Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Tormod Aarlott Digre
Plays in roles and games.
Plays in roles and games.

Tormod's posts

Could you assign luck to an object or is that contraproductive?

For example a difficult door has a luck rating of 150 etc.

America! You've outdone yourself with regards to entertainment this year. Can('t) wait to see what the Trump show does in the season finale.

Truly cross-platform, even involving government agencies and traditional media. It's scary how much of your society contributes to the evolving plot. The costs to keep this going has to be enormous.

I've never binged so much on a show ever. It's even renewed for eight seasons before the first season is halfway. Incredible.

#nailbiting #hollywoodonstereoids

Post has attachment
Backlash against US president Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” hit a fever pitch in Silicon Valley this week. At least 2,000 Google employees walked out of offices worldwide. Venture capitalists donated tens of thousands of dollars to civil rights groups. More than 200,000 people deleted Uber’s app over the company’s perceived support of Trump, all but forcing Uber CEO Travis Kalanick to resign from the president’s economic advisory council.

Elsewhere in corporate America, the response has been muted. But for tech, which has woven liberal values into the fabric of its identity, staying silent is no longer an option. Facebook wants to “connect the world,” Airbnb to fashion a world where “anyone can belong.” Google’s longtime motto was simply “don’t be evil.” Such mission statements seem inevitably opposed to the aims of the new US administration, which Alphabet (née Google) chairman Eric Schmidt recently said would “do evil things.”

Yet the tech industry’s moral compass is not so aligned as its leaders would have us believe. While the average engineer earns well into the six figures, those who fill other jobs, like janitors and security guards, are frequently hired through staffing firms to keep them off corporate payrolls and ineligible for benefits. The lavish offices set up by startups like Airbnb are located just steps away from sprawling homeless encampments. Last year, Yelp fired a customer service agent after she told its CEO she couldn’t afford to buy groceries.

Meanwhile, the threat of automation looms large, and influential economists are blaming “superstar” firms like Google and Facebook for US workers’ falling share of income. Enthusiasm for the sharing economy and its new model of “gig” labor has faded into disillusionment and ennui.

Tech CEOs may be decrying labor and immigration policies that are outside of their control, but many remain complicit in enforcing poor policies of their own. That isn’t just bad for workers in Silicon Valley: It’s also the very type of disconnect that laid the groundwork for Donald Trump to win the US presidency. —Alison Griswold


Post has shared content

Post has attachment
How high can you jump on the different planets?

Post has attachment
If someone used the excellent Press RSS reader and was disappointed by the readability function disappearing, then this excellent app has what you need.
A more updated design as well.

Kind regards from a dinosaur reading news the old fashioned way. 

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
"Those of us who remember, too, a finer music must try now to play it, and encourage others, if we can, to sing along."

Beautifully written. No tl;dr for something so enchanting. 

Post has shared content
Something often neglected in discussions of Galileo and his trial for heresy is that the dispute wasn't about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun; it was about who had the right to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

From the Vatican's perspective, statements about the nature of reality are effectively policy statements, and so may only be made by the organ of policy -- namely, them. Galileo's science argued that anyone could perform experiments and learn things about the factual nature of reality, and communicate these ideas to others, and that this knowledge was not limited or controllable by the Church.

There's an important logic to the Vatican's argument here. Statements of factual reality, while they aren't policy statements in their own right, tend to have very profound policy implications. If I tell you that the roof is on fire, then you are likely to place a very high priority on things like leaving the building and calling the fire department.¹ If I tell you that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, this might lend weight to arguments that the experience of the Crucifixion isn't unique and at the center of the universe (the heresy that Giordano Bruno was burned for), and thus that the Church isn't the natural and unique center of political authority.

That is, organs of political power are right to think of scientific statements as having policy implications -- and organs of policy tend to be very jealous of that prerogative, and not appreciate anyone else trying to make policy without them.

Science is particularly dangerous, in this regard, because it provides testable statements about the nature of reality which are in effect available to anybody, and because those statements are sometimes surprises. A surprising change in facts which can't be negotiated away is profoundly dangerous to institutions of power, because those changes might compromise anything from a delicately negotiated balance of power to the significance of the organization itself. Encouraging science is something only done by the most confident of governments and institutions: the ones who believe that, no matter what the nature of reality may be, they will be able to face up to it.

Leaders who are more concerned with their personal survival than the fate of the country as a whole will often not see it this way: public perception, and the resulting political leverage it creates, is ultimately far more important to the exercise of power, even though it is far less important than knowledge of the facts to the protection of the nation.

A good modern example of this dichotomy can be seen in the different ways that the Department of Defense and Congress discuss climate change. To the DoD, this is a practical threat, requiring planning and advance preparation, and thus detailed knowledge whenever possible. To Congress, this is a political threat, requiring changes in policy which may compromise important bargains with people who would lose out from those changes, and thus requiring careful control of public perception independent of the underlying reality.

¹ Or alternatively, that we don't need no water; let the motherfucker burn.

Post has shared content
Wait while more posts are being loaded