65 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2024
  2. Aug 2024
  3. Jul 2024
  4. Dec 2023
    1. I think part and you see this kind of delicate dance that when things are going uh uh too slow so people vote in a more 00:25:29 liberal Administration that will speed things up and will be more creative Bolder in its social experiments and when things go too fast then you say okay liberals you had your chance now 00:25:41 let's bring the conservatives to slow down a little and and have a bit of of a breath
      • for: insight - conservative vs liberal - speed of sdopting social norm

      • insight

        • liberals are voted in to speed up adoption of a new social -
        • conservatives are voted in to slow down the acceptance of a social norm
        • paradoxically, humans have both a conservative and a liberal nature. We naturally have a tendency to both conserve and to try new things.
  5. Nov 2023
  6. Aug 2022
  7. Apr 2022
  8. Jan 2022
  9. Dec 2021
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2021, December 18). One thing I keep coming back to in my thoughts is the formerly respected scientists who completely lost their way in this pandemic. Is there something we could be teaching young researchers that would help minimise this in future? Are there norms of science we could strengthen? [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1472172123829456897

  10. Nov 2021
  11. Jul 2021
  12. May 2021
  13. Apr 2021
  14. Mar 2021
  15. Feb 2021
  16. Jan 2021
  17. Nov 2020
    1. Man, for some reason, I really like this answer. I recognize it's a bit more complicated, but it seems so useful. And given that I'm no bash expert, it leads me to believe that my logic is faulty, and there's something wrong with this methodology, otherwise, I feel others would have given it more praise. So, what's the problem with this function? Is there anything I should be looking out for here?

      I think the main thing wrong with it is the eval (which I think can be changed to $("$@") and it's pretty verbose.

      Also, there are more concise ways to do it that would probably appeal more to most bash experts...

      like set -x

      and it does unnecessary things: why save output to a variable? Just let output go to where it would normally go...

      So yeah, I can see why this solution isn't very popular. And I'm rather surprised by all the praise comments it's gotten.

  18. Oct 2020
  19. Sep 2020
  20. Aug 2020
  21. Jul 2020
  22. Jun 2020
  23. May 2020
  24. Apr 2020
  25. Nov 2019
  26. Sep 2018
    1. They should be given every right in the world, and anybody who wants to hurt them is bad.

      The classic ending which on the surface states the view the public's version of itself demands, said to undercut what the speaker has just actually said. The challenge I have with Norm is what is his own intention with it? And to me that's what makes him interesting.

      See, "He's a good man," in reference to president of NBC, who had just fired him:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudRETrphxk

    2. Because stand-up is a form and to subvert something, you have to do it perfectly first. I remember somebody showed me a talk show with “subversion” in it — the guy chainsawed his desk. It was so stupid. Why did you build a desk in the first place if you were only going to chainsaw it? Don’t have a fucking desk! You just want little drops of subversion. Letterman in the ‘80s would be 90 percent a great talk show and then 10 percent subversion. If you get to 30 percent subversion, you’re in Andy Kaufman land. If you get to 70 percent, you’re a guy on the streets screaming at people. What are you trying to subvert anyway? Entertaining people? It’s absurd.

      James Joyce: Dubliners precedes Finnegan's Wake.

    1. Because that’s just how we did it because we were men and this was our little terms of endearment. When I got mixed up with actors, I started doing that with them and they took it very personally because that’s not the way they operate. They’re more womanish, you know? So it wasn’t my fault! (l

      Norm Sexism

  27. Aug 2018
    1. Earlier, I have criticized Facebook for not anticipating the ethical problems with Facebook live and for its general approach of trying things out without much ethical forethought. But wouldn’t a pragmatist argue that because they are charting into new territory, digital innovators are more likely to make ethical mistakes giving the lack of existing normative framework?  This pragmatic defense only has limited power though, as there are general guiding ethical norms and principles in place already.  It is of course true that (some of) these norms might be subject to change in the digital environment and that sometimes our existing frameworks are ill-equipped to deal with new moral dilemmas. However, this does not excuse some of the more egregious ethical lapses we have seen recently, which were violations of well-known and accepted moral guidelines.
  28. Feb 2017
    1. Previous to the nineteenth century, physicians classified diseases based on the observation of the pre-conditional symptoms known at the time

      Since the medical practices to reveal abnormalities was not an entirely accurate way to "read" bodies, could it be possible that the 19th century norm only became the standard because they couldn't examine bodies to their fullest?

    2. Is anomaly the same thing as abnormality?

      Right; what are the socio-political "rules" regarding deviation? How does one find individuality if the goal is to approach genetic/biological/bodily uniformity?