Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • TOMORROW IN L’VIV! LVOV, LEMBERG, PARADISE Where it’s like having a PFS meeting

    TOMORROW IN L’VIV! LVOV, LEMBERG, PARADISE

    Where it’s like having a PFS meeting every day of the week!!! WHOOT!

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 11:24:00 UTC

  • Moral, Ratio-Empirical Libertarians. Must tolerate the truth. Immoral, Rationali

    Moral, Ratio-Empirical Libertarians. Must tolerate the truth.

    Immoral, Rationalist Libertines. Must engage in deception.

    Immoral dysgenic progressives. Must justify their immoral dysgenia.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 11:20:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS (LIBERTARIANS) CONCERNED WITH “RIGHTS”? ANSWER: RULE

    WHY ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS (LIBERTARIANS) CONCERNED WITH “RIGHTS”? ANSWER: RULE OF LAW.

    Our only known method of eliminating authority, is to create rules of behavior under rule of law, where (a) all rights are expressed as property rights, (b) all obligations and prohibitions apply to all, without exception, (c) all rights evolve from property rights by judicial application of the principles of property rights: (i)requirement for production/ prohibition on parasitism / non-conflict, via (ii) homesteading/first-use/abandonment and voluntary-exchange/construction, under (iii) the presumption of reasonable knowledge, and reasonable actor (Propertarianism:sympathetic testing), (iv) truthful testimony, (v) judged by peers – to new circumstances. Propertarianism requires also, (vi) such judgements be expressed as (vi.i) original intentions and (vi.ii) strict construction, and (vi.iii) in operational language.

    NOTES

    1) Progressives: Moral intuitions are insufficient for judgement in these matters, regressive, and dysgenic for these matters. Reason is insufficient for these matters. Our reason has ALWAYS failed us, in no small part because we are victims of cognitive bias that only disciplined application of science can moderately mitigate.

    2) Conservatives: Moral traditions are insufficiently adaptive in real time for these matters. Our traditions evolved when technology was relatively static. and our traditions failed us when technology changed faster than our traditions could adapt.

    3) Libertines: amorality is insufficient for the formation of a polity that does not resort to either retaliation or authority to prevent retaliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 11:18:00 UTC

  • THINKING OUT LOUD (Product Development) CLOUD DRIVES. We’ve been discussing exte

    THINKING OUT LOUD (Product Development)

    CLOUD DRIVES.

    We’ve been discussing external file systems, because some people integrate with Google docs, or Sharepoint. And I’ve considered (my favorite) integrating with Dropbox. But honestly, while it originally made sense, i can’t see the point in it.

    I mean, lets say that Facebook allowed file sharing. They can’t because it would turn into a pirate bay. But Oversing is not very different from FB except it’s for business instead of social activity, and it costs money, rather than advertising, and so liability remains with the content originator, and anonymity isn’t possible like it is in social media. Just the opposite. So, if you upload a file of any kind to Oversing, it’s within that business-social network, and you have to be in the network to use it. We do that on purpose. Furthermore, Dropbox is in the amazon cloud and so is oversing. I mean, the only reason we can think of is to separate file system costs. But that’s meter-able anyway.

    So the only reason I get to, I guess, is for really large files we will have a problem with our technology, because we would have to provide a background upload manager of some sort.

    I can see adding external links, but we do that anyway. I mean, if you’re doing large media gigs, it’s much easier to just mirror your local drive in Dropbox or share on Google Drive and then send links to customers.

    So do we implement a max file size and then ask customers to link external files for over that size? That seems like the best option to me.

    But I would love advice.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 10:26:00 UTC

  • PROGRESSIVES VS CONSERVATIVES – IRRESPONSIBILITY VS INCOMPETENCE. (I love how th

    PROGRESSIVES VS CONSERVATIVES – IRRESPONSIBILITY VS INCOMPETENCE.

    (I love how the socialists, progressives and the postmoderns have argued and transformed the language in favor of hedonism, and for irresponsibility for externalities; while conservatives argue for asceticism, stoicism and a prohibition on externalities, without having any idea that’s what they’re doing or why other than their moral intuitions.

    Everyone is talking past each other. Progressives are morally blind, and conservatives are rhetorically incompetent. Libertines are morally as bad or worse, and as morally blind as progressives.

    It’s no wonder we can’t resolve conflicts. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 10:00:00 UTC

  • DRINKING AGE AND FIGHTING AGE? (worth repeating) In war you follow orders, destr

    DRINKING AGE AND FIGHTING AGE?

    (worth repeating)

    In war you follow orders, destroy and kill, and are in the constant presence of others who can violently constrain you – even kill you.

    At home you have precisely the opposite conditions: you act on your own volition, are prohibited from almost every possible harm, you are in the presence of others who are by law limited in constraint of you.

    Liberty requires cognizance and alcohol and testosterone erase it. So no. Drinking at home, and fighting in war are very different environments. The two have nothing to do with one another as long as young males under the influence of alcohol continue to cause a disproportionate amount of damage.

    The question isn’t moral, and the environments are not commensurable. It’s empirical and the environments pose opposite conditions with opposite consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 09:56:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UK VS USA (worth repeating) I always want to smack Brits

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UK VS USA

    (worth repeating)

    I always want to smack Brits for incompetence. But their view of competence is pleasing the boss, while our view is pleasing the customer while making sure the boss merely gets his cut.

    —

    It’s very interesting how much pride Americans take in customer service, and how they treat rules other than those about money as guidelines, and that rigorous attention to rules is a sign of incompetence.

    Whereas for Brits, rigorous adherence to rules is not only a civic duty, a moral mandate, but a matter of pride.

    These differences are expressions of American distaste for hierarchy and Continental fear of a vacuum of it.

    It also reflects American risk taking ( the stock market in the USA) versus British (the bond market in London .)

    And the difference in proactive rules in Europe, and reactive rules in the States.

    It explains American use of lawyers to resolve conflicts rather than European rules and processes to prevent them occurring.

    Everything is easier in the states by orders of magnitude for this reason.

    You will feel safer in Europe. You can get rich in the states just by working hard.

    It’s fascinating really.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 09:50:00 UTC

  • (Is there anything better in the world than a dev lead who is smarter than you a

    (Is there anything better in the world than a dev lead who is smarter than you are? I don’t think so. It’s just like a lawyer, accountant, or doctor. Same. It’s awesome.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 08:59:00 UTC

  • (Worth repeating) The Enlightenment: ———————- The Anglo-Empirical.

    (Worth repeating)

    The Enlightenment:

    ———————-

    The Anglo-Empirical.

    The Counter-Empirical:

    ————————–

    The German-rational.

    The Cosmopolitan-pseudoscientific

    The French pseudo rational.

    Each tried to perpetuate its cultural strategy.

    The Anglo island universalism of seafarers.

    The German particularism of landed walled fortress of armies.

    The Jewish un-landed separatists.

    Burke took England into universal export of anti ignorance.

    The Germans reinforced their walls both intellectual and organisational.

    The Jews manufactured sold their pseudoscience as an alternative to empirical science to a population hungry for products that bridged the old and new.

    The French tried tyranny then slowly retreated behind isolationist walls where the could preserve their illusion.

    Unlike the majority of reactionaries I give much more weight to institutional reproduction of behaviour than genetic. I don’t discount genetic. It’s too obvious. It’s that I think institutions are actionable and genetics are not.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 06:29:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND LAW: DYSGENIC, STATIC OR EUGENIC. (very dense but ver

    DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND LAW: DYSGENIC, STATIC OR EUGENIC.

    (very dense but very important argument) (edited and reposted)

    From David Hamilton:

    —“Why not just admit that ethics is ultimately about our being in fundamental states of conflict with each other – that we are all simply trapped in the same metaphorical room preferring either Matisse or Picasso to hang on the common wall, and that ethics is ultimately about our agitating to impose our aesthetic tastes and preferences on everyone else, lest they impose theirs on us?”—

    Well written, common frustration, but, No.

    Determination of criminal, ethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions are universal. There exists only one universal law: the prohibition on free riding (imposed costs / lost time and effort).

    It’s true that by analogy, we refer to contractual obligations, commands, and regulations as law, to grant them the same standard. Just as we refer to a host of signals as ethical or moral, when they are only analogies thereof. But this analogy conveys import by analogy not truth content.

    MORAL THEORY RESULTS IN LAW

    So while you are correct that we are, outside of kin, ultimately in conflict on ends and means, we can develop rules – Like monogamy, for Nash equilibria – that allow us to cooperate on means if not ends: to engage in productive conflict rather than unproductive conflict. That is, after all, the function of the market.

    And if such rules are sufficiently internally consistent that (a) they can be used as general rules (b) applicable to all, for (c) a multitude of conditions we can then use such rules deductively. If these three (a,b,c) properties exist then such a general rule can be embodied in law, under rule of law. And only under such deductive, universally applicable, general rules can we live under rule of law, rather than arbitrary decision predicated upon the biases of an authority.

    So ethics, politics and law constitute reasoning by which we can construct general rules of cooperation (competition:productive conflict) WITHOUT relying on individual bias, given the reality of our conflict.

    So the question becomes one of ensuring that such general rules are decideable. Which is the central problem of all general rules in all logical models. The only means of decidability, is either dysgenic (socialism: the female reproductive strategy) or eugenic (libertarian meritocratic) or static (authoritarian).

    As far as I know that is a logical box without exit.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 02:26:00 UTC