluntarily, and we've chosen civility as our #1 rule. Nobody gets threatened here. We attack ideas, not people.

I've seen this bit before! Kim is going to step up, smack the general in the back of the head, and poke Trump in both eyes.

Thank you, I prefer to attack ideas, not people.

The only assumption I made was about it being mentioned before that nothing you've described is out of the normal parameters for human empathy, and that's why I said "probably". The rest are observations based on your writing, which is all I have to go by in this discussion. I "picked" that one segment to quote strictly because it held examples of what I find to be faulty reasoning. In science terms, you've removed your falsifiability. The way you pose your explanation for this phenomenon, you can never be shown to be wrong (and again, I'm not saying you are, just saying you aren't presenting objective support for it).

This is not critically thought out. You've set up a scenario where you already assume you're an empath, then set up justifications as to why detractors are always wrong, and are now impervious to reason. You've probably been told before that none of your observations are outside the normal human empathy range, but you're emotionally convinced you have something special. That's not to say it's not possible, just that you haven't approached this in a way that peaks any scientific interest. You need to overcome some basic minor peer review before you start making any conclusive statements about an extraordinary ability.

So they end up more concerned someone may take their guns than take their lives with a gun. To me, this speaks of emotional manipulation. Capitalism is awesome for growth. Whenever it's misapplied to something that should be carefully kept in check, it fails. We could use a private solution for those who like to shoot guns. The market would love to set up hunting excursions where weapons are provided (and nobody owns a gun), and ranges where you can lease any gun you want. As long as those weapons are tightly controlled, the market for them can grow all it wants. The hard sell is to those who want a gun for protection. I think the best way to convince them is figure out better insurance against armed break-ins, namely fewer guns on the streets overall (not more police and prisons). There are some great statistics that show how much more dangerous you make your house when you buy one for home protection (you reduce only the chances of armed assault in exchange for increasing the chances of several other lethal situations). Again, tough sell since men like macho more than smarts, on average. I honestly don't know what to do about the gun owners that believe they stand ready to repel a betrayal from their own government. These are probably some of Trump's biggest supporters, yet they have no problem with any of the Russia allegations, despite being some of the most paranoid folks on the planet. These are also the 3% of Americans who own half the guns. Maybe we do nothing with them, but keep hinting that we MIGHT come for their guns someday. Get them to hunker down in their compounds and wait. As long as they're hoarding those weapons and firing at cutouts of FBI agents, they can pretend they're safe from the might of the US military.

Concern for profit knots up many issues in the US that should be public responsibility. Everything productive has to wait until someone/some corporation with a lot of money figures out how to insinuate themselves into the issue at the taxpayer expense, then lobby politicians while misleading the public to support their new investment opportunity. Human loss isn't considered over loss of profit. Most Americans understand rationally that "Pour enough gasoline on the fire and you'll smother it" is a poor strategy. Guns and gun violence help fuel many extremist conservative/capitalist agendas wrt our justice system (largest in the world, folks, #1 with a bullet!). Our system withholds social aid to create criminals so we can justify spending that money instead to protect ourselves from them. The working class has a designer golf shoe on its throat, and the extremist wearing it is telling them to buy more guns, which historically results in growing our criminal culture.

Raider5678 has been suspended for six months at his own request, in order to pursue employment and educational opportunities in a less tempting and more focused manner. We wish him all the luck in the world, and hope to see him back in time for the holidays.

Vril has been banned as a sockpuppet of JohnLesser and company. If you can't support your ideas, changing accounts won't help you here.

Thanks for all the help reporting spammers, folks! They keep getting trickier, and we appreciate your vigilance.

WheelBarrow has been banned after spending some unsuccessful time in the moderation queue. Some posting styles are inconsistent with science discussion, but may resonate elsewhere. Good luck elsewhere, WheelBarrow!

WRT logical fallacies, that's the way we want it to work, that you call them out in thread as weak (non)arguments and explain why, forcing the person who used it to either admit it's not good or move to a better argument. Much of the time this ends in a more tacit defeat but the point is made. If someone continues to use the fallacious logic after it's been called out, we have rule 2.4 to enforce the practice, so please Report those who keep it up. We assume people don't set out to form a bad argument, but once a fallacy is pointed out in a thread, only an unreasonable person would persist in its use.

When life hands you melons....

The addition of the word "merely" makes this sentence untrue. Remove it, and you have a statement backed by hard evidence, worthy of being reported. Nothing else you've suggested has that kind of trustworthy backing.

NortonH has been suspended for 3 weeks for continuing to soapbox his points in conversation. When you don't bother to address valid arguments in the discussion, you're just preaching, or soapboxing, and that's against the rules. People are taking the time to deconstruct your arguments intellectually, the least you could do is reciprocate, instead of just repeating yourself ad nauseam.

To me, it's always been a Br'er Rabbit tactic, from the Uncle Remus stories, with us cast as the "cunning" Br'er Fox and those in power playing the "trapped" rabbit. "Whatever you do, don't keep guns around so you can overthrow us if we ever go bad...." The moment those 2A guns start being used to overthrow the government is the moment those people become terrorists and the full weight of the US military and law enforcement rides to the rescue.

Arms dealers have played both "sides" for centuries. The trick is to make it seem like you aren't a "side", you're just helping a bunch of people who are trying to stand up for themselves, or defend their homeland. Hopefully they don't figure out you're making money off both sides. The trick they've learned lately (since mass media) is that when anyone starts talking about regulating your business in any way, they start complaining that it will ALL be taken away. It works for guns, it works for extreme wealth, it works for racial reform, and it works for social welfare. It also helps if the voting public doesn't have a very good education in critical thinking, so you can get them to help you with your agenda (which is actually quite bad for them).