Life of Brian - The People's Front of Judea

> And yet we need to do it Who are "we"? And what is "it"? Do you just take on yourself the mantle of decider for the whole world who is worthy and who is not? Or how is it determined? Who is worthy to wear that mantle? I don't think any human is. > I'd claim that this is a problem Maybe human nature is a "problem". But what you're going to do, replace humanity with better species? Do you have one in mind? Beyond that, I don't see how declaring it "a problem" helps anything, unless there's a fix to this problem. History teaches me that all attempts to create a "new, better human race" didn't just end badly - they ended so awfully terrible that when people point at it, other people get offended that you dare to compare their ideas to that . So, we have to deal with what we have now - and had for millienia. Given what we did with it - well, not ideal, but certainly there have been some improvement. > it would be great to incentivize the kind that leads to a more stable, more just society How do you know what leads to more just society? Maybe rants would lead to more just society faster? As for stability, stability is only good when we're at the optimum. Are we? > I feel we need to try and walk that fine line, if we want to have a society that's better than just random. Which fine line? Everybody has their own fine line, that's the point. You could maybe find a bunch of people whose fine line is similar to your own, if you don't look too far into the future (and if you do, what

I found that all I need is git for Windows and its bash and Unix commands, plus ConEmu for terminals. I'm completely at ease with developing on Windows now, and I've "done Linux" since 1994, worked long for one of the major Linux vendors and even contributed a bit to the Linux kernel (networking and firewall), but if I had to do system administration I might have a stronger opinion (simply because I'M so sued to Unix ways in general). It is like this Monty Python scene [this video] when people start arguing about their operating system. For the last couple of years I looked at how nature (biology) "computes", not just neurons, the entire bio-chemistry with its machinery. Now that is something different - while everything people put on their computers works on pretty much the exact same principles unless you zoom all the way in to nanometer scale (figuratively speaking).

Aha, I'd originally confused your D with the DISC D irectness. Paul's subaltern comment reminded me strongly of "Life of Brian": [this video] Re: Rao, I found that I had to deliberately read [link] in small chunks with large breaks, because otherwise it all blurs together in terms of being a bunch of h saps being awful to each other. More specifically to his introduction, one can see big differences in the "tournament" between say 1250 and 1500: over that period they go from being a sort of open wargame with a racing-for-pinkslips feel played over the several km of hill and dale between villages, to a sport played in an enclosed pitch in front of an audience, limited to vetted entrants with the appropriate gear.