Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
View
Sort
Coming soon

Yep, wind and nuclear are the best choices for low carbon electricity in the UK.

see more

Given the rate at which renewables are progressing and the time it takes to build nuclear power stations, new nuclear fission stations no longer make economical sense.

You can't pick who you buy your water from, whereas you can with gas and electricity.

The national grid sits on top of the generators don't forget, they're the middleman for distribution. There's always another layer that does something different.

see more

Just because you can't get rid of all the middlemen, doesn't mean you shouldn't get rid of those you can.

The only reason those utility companies exist is to extract profit from the British public for a tiny minority of people. The national grid actually has a purpose beyond funnelling wealth to the already wealthy.

Electricity and gas aren't natural monopolies, there are many providers out there.

You're right about not having a choice for trains and water though.

see more

Electricity and gas aren't natural monopolies, there are many providers out there.

Yes but they're all middlemen sitting on top of the infrastructure and taking a profit for doing so. There's no need for these parasitic middle men to exist and their existence only serves to increase costs.

-2 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

Picture a circle with a point at the centre, O. The circumference of this circle represents all the spatial dimensions and the radius of the circle represents the temporal dimension. By shrinking the radius, t, the circumference collapses towards the origin. By increasing the radius, the circumference expands away from the origin. O is the big bang. This is the proper way to interpret the balloon/bubble model of the universe.

To me, this suggests that the reason c is the speed limit is because it's proportional to the rate by which the radius, t, is increasing.

[deleted]
11 points · 6 days ago

[removed]

see more

It does. Imagine a perfectly spherical balloon. It has a radius, r, which is a distance from the origin, O. In the case of the universe/balloon analogy, O is the big bang and r represent time. The inside of the balloon is not space - it's the past and outside of the balloon is the future. The model basically says that we're surfing a spherical shock wave through time.

[deleted]
4 points · 6 days ago

[removed]

see more

No, you're just picturing something different. Like I said, in my picture, the radius represents the temporal dimension. In your picture, it represents a spatial dimension. In my picture, all the spatial dimensions are represented by the circumference.

Load more comments

2 points · 12 days ago

I find most videos are just rambling about blockchain buzzwords. Do you have any articles or papers that describe a process wherein blockchain allows voting without giving up the anonymity of voting?

see more

The hashes aren't for security. ... I'm glad you now agree with me.

That's literally what I said from the start. And that's why you can't assume that your linux download is free from malware. Someone could hijack the page and provide an alternate download and hash. So the checksum is useless, don't know why you even brought it up.

Distributed voting is one of them as blockchains solve the problem of distributed consensus.

You need to device or show an actual approach for how to turn something like bitcoin's blockchain protocol into something useful for voting.

By default the blockchain consensus protocol is useless for voting, because it's proof of work and would allow people who have more computing power to have more valuable votes.

I assume you don't actually mean using the blockchain consensus protocol directly, but rather building something on top of it. So what is that solution?

Yes he calls out centralised electronic voting machines and says nothing about blockchains.

He calls out electronic voting in general. He doesn't specifically say the word blockchain because this video was made before the blockchain-all-the-things hype.

But the arguments were still applicable. Here's the most applicable ones:

  1. You can't have an identifying mark or else you could have voter intimidation. There is no algorithm in existence yet that would prevent double voting and also not record any pseudo-identifiers. It doesn't matter if those pseudo-identifiers are only known to 2 parties (the voter and the party they voted for), and it doesn't matter if those pseudo-identifiers aren't identifying in and of themselves. If a voter can produce any evidence that they voted a certain way, then voter intimidation and bribery can exist.
  2. Never trust any individual (or corporation). You can talk all day about decentralization and how blockchain is zero trust, but at the end of the day someone made the OS you're installing, someone made the compiler that built that OS, someone made the CPU you're using, someone made the client you're downloading, someone made the browser/file downloader. You have to trust all of these people, and if even a single one of them were bribed then your vote could be stolen.
  3. In practice all that ideal open source audited system never actually happen. OS Market share. You'll see windows is used by 88% of people, including 5% still using XP (despite it no longer getting security patches). What percentage of people do you honestly think audit the software they install? Well since we know that linux is only on 2% of systems know that 2% or less people do this. It doesn't matter if your vote is secure if everyone else's isn't.
  4. Somewhere between 5% and 50% of desktop computers are currently infected with some malware, from just scammers setting up botnets. Note that 5% is enough to sway an election.

You have this view of the world that apparently thinks everyone audits all of their software, everyone can be trusted and if it's blockchain on linux it's unhackable. Even with your insane world view, #1 is still critically important and it's simply not possible with current technology.

see more

That's literally what I said from the start.

Likewise

And that's why you can't assume that your linux download is free from malware.

That's why can you can ensure it is free from malware.

Someone could hijack the page and provide an alternate download and hash. So the checksum is useless, don't know why you even brought it up.

Yes, they could but that's only one possible way of making the hashes public. Alternatively you could use a blockchain - "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way".

Problem solved.

You need to device or show an actual approach for how to turn something like bitcoin's blockchain protocol into something useful for voting.

There are many implementations of such systems being worked on. For example:

He calls out electronic voting in general. He doesn't specifically say the word blockchain because this video was made before the blockchain-all-the-things hype.

Precisely.

You can't have an identifying mark or else you could have voter intimidation. There is no algorithm in existence yet that would prevent double voting and also not record any pseudo-identifiers. It doesn't matter if those pseudo-identifiers are only known to 2 parties (the voter and the party they voted for), and it doesn't matter if those pseudo-identifiers aren't identifying in and of themselves. If a voter can produce any evidence that they voted a certain way, then voter intimidation and bribery can exist.

ZKSnarks

Never trust any individual (or corporation). You can talk all day about decentralization and how blockchain is zero trust, but at the end of the day someone made the OS you're installing, someone made the compiler that built that OS, someone made the CPU you're using, someone made the client you're downloading, someone made the browser/file downloader. You have to trust all of these people, and if even a single one of them were bribed then your vote could be stolen.

That's were open source comes in. You don't have to trust those people at all. You can verify the code yourself or trust a third party to do so for you. With paper ballots, you also have to trust third parties.

In practice all that ideal open source audited system never actually happen. OS Market share. You'll see windows is used by 88% of people, including 5% still using XP (despite it no longer getting security patches). What percentage of people do you honestly think audit the software they install? Well since we know that linux is only on 2% of systems know that 2% or less people do this. It doesn't matter if your vote is secure if everyone else's isn't.

It happens all the time. You don't need every single person to audit. If every single expert who has examined the code says it does it what it says it does and nothing more, then there are two possibilities:

  1. the code does what it should be doing,
  2. all the experts are conspiring.

Somewhere between 5% and 50% of desktop computers are currently infected with some malware, from just scammers setting up botnets. Note that 5% is enough to sway an election.

That's why you would use a read only live distro to boot an OS which all the experts say is good to use and you verify that your download hasn't been tampered with by comparing with a known good hash stored in a blockchain, for example.

You have this view of the world that apparently thinks everyone audits all of their software, everyone can be trusted and if it's blockchain on linux it's unhackable. Even with your insane world view, #1 is still critically important and it's simply not possible with current technology.

No I don't. I understand that not everyone needs to and relying on experts to do the thing they're experts at is perfectly fine. You'd essentially have to be a nutjob to think all the experts were conspiring.

It may or may not be possible with current technology, but some of the problems preventing an online voting system have been solved and are continuing to be solved. Blockchains are a part of that solution and pretending otherwise after being presented with the evidence is simply delusion.

Load more comments

Oh im very sorry for making my sarcasm clear.

see more

Are you some what Canadian as well?

6 points · 14 days ago

Some utterly mental batshit person pretending to be left wing I'd guess.

see more

...that identifies as a tomato.

I looked and couldn't see the information I asked for. Since you're claiming that's it in that link, perhaps you could quote it for me.

Information you asked for doesn’t exist, because you’re apparently asking for specific figures which obviously don’t exist and never could. There’s no answer for you I’m afraid. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen though.

Anyway, fun though it’s been, I have better things to do like stockpiling my bunker. It’s been a slice.

see more

If you know that the information that I asked for does not exist in that link then why did you say that it does and provide the link in the first place?

Load more comments

2 points · 14 days ago

Whether or not they were using the term animal as in specifically non-human animals is very relevant, since your entire argument was based around comparing humans to animals.

Though your argument is flawed even then, as they specifically mentioned arbitrary differences, and the differences between humans and other animals aren't arbitrary.

see more

Whether or not they were using the term animal as in specifically non-human animals is very relevant, since your entire argument was based around comparing humans to animals.

I never said that was what was irrelevant. What I claimed was irrelevant was what people mean when talking about animal rights, etc. My argument has nothing to do with animals rights, etc. Like I told you, it's an argument specific to what i7omahawki is claiming.

The claim is that it is "morally inconsistent to arbitrarily care more about one animal than another".

Though your argument is flawed even then, as they specifically mentioned arbitrary differences, and the differences between humans and other animals aren't arbitrary.

If the differences between humans and other animals are not arbitrary, then the differences between dogs and pigs are not arbitrary either, which invalidates their argument.

Try again.

If the differences between humans and other animals are not arbitrary, then the differences between dogs and pigs are not arbitrary either, which invalidates their argument.

It doesn't invalidate anything. The original poster was saying that the reasons being given for why eating pigs is ok and dogs isn't were arbitrary. Which they absolutely are. "They're cute" "They're pets" "They're mans best friend" are all completely arbitrary reasons to care more about one animal more than another.

The differences between humans and animals that are relevant to this argument, that we are much more intelligent, have more self-awareness and so on are not arbitrary.

Just because there are some non-arbitrary differences between dogs and pigs, like physical and behavioural differences, doesn't have any relevance to this debate because they are not the reasons being given for why one is acceptable to eat and the other is not.

Try again.

see more

It doesn't invalidate anything.

Of course it does.

The differences between humans and animals that are relevant to this argument, that we are much more intelligent, have more self-awareness and so on are not arbitrary.

Which is an arbitrary characteristic of humans to differentiate on. Why not sense of smell for example? Or hairiness? Why intelligence?

If it's moral to differentiate between humans and other animals based on arbitrarily on intelligence, then why is it immoral to do the same thing for any other animals based on any other arbitrary characteristic?

The argument is invalid. Try again.

Load more comments

What if I'm not a Muslim and I think there are cases where suicide bombing could be justified? Not to mention I'm completely in the dark about whether this poll asked anything about distinguishing between combatants and civilian targets, which is precisely why polls like this are cherry-picked.

see more

Can you provide a justification for which you would become a suicide bomber?

3 points · 14 days ago · edited 14 days ago

It's a stretch but if hypothetically the UK fell under an ultra tyrannical regime that committed brutal atrocities against people dear to me, and there were a real chance committing a suicide bombing against the forces of that regime would liberate them, then yes I absolutely would consider myself justified in doing so. No question about it.

Edit: Downvoted without comment, lol.

see more

Why not just use a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle?

Why do you think he went for that particular analogy?

see more

Because he thinks Tom is betraying the party for the benefit of Israel.

So, why does that demand an apology to the Jewish community. It's not an insult against the Jewish community, it's only an insult to Tom.

He said Jews not Israel.

see more

Actually, he said "Jewish donors".

But even if he dis say "Jews", what's wrong wrong with that?

"Those fucking dirty Jews." - racist.
"Those fucking lovely Jews." - not racist.

"This person is a Jew." - not racist.
"This person is a Jew because they wont give me something." - racist.

The negative implications of the accusation are not against Israel or the Jewish community, they're against Tom Watson, trying to paint him as a corrupt and bought politician. There's absolutely nothing to apologise to the Jewish community for.

Load more comments

I think it shows that society is transitioning from physical to virtual.

For those that don't bother to read the article, here's the conclusion:

But threats of societal collapse, claims that carrying capacity is fixed, and demands for sweeping restrictions on human aspiration are neither scientific nor just. We are not fruit flies, programmed to reproduce until our population collapses. Nor are we cattle, whose numbers must be managed. To understand the human experience on the planet is to understand that we have remade the planet again and again to serve our needs and our dreams. Today, the aspirations of billions depend upon continuing to do just that. May it be so.

Comment deleted17 days ago

The article basically says the idea is nonsense and the people who keep spouting this nonsense all ignore the fact that humans keep extending the so-called "carrying capacity of Earth" through technological progress.

Load more comments

Well man, quit teasin! How long do you think til human brains can be maintained for, let's say at least double, their current lifespan? ...Merely telling dude his 100 year minimum is wrong because advanced neurobiology is "easy peasy" is futile discourse at best. IMO, a century is generous. I say at least 150 yrs. If your wondering my basis for that, it's the cumulative value subconsciously determined by the collective knowledge in my brain.

Point is, Mr. Neuro "Ackshually" Science, is he's no more wrong than your best guess would be. To even ask the basis for his guess is vapid contrarianism sprinkled with unattestable hubris

see more

I'd say within about 30 to 100 years well be able to replace biological neurons with synthetic ones and replace the entire brain that way to create a synthetic mind. Likewise, old synthetic neurons could be replaced by new ones.

We already have synthetic neurons today that can replicate some of the functionality of biological ones and even communicate with them.

8 points · 19 days ago

My major concern is less functionality and more memory. Are you going to lose more and more of your memory as you do that? It also sounds like a fairly far off tech, I can't imagine having brain surgery over and over and over is a good idea.

see more

I'd imagine the process would be more like losing a single pixel in a digital image to corruption and then restoring it from a backup.

Load more comments

The problem is conflating Anti-semitism with Anti-Israel (or anti-Netanyahu).

Do I believe there is a grand conspiracy of jewish people who meet and decided to undermine Corbyn? No.

Do I believe there are pro-Israel groups who are pushing the anti-semitism in Labour story? Yes.

see more

Do you believe there is a grand conspiracy (a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful) of jewish people who meet and decided to undermine Corbyn?

-20 points · 21 days ago · edited 21 days ago

"Punch a Nazi", except now, the Jews are the Nazis. So its OK to punch them.

That feeling when you don't realise you're the bad guys.

see more

Mate, have you looked in the mirror? You're walking around in a suit made from the skulls of unborn children. Of course you are the bad guy!

Load more comments

0 points · 21 days ago

"intolerant left". Need I say more?

I do not "spout nonsense". I relate the reasons why Corbyn will never be elected.

see more

"intolerant left". Need I say more?

Yes, you need to say a lot more but here's the important point - you need to actually provide evidence to back up your claims rather than just spouting nonsense.

I do not "spout nonsense".

Let's have a look then shall we?

"No, my business profit is a lot more than 22K, thankyou. I wouldn't get out of bed for 22K."

"A Corbyn government would be like the dark ages."

You clearly do.

"No, my business profit is a lot more than 22K, thankyou. I wouldn't get out of bed for 22K." "A Corbyn government would be like the dark ages."

Thanks for proving that I give facts, not "nonsense".

see more

If it's a fact that you wont get out of bed for 22K then it must also be a fact that you're getting paid to post this nonsense on reddit.

In other words, everything you say is paid propaganda.

Also, it can't possibly be a fact that you are capable of predicting future events with 100% certainty. That's a physical impossibility which means it's not a fact at all. Just more propaganda which you've already told us you're being paid to post.

Load more comments

Labour's brexit policy, not Corbyn's. Labour policy is created democratically, not by their leader.

Now this is a major crack in Corbyn’s Labour

McDonnell has been a Corbyn ally for the last 35+ years and for him to turn against him speaks volumes of the real unrest in the Labour leadership behind closed doors

I’m interested to see the Hard Left try to deselect McDonnell, probably the hardest left of any Labour MP

see more

I'd rather have McDonnell than Corbyn.

50 points · 22 days ago

Rapper Drake released an album which features a song called “In My Feelings” in which he addresses various love interests (or former love interests) by name. One of the most prevalent lyrics begins with “Kiki, do you love me?” People have started something called the In My Feelings Challenge in which they get out of a moving car and do a specific dance to the song.

see more

People have started something called the In My Feelings Challenge in which they get out of a moving car and do a specific dance to the song.

Why?

354 points · 22 days ago · edited 22 days ago

There’s this hip new “In My Feelings” challenge where people are dancing to the song by Drake. But some (dumb) people thought it would be cool to start doing the “challenge” while ghost riding

Edit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bW48X5LK1gk Warning: the first clip in this video shows a guy getting hit decently hard by a vehicle. Not sure if it’s real or not

see more

Okay. Now, what's ghost riding?

Funny enough that’s the first thing they tell you never to do as a cheerleader

see more

What's the first thing they tell you to do? The quarterback?

7 points · 22 days ago

They look like they're in their 30s...

see more

How do you do, fellow kids...

Thank God someone thinks outside the box a little, I don't wanna be watching videos on the shitter at work.

see more

What are you wanking to then?

You ranted on a forum when? We should care why?

see more

When? A long time ago, all the way back in 2015!

Why should we care? Because, due to the impressive length of time they've been involved on reddit, they've gained immense wisdom!

2 points · 22 days ago · edited 22 days ago

For example, let's say 90% of the UK population were anti-semites, 95% of Tories were anti-semites, 1% of Lib Dems were anti-semites and 10% of Labour were anti-semites.

LOL that really would dig Labour out of a hole. Unfortunately for you (but happily for Jews) anti-semitism among Labour members is about the same as the general population. The problem however is...

The level of antisemitism on the political left is consistent with the general population, a major new study has revealed. But those considering themselves to be most left-wing are shown by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research report to hold the strongest anti-Israel attitudes. Nearly half of people holding anti-Israel views across the political spectrum were revealed in the survey to also believe Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood.

and theres your problem in a nutshell.

see more

Unfortunately for you (but happily for Jews) anti-semitism among Labour members is about the same as the general population.

Why is that unfortunate for me? You've just shown that Labour have no more or less of an anti-semitism problem than the general public. In other words, the problem isn't with Labour, it's with society as a whole. So, why try and single out Labour when they don't have an actual problem?

The level of antisemitism on the political left is consistent with the general population, a major new study has revealed. But those considering themselves to be most left-wing are shown by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research report to hold the strongest anti-Israel attitudes.

Okay, fine so far.

Nearly half of people holding anti-Israel views across the political spectrum were revealed in the survey to also believe Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood.

What percentage of the people who hold anti-Israel views are Labour supporters? Without that information, there's nothing connecting such views to Labour or the left in general.

u/MarcusOrlyius
Karma
16,505
Cake day
December 14, 2011
Trophy Case (3)
Six-Year Club

Team Periwinkle

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.