I have a goal. It isn't a glorious one or even one that most people wish to attain. Thus far I have been successful in working my way to some of my goals, while others have been re-assessed and pushed to different priorities.
Workouts continue. As November 30, I am at 85% attendance rate at the gym (or doing a workout in general). Sacrifice and discipline. Some days I hate it; exhausted, beaten up, and unwilling to endure another session of sweat and discomfort. Thankfully, I appreciate a more eudaimonic lifestyle: small sacrifice now, by way of calories, sweat, and time, and crucial benefits later. When it comes to workouts, this is no different.
Back in March of 2013, there was an incident with a piano and myself. About 900 lbs of piano toppled my direction during the unload of it. The downward force, which I did not drop, extended my back while compressing it with enough force to blow out three discs. A recent re-aggravation made my belief about the matter only more apparent. Obesity--hell, even slightly overweight--is only going to turn my life in a ceaseless torment of back spasms, increased nerve pain, and would accelerate the pesky problem of arthritis in my post-surgical joint.
Humble-brag aside, I wanted to illustrate the power of discipline when it comes to attaining goals. My goal of being fit is not something that will persist once "achieved". I must pursue it--endlessly so. Stoically. At times, tirelessly, or at least by way of mental fortitude.
This concept and habit of mine has been utilized in other areas of my life. For now, rather than boring you, my dear reader, I want to put the lens on the another goal, the one vaguely alluded to at the start. I wish to join The Rationalists. It isn't something which can merely be applied for and accepted on mere principle. Quite the opposite: it appears one must have a consistent, high quality production of predominately YouTube videos.
This is a mountain, just not an impossible one. It can be climbed, but first I must have my footing. Do not take this as a letter of intent for the pursuit. Not at all--just me, looking into a mirror, stating what I want.
This has been an unedited rant. Come talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Monday, November 30, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
Post 57 -- No platforming or the monopolizing of time?
Let us begin by discussing what the term no platforming means. In its most simplest of terms, to no platform a speaker is to prevent him from having access to a stage or audience, thus preventing him from sharing his views. Without the ability to share his views, those opinions will not be impressed upon the audience.
Immediately it becomes clear why this is done, but with two interpretations depending on one's level of cynicism. If one is naive, then the argument in favour of no platforming is to save supple minds from being warped by heinous ideas (e.g., Holocaust denialism); conversely, the cynic says the act of no platforming is to stifle open discussion of topics. Both approaches do not address the central driving force behind the act.
If there is limited time to speak then one would ideally maximize that time with the best possible information. Now, let me invoke Wilkinson's Law and frame this in the most common venue for no platforming: the college campus. The soft and pliable minds of young students cannot properly analyze and critique terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas, so it is an act of compassion to prevent the airing of them. Well now, what of the time which would have otherwise been spent on sharing these terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas? Why, let us put in place the ideas which are not terrible, monstrous, or intolerant!
Now, let us reframe this slightly but placing no value on the ideas and just labeling them as simply ideas. Rather than "terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas" we now have "ideas". So we have the denial of time to one set of ideas and instead the sharing of another. The rejection of the first set was a based on the weakness and frailty of the youthful minds. These moral arbiters have instead utilized the time to espouse safe and positive ideologies... on these same weak and frail minds.
It ought to be clear by now what I'm aiming at, but in the event that it isn't, let me take one final crack at this. Social justice warriors are willing to "save" the minds of young students (i.e., their peers) from hearing horrendous ideas out of fear that those ideas will take root in their uncritical minds and instead will preach social justice to the very same sponge-like minds. No platforming is not about preventing "bad ideas" from being shared, but about monopolizing the time to spread the already established dogma; to entrench the ideology of social justice so as to choke out any possibility of even critical analysis of any non-social justice related issue, just as a well-seeded lawn prevents the growth of weeds.
Control plays an important part of this process, but again, it is not solely about control of the platform. It is predominately about the control of minds who would otherwise hear the no platformed views. Supple minds must be fed a particular set of ideas in order for them to "expand" down the narrow tunnel of social justice. By stifling the free speech on campus through the cowardly act of no platforming, these activist students have created a small box for their minds to live in. Moreover, they are ever vigilant in expanding this encompassing and intellectually suffocating box around the minds of their fellow collegians, eventually turning them into equally fearful and righteous students.
A glaring example of no platforming is not with a him but with a her. Ms. Germaine Greer, one of the most prolific voices in second-wave feminism, was attempted to be no platformed by the Cardiff Student Union's women's officer Rachel Melhuish via the do-nothing-activist hub change.org. The talk did take place on 18 November as scheduled, despite the petition and the slacktavist ramblings of a one Payton Quinn, who wrote four articles on why the act of no platforming is good via Huffington Post UK.
For context, Ms. Quinn (Mr.? I know there has been a transition, but I am entirely unaware of what the starting point was as compared to what the end point is) spends the articles complaining about being misgendered (see above), noting how freedom of speech and expression is established law in the United Kingdom, wholly misunderstanding the difference between hate speech and individual opinions (which, mind you, do not advocate intolerance or violence in this particular case), and ultimately arguing that there should be no freedom of speech where her/his (really, this is not done maliciously, I am truly ignorant of Quinn's gender situation) feelings or opinions may be harmed.
In Quinn's most recent article on the matter, there is a fantastic example of how not understanding that no platforming is tantamount to the erosion of free speech, lamenting the jab of one attendee who said, "No, I believe in free speech" as she rebuked the flyers on offer. The flyers were selections of Greer's writings on transwomen. Quinn had purchased tickets, but chose not to attend, creating the perfect irony: the act of no platforming prevents all from hearing the views of Greer, stripping them of choice. By exercising choice, Quinn was not exposed to the views of Greer while allowing others to.
So comes the Fallout shelter problem: the entire community tells you it is dangerous to leave, as the world outside is dangerous. Instead, it is best to stay in the dark, tight, small shelter and listen to the administrator, for he knows best. The mere act of pondering to leave is met with derision and scorn. It is best not to upset the collective... and to listen and believe.
Find me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Immediately it becomes clear why this is done, but with two interpretations depending on one's level of cynicism. If one is naive, then the argument in favour of no platforming is to save supple minds from being warped by heinous ideas (e.g., Holocaust denialism); conversely, the cynic says the act of no platforming is to stifle open discussion of topics. Both approaches do not address the central driving force behind the act.
If there is limited time to speak then one would ideally maximize that time with the best possible information. Now, let me invoke Wilkinson's Law and frame this in the most common venue for no platforming: the college campus. The soft and pliable minds of young students cannot properly analyze and critique terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas, so it is an act of compassion to prevent the airing of them. Well now, what of the time which would have otherwise been spent on sharing these terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas? Why, let us put in place the ideas which are not terrible, monstrous, or intolerant!
Now, let us reframe this slightly but placing no value on the ideas and just labeling them as simply ideas. Rather than "terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas" we now have "ideas". So we have the denial of time to one set of ideas and instead the sharing of another. The rejection of the first set was a based on the weakness and frailty of the youthful minds. These moral arbiters have instead utilized the time to espouse safe and positive ideologies... on these same weak and frail minds.
It ought to be clear by now what I'm aiming at, but in the event that it isn't, let me take one final crack at this. Social justice warriors are willing to "save" the minds of young students (i.e., their peers) from hearing horrendous ideas out of fear that those ideas will take root in their uncritical minds and instead will preach social justice to the very same sponge-like minds. No platforming is not about preventing "bad ideas" from being shared, but about monopolizing the time to spread the already established dogma; to entrench the ideology of social justice so as to choke out any possibility of even critical analysis of any non-social justice related issue, just as a well-seeded lawn prevents the growth of weeds.
Control plays an important part of this process, but again, it is not solely about control of the platform. It is predominately about the control of minds who would otherwise hear the no platformed views. Supple minds must be fed a particular set of ideas in order for them to "expand" down the narrow tunnel of social justice. By stifling the free speech on campus through the cowardly act of no platforming, these activist students have created a small box for their minds to live in. Moreover, they are ever vigilant in expanding this encompassing and intellectually suffocating box around the minds of their fellow collegians, eventually turning them into equally fearful and righteous students.
A glaring example of no platforming is not with a him but with a her. Ms. Germaine Greer, one of the most prolific voices in second-wave feminism, was attempted to be no platformed by the Cardiff Student Union's women's officer Rachel Melhuish via the do-nothing-activist hub change.org. The talk did take place on 18 November as scheduled, despite the petition and the slacktavist ramblings of a one Payton Quinn, who wrote four articles on why the act of no platforming is good via Huffington Post UK.
For context, Ms. Quinn (Mr.? I know there has been a transition, but I am entirely unaware of what the starting point was as compared to what the end point is) spends the articles complaining about being misgendered (see above), noting how freedom of speech and expression is established law in the United Kingdom, wholly misunderstanding the difference between hate speech and individual opinions (which, mind you, do not advocate intolerance or violence in this particular case), and ultimately arguing that there should be no freedom of speech where her/his (really, this is not done maliciously, I am truly ignorant of Quinn's gender situation) feelings or opinions may be harmed.
In Quinn's most recent article on the matter, there is a fantastic example of how not understanding that no platforming is tantamount to the erosion of free speech, lamenting the jab of one attendee who said, "No, I believe in free speech" as she rebuked the flyers on offer. The flyers were selections of Greer's writings on transwomen. Quinn had purchased tickets, but chose not to attend, creating the perfect irony: the act of no platforming prevents all from hearing the views of Greer, stripping them of choice. By exercising choice, Quinn was not exposed to the views of Greer while allowing others to.
So comes the Fallout shelter problem: the entire community tells you it is dangerous to leave, as the world outside is dangerous. Instead, it is best to stay in the dark, tight, small shelter and listen to the administrator, for he knows best. The mere act of pondering to leave is met with derision and scorn. It is best not to upset the collective... and to listen and believe.
Find me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Post 56 -- Milo misunderstands net neutrality.
It shouldn't come as a shock to most that the fabulous Milo Yianopolous isn't perfect. While close, there are some strange quirks about the man that were uncovered in his conversation with Joe Rogan during The Powerful Joe Rogan Experience #702. A small example is the love for a monarch and people being "born and bred to rule".
Another stunning example of Milo's short comings--which contradicts his pro-consumer #GamerGate stance and conservative business values--is his disdain for net neutrality. At the basis of this is his misunderstanding of what net neutrality is attempting to do. I will provide a few examples though this to clarify for those who do not understand what the impact of net neutrality has on individuals and businesses.
Here is where it starts in JRE.
"It's about the government regulating the internet," says Milo in his argument that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech. He goes on to state, "it is about the government trying to intrude into the private relationship between a company and it's customer. Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude into that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with [your internet provider]."
In summary of Milo's points, net neutrality is a direct intrusion by way of government over reach into private contracts between two parties.
Milo continues to add some nonsense about the government attempting to interfere with ISPs having tiered services for their customers, a claim that is entirely bogus on its face.
Here is where Milo, and other anti-net neutrality advocates, need a small education on how business views net neutrality. This is not merely ramblings of someone who doesn't know better; I have information from a lead developer of one of the largest cloud companies in the world who has spoken with me about how his company would approach a world of net neutrality and the world without it.
Let's start with an example. Three men walk into McDonald's. One works for Radio Shack, one works for the city, and one is unemployed. They all wish to purchase a Big Mac. The man from Radio Shack pays $1.50. The man from the city pays $1.00. The unemployed man pays $2.00. Each of these men received the same service, had the same wait time, and received identical burgers in presentation and calories. Why did they have to pay different amounts? Well, that's because Radio Shack and the city have contracts with McDonald's which states what they get to pay for their Big Macs. The unemployed fellow has no such contact, so it forced to pay a higher rate for the same item.
Let's use those same three men again. This time, they are all purchasing a Big Mac and they all pay $1.50 for it. The man from Radio Shack gets the standard Big Mac. The man from the city gets a Big Mac with additional cheese and two additional burger patties. The unemployed man does not get cheese and only gets one burger patty. Again, because of the contracts between each company, the same named item is distributed at different levels for the same price.
But wait, there's more! This isn't just about the Big Mac contracts. This is also about the people providing the produce, condiments, buns, and beef. Each contract dictates how each individual contract receives a different quality product for each burger component. This is not an act of reducto ad absurdum; rather, this is illustrating the point with an example which most can imagine themselves being in.
To extrapolate this out into your personal contract with your ISP, consider the following: not only do you negotiate (or more likely just agree to what is being offered) on your internet speed (e.g., 15 Mbps upload/ 1 Mbps download), but your agreement would also contain hundreds of pages of what bandwidth is available between you and the internet sites which you might visit. So, even though you would be purchasing a, let's say, basic package (15/1), you would not get a smooth 15 Mbps download maximum from each site. Instead, you would see a list such as:
Another stunning example of Milo's short comings--which contradicts his pro-consumer #GamerGate stance and conservative business values--is his disdain for net neutrality. At the basis of this is his misunderstanding of what net neutrality is attempting to do. I will provide a few examples though this to clarify for those who do not understand what the impact of net neutrality has on individuals and businesses.
Here is where it starts in JRE.
"It's about the government regulating the internet," says Milo in his argument that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech. He goes on to state, "it is about the government trying to intrude into the private relationship between a company and it's customer. Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude into that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with [your internet provider]."
In summary of Milo's points, net neutrality is a direct intrusion by way of government over reach into private contracts between two parties.
Milo continues to add some nonsense about the government attempting to interfere with ISPs having tiered services for their customers, a claim that is entirely bogus on its face.
Here is where Milo, and other anti-net neutrality advocates, need a small education on how business views net neutrality. This is not merely ramblings of someone who doesn't know better; I have information from a lead developer of one of the largest cloud companies in the world who has spoken with me about how his company would approach a world of net neutrality and the world without it.
Let's start with an example. Three men walk into McDonald's. One works for Radio Shack, one works for the city, and one is unemployed. They all wish to purchase a Big Mac. The man from Radio Shack pays $1.50. The man from the city pays $1.00. The unemployed man pays $2.00. Each of these men received the same service, had the same wait time, and received identical burgers in presentation and calories. Why did they have to pay different amounts? Well, that's because Radio Shack and the city have contracts with McDonald's which states what they get to pay for their Big Macs. The unemployed fellow has no such contact, so it forced to pay a higher rate for the same item.
Let's use those same three men again. This time, they are all purchasing a Big Mac and they all pay $1.50 for it. The man from Radio Shack gets the standard Big Mac. The man from the city gets a Big Mac with additional cheese and two additional burger patties. The unemployed man does not get cheese and only gets one burger patty. Again, because of the contracts between each company, the same named item is distributed at different levels for the same price.
But wait, there's more! This isn't just about the Big Mac contracts. This is also about the people providing the produce, condiments, buns, and beef. Each contract dictates how each individual contract receives a different quality product for each burger component. This is not an act of reducto ad absurdum; rather, this is illustrating the point with an example which most can imagine themselves being in.
To extrapolate this out into your personal contract with your ISP, consider the following: not only do you negotiate (or more likely just agree to what is being offered) on your internet speed (e.g., 15 Mbps upload/ 1 Mbps download), but your agreement would also contain hundreds of pages of what bandwidth is available between you and the internet sites which you might visit. So, even though you would be purchasing a, let's say, basic package (15/1), you would not get a smooth 15 Mbps download maximum from each site. Instead, you would see a list such as:
- YouTube: 1.6 Mbps down, 0.5 Mbps up
- Twitter: 0.5 Mbps down, 0.2 Mbps up
- Reddit: 5 Mbps down, 0.01 Mbps up
- Amazon: 1 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up
- ... and so fourth.
Each company's rate would be determined through what each company pays for its data to be shared through the ISP and to each customer based on rates determined outside of the maximum upload rates. Expanding this out a bit more, this means that, for example, one particular ISP is vehemently anti-pornography--be it evangelicals or feminists--they could say those particular packets of information from any web hosting service which deals with hosting pornography are different from non-pornography packets and charge a rate so absurd that the cost to the consumer and host would be prohibitive. A Christian ISP could do the same to atheist content hosts. We have already established that search engines such as Google cannot write algorithms which hide or undervalue results from its competitors. Why should we allow ISPs to determine what each packet of information is worth simply based on the company or hosting service from whence they came?
One more example, as this ties into another quote from Milo: "... just like you can get a better car if you pay more." Again, this is Milo making the dumb statement that ISPs wouldn't be allowed to sell tiered packages (i.e., basic [15/1], silver [25/5], gold [50/10], platinum [100/25]). What this statement implies is that if you pay more money, you will get better access. The thing is, with cars, you don't get special treatment on roadways. This is because roads are publicly owned. Railways, telephone lines, and utilities are considered common carriers, entities so central and valuable to our lives that to charge different rates for different parties on arbitrary grounds is deemed immoral.
Back to the car thing, though: whether you buy a Honda Accord or an Audi A4 you do not get special rules based on the maker of your car. Owning a Lexus doesn't mean the freeway speed is 75 MPH while Ford owners are limited to 60 MPH. Is this clear yet?
* Here's an example of what the internet world will look like without net neutrality. Let's say there is a business in Vancouver, Washington, Go To Gutter Guys, a gutter installation and cleaning company. It's a small business which has purchased web hosting from another small business in the Pacific Northwest. Both Go To Gutter Guys and the hosting service use Comcast Xfinity as their ISP. Now, say there is someone in Florida who is trying to help his elderly grandparents in Vancouver find someone to clear their gutters. The person in Florida attempts to connect to gotogutterguys.com to inquire about rates. Our fictional Florida Man does not have Comcast. His ISP instead doesn't have a deal or an arrangement with Comcast or the web hosting service. The Florida Man's ISP then aggressively throttles or even blocks access to the gotoguttersguys.com. Why? Because without net neutrality, there is no consumer protections in place which will prevent any ISP which is not providing the internet service to a party from throttling or blocking access to that party's site. This harms small businesses, medium businesses, civic governments, and consumers far more than federal infrastructure or major companies. Again, all of this is done despite what tiered level of service a party my have purchased.
* Here's an example of what the internet world will look like without net neutrality. Let's say there is a business in Vancouver, Washington, Go To Gutter Guys, a gutter installation and cleaning company. It's a small business which has purchased web hosting from another small business in the Pacific Northwest. Both Go To Gutter Guys and the hosting service use Comcast Xfinity as their ISP. Now, say there is someone in Florida who is trying to help his elderly grandparents in Vancouver find someone to clear their gutters. The person in Florida attempts to connect to gotogutterguys.com to inquire about rates. Our fictional Florida Man does not have Comcast. His ISP instead doesn't have a deal or an arrangement with Comcast or the web hosting service. The Florida Man's ISP then aggressively throttles or even blocks access to the gotoguttersguys.com. Why? Because without net neutrality, there is no consumer protections in place which will prevent any ISP which is not providing the internet service to a party from throttling or blocking access to that party's site. This harms small businesses, medium businesses, civic governments, and consumers far more than federal infrastructure or major companies. Again, all of this is done despite what tiered level of service a party my have purchased.
With net neutrality, you buy service based on your needs. You get a certain maximum download and upload speed. These speeds are slightly mediated by what the content hosting services are paying for. All packets are equal. A world without net neutrality would mean that each contract would require customers to negotiate for not only what level of service they want, but for what access to each site, as effected by what each site has negotiated for it's access to consumers. It is utterly, wholly ridiculous to argue that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech when its expressed purpose is to prevent companies and governments from determining the value of each packet based on its content and source.
Sorry glorious Milo, but you're just wrong on net neutrality.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
* This paragraph was added after the original publication to help further clarify and illustrate the harm caused by a lack of consumer protection.
* This paragraph was added after the original publication to help further clarify and illustrate the harm caused by a lack of consumer protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)