Jonkman Microblog
  • Login
Show Navigation
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Popular
    • People

Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 101

  1. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:30:19 EST Strypey Strypey
    • BjarniBjarniBjarni šŸ™Š šŸ‡®šŸ‡ø šŸ
    • Humane Tech Community

    @HerraBRE guess who disproportionately pays normal taxes? Poor people, especially in countries like Aotearoa (NZ) that have #GST (Goods and Service Tax), and don't have fair taxes on wealth and business, capital gains, inheritance etc. What funding waste management from normal taxes *doesn't* do is allow customers to get their food cheaper by buying it from companies with more eco-friendly packaging, sending a cumulative market signal to the companies that don't.
    @humanetech

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:30:19 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  2. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:25:20 EST Strypey Strypey
    • ar.al🌻

    @aral BTW I should add that getting that government to adopt #NZGOAL and CC licenses was still a big improvement on the kinds of privatization that might otherwise have happened. For example the #LINZ map data used in #OSM, could have been spun off into an #SOE (State-Owned Enterprise), and made available only to purchasers of proprietary, commercial licenses. Worst-case scenario, the copyright of public map data could have been sold into private ownership, to "open" it to the private sector.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:25:20 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  3. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:20:15 EST Strypey Strypey

    @LWFlouisa aww shucks :-}

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:20:15 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  4. booklord šŸ‡ØšŸ‡¦ šŸ‡¬šŸ‡· šŸ‡¹šŸ‡¼ šŸ‡­šŸ‡° (tootbrute@scholar.social)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 02:26:32 EST booklord 🇨🇦 🇬🇷 🇹🇼 🇭🇰 booklord šŸ‡ØšŸ‡¦ šŸ‡¬šŸ‡· šŸ‡¹šŸ‡¼ šŸ‡­šŸ‡°
    in reply to
    • Strypey

    @strypey YES!

    it's incredible in capitalism that I can introduce this thing, sell it, make tonnes of money, but when it breaks or can't be used anymore

    HAHA who cares! i made money.

    manufacturers should be responsible for their products from cradle-to-grave.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 02:26:32 EST from scholar.social permalink Repeated by strypey
  5. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:17:11 EST Strypey Strypey
    • clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy šŸ‡øšŸ‡ŖšŸ‡­šŸ‡°šŸ’™šŸ’›

    @clacke in Aotearoa (NZ), most cities collect glass separately from other recyclables, and ask citizens to seal paper inside plastic supermarket bags before putting them in the unsorted recycling (we've just banned single-use plastic shopping bags though, so ...). Some cities are starting to test having a green bin for food scraps and garden waste, which is sent to large-scale windrow composting areas.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:17:11 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  6. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:11:13 EST Strypey Strypey
    • hi

    @mlg of course that's the PR key message. How else would you make people join forces with the corporations who are trashing our habitat for short-term profit, against the environmental activists who are desperately trying to prevent that? Educating people that businesses are taxing the public, by making us pay for kerbside collection of rubbish they create for private profit, might help inoculate folks against that kind of PR.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:11:13 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  7. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:06:23 EST Strypey Strypey
    • Billy Blaze šŸ¦„

    @ckeen how long has the law been in place? Is it actually enforced? Are the penalties pathetically small fines that are cheaper than what it would cost them to comply, or reduce their waste production?

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:06:23 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  8. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:04:10 EST Strypey Strypey
    • Piggo🐽

    @piggo see:
    https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101409459118556551

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:04:10 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. File without filename could not get a thumbnail source.
      New status by strypey
      By Strypey (Quitter.se refugee) from mastodon.nzoss.nz
  9. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:00:16 EST Strypey Strypey
    in reply to
    • z428
    • pootz

    @z428
    3) web hosting doesn't cost as much as people seem to think. In the early 2000s #Indymedia sites paid about $100 a year for hosting, and In 2013, you could get hosting for a year for less than US$100:
    http://static.pinboard.in/prosperity_cloud.htm

    That's twenty espresso coffees or beers at US$5 each. Businesses will those kinds of overheads have no excuse for #DataFarming their visitors. It happens to increase returns for #VultureCapitalists and corporate shareholders.
    @pootz

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 09:00:16 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  10. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:59:08 EST Strypey Strypey
    in reply to
    • z428
    • pootz

    @z428
    2) web hosting doesn't cost as much as people seem to think. In the early 2000s #Indymedia sites paid about $100 a year for hosting, and In 2013, you could get hosting for a year for less than US$100:
    http://static.pinboard.in/prosperity_cloud.htm

    That's twenty espresso coffees or beers at US$5 each. Businesses will those kinds of overheads have no excuse for #DataFarming their visitors.
    @pootz

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:59:08 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  11. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:55:56 EST Strypey Strypey
    • z428
    • pootz

    @z428 I agree that we need more experiments in funding online services. Especially when FB is estimated to cost about US$1/per/year. But:
    1) making the world's knowledge available gratis, to anyone who wants to learn from it, is one of the most incredible achievements of our civilization. Not a pathology to be cured.
    2) Wikipedia continues to prove that its possible to provide free access to a *very* heavily used website without putting up a paywall or using ads ...
    @pootz

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:55:56 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  12. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:43:44 EST Strypey Strypey
    • pylon fan

    @sophia sure, sorry :)

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:43:44 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  13. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:39:31 EST Strypey Strypey
    • Charlag

    @charlag we don't know exactly, true. We know for certain that they didn't eat any industrially produced junk food, or that required refrigeration or preservatives (other than salting, drying, or smoking), or anything that came from a distance greater than they could walk (at least not regularly). A certain amount can be inferred from studying the diets of contemporary gatherer-hunter peoples, and archaeological evidence. See:
    https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101408593414560559

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:39:31 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. File without filename could not get a thumbnail source.
      New status by strypey
      By Strypey (Quitter.se refugee) from mastodon.nzoss.nz
  14. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:22:08 EST Strypey Strypey
    • Deprecated BIF :flan_whmage:

    @dch there are solutions. I remember seeing a #TEDTalk about biodegradable packaging made using wood waste and mushroom mycelium:
    https://www.ted.com/talks/eben_bayer_are_mushrooms_the_new_plastic?language=en

    But at long as implementing them costs more than not implementing them, only niche social enterprises will bother. The costs of creating persistent waste needs to be pushed back onto the balance sheet of the businesses doing it. Then change will happen.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:22:08 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. Invalid filename.
      Eben Bayer: Are mushrooms the new plastic?
      By Eben Bayer from TED
  15. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:19:05 EST Strypey Strypey
    in reply to
    • BjarniBjarniBjarni šŸ™Š šŸ‡®šŸ‡ø šŸ

    @HerraBRE the regulation I'm proposing would include rules for making sure businesses identify themselves on the products they manufacture, along with the identity of every handler between them and the customer. But what's important here is that once they know they have take financial responsibility for the end-of-life disposal of the waste they profit from, business will go #ZeroFast so fast it will make your head spin.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:19:05 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  16. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:14:58 EST Strypey Strypey
    • BjarniBjarniBjarni šŸ™Š šŸ‡®šŸ‡ø šŸ

    @HerraBRE so your priorities are
    1) convenience for businesses and customers
    2) livable biosphere

    This is precisely why the costs that businesses are busy externalizing onto everybody else (ecosystems, the public, governments etc) need to be internalized. Because the only way to make some business people care about the problems they create, is to make those problems cost *them* money. Then solutions come thick and fast.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 08:14:58 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  17. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:45:25 EST Strypey Strypey
    in reply to

    Hat-tip to water fluoridation evangelist #KenPerrot, on whose blog I learned about Matthew's article:
    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/the-problem-with-scepticism/

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:45:25 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. Invalid filename.
      The problem withĀ scepticism
      By Ken from Open Parachute

      Some readers may be aware I am being purposely provocative with this logo as it identifies the problem of extending the sceptical approach into the political sphere – emotions of identity and values.Ā Image credit: RT America YouTube.


      Being a sceptic has its problems. On the one hand, a sceptical approach to information has never been more necessary. On the other hand labelling oneself a Sceptic (or Skeptic) can have negative results – encouraging arrogance and inability to accept criticism.

      I have been thinking about this a lot lately and have again and again found myself encouraging a sceptical approach to everything we read – from whatever source. But I also found myself largely agreeing with a recent article in Patheos critical of sceptics by Matthew Facciani – Why Identifying As A Skeptic Can Be Problematic.Ā Ā Then I attended (partially) the NZ Skeptics conference in Wellington last weekend – a great conference with some excellent presentations.

      But something that struck me during the conference is that the scepticism was really limited to what Wikipedia defines as scientificĀ  or empirical scepticismĀ which questions ā€œbeliefs on the basis of scientific understanding:ā€

      ā€œScientificĀ skepticism may discard beliefs pertaining toĀ purported phenomenaĀ not subject to reliable observation and thus not systematic orĀ testableĀ empirically. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some type of theĀ scientific method.Ā As a result,Ā a number of claimsĀ are considered as ā€œpseudoscienceā€œ, if they are found to improperly apply or ignore the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.ā€

      I think this is far too limiting. Societies are faced with many issues – only some of them come under the scientific or empirical classification.

      ScepticismĀ needs to be applied more widely

      I sometimes think our modern society has quite a good handle on scientific and empirical issues. Sure, we could improve the understanding of what science is and there are far too many people around who are imbued with anti-science or pseudoscience ideas.Ā  But look at the political sphere – aren’t dogmatic and irrational ideas there more common than pseudoscientific ones? Don’t we suffer more from political ā€œwooā€ than we do from ā€œwooā€ in the scientific or health areas?

      The general definition of scepticism given by Wikipedia in the same article is:

      ā€œSkepticismĀ (American English) orĀ scepticismĀ (British English;Ā see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude orĀ doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.ā€

      So here is my point – why do ā€œSceptics,ā€ in practice, limit themselves in this way? Perhaps many ā€œScepticsā€ would deny they do – but time and again I come across people who adhere, or attempt to adhere, to a rational and evidence-based approach in matters of health and science (things like creationism, flat earth fanatics, acupuncturists, anti-fluoridationists and homoeopaths) yet will accept, even pontificate on, biased and tribal political arguments without any respect for evidence. Or will seek ā€œevidenceā€ for their political beliefs in a very partisan way. Quite different to their more objective approach on scientific and empirical issues.

      My personal feeling is that this problem is inevitable. We are not a rationalĀ species, more a rationalising one. Humans definitely have the ability to pursue logical and rational thought but emotions still linger under the surface. Probably a good thing as this makes us human and not robots.

      So ā€œscientific or empirical scepticsā€ are able to follow the evidence and logic to a rational conclusion. Partly because they have not started with any emotional or values-based committment to the final conclusions. Although a non-Sceptic speaker at the Wellington conference did make the valid point that even sceptics will react emotionally when their rational conclusions are challenged by non-sceptics. That is because they inevitably do, in the end, feel an identity with those conclusions. They do so not because they fell an ideological committment to the conclusions – the commitmentĀ is to the method used to reach the conclusions.

      We are all influenced by emotions and values

      Even the most rational thinkers are influenced by emotions and valvalues. These may exert a bigger role when the sceptic has to deal with a subject outside their area of knowledge and they are therefore less secure in their understanding.Ā  Or, perhaps more strongly, in areas like politics and religion where values and identity attachments are much stronger.

      Perhaps this is why a Skeptics conference will deal only with the scientific or empirical subjects and not treat the political ones in the same manner. These may be avoided in fear they will lead to conflict. Or worse, they are avoided because of a prevailing political consensus. A consensus which may have no evidential or rational basis.

      I really don’t like the way groups assume a consensus in this way. It is this assumption which has probably annoyed me most about the partisan-driven political hysteria in the US at the moment and the way this has been uncritically accepted here by people who, on the basis of their sceptical or rational approach on scientific issues, should know better.

      Being sceptical of sceptics

      In his Patheos article Matthew FaccianiĀ gives a general definition – ā€œaĀ skeptic is someone who tries to beĀ objective andĀ questions the validity of many things.ā€

      I am certainly with him there as I really cannot understand why anyone should limit their sceptical approach to only an approved field. Matthew then goes on to say:

      ā€œI used to think of myself as a skeptic. It seems like a identifying with skepticism is a good trait to have. However, I’ve grown to really dislike the word over time and now feel rather skeptical of those who identify as skeptics!

      I’ve run into far too many skeptics who turn off their skepticism when it’s convenient for them. You’ll see them apply great skepticism to some areas (like religion), but then become much less critical of ideas that are consistent with their own ideologies (like maintaining the status quo).ā€

      I wonder if many New ZealandĀ Sceptics (or Skeptics) have had the same experience? I certainly have and it is one reason why I would never join the NZ Skeptics Society. (To be accurate, that general reason is probably why I never join any societies – I really can’t adhere to a ā€œParty lineā€).

      Identity problems

      Matthew explains this problem partly by identity theory:

      ā€œpeople are going to be motivated to ignore information that conflicts with their identity. So this becomes a problem when a conservative rejects evidence for climate change for example. Their deeply held beliefs are threatened with evidence that climate change isĀ caused by human activity, so they are extra motivated to ignore it.

      Ā So if you are a skeptic, a person who thinks as themselves as particularly objective and rational, wouldn’t it be threatening to be told you are being irrational? As someone whoĀ used to identify as a skeptic, I would say this was the case for me. The stronger the identity is held, the more vulnerable a person is to being biased. So if someone strongly thinks of themselves as an amazing skeptic, it may be veryĀ identity-threateningĀ to be exposed to informationĀ that proves them wrong. Especially if that information threatens another identity they have!’
      All very human of course. But it is a worry when someone who may have a well-foundedĀ objectivity and rationality about a scientific subject automatically transfers the resulting confidence to another area like politics where it simply works to support their biases and values and not facts.

      The bias blind spot

      Another issues he raises is the bias blind spot:
      ā€œthis bias blind spotĀ ā€œarises when people report that thinking biases are more prevalent in others than in themselves.ā€Ā So people often think others are more biased than themselves! That makes sense asĀ humans tend to enjoy thinking of ourselves as better than we really are for self-protective purposes.ā€
      Worryingly, researchers report:
      ā€œthat higher cognitive ability does not prevent people from experience this bias blind spot. In fact, those with high intelligenceĀ can even be better at rationalizing away their biases!ā€
      As I keep saying, we are not a rational species – more a rationalising one. PerhapsĀ higher cognitive ability just makes it easier to rationalise.
      Matthew’s view is:

      ā€œmuch of these bias blind spots occur from the certainty and dogmatism that occurs fromĀ havingĀ too much confidence in holding certain positions.ā€ A ā€œstrong skeptic identityā€ may also make you less receptive to feedback that challenges your worldview.ā€

      Intellectual humility

      So perhaps this explains the annoying confidence, even arrogance, that many people see in Sceptics (or Skeptics). Matthew’s solution, and it is worth considering, is intellectual humility:
      ā€œI would urge all of us to work on our ā€œintellectual humility.ā€ Intellectual humility is the psychological construct that can generally be defined asĀ ā€œunderstanding the limits of one’s knowledge.ā€Ā Those with higher intellectual humility areĀ more likely to be open to opposing viewpoints.Ā Ā Additionally, research byĀ Samuelson and colleagues (2015)Ā found that ā€œan intellectually arrogant person uses education in a prideful way to confer social status, while an intellectually humble person pursues education out of curiosity and love of learning.ā€ Seems likeĀ too many skeptics may be intellectually arrogant instead of intellectually humble.
      As I noted above, it’sĀ often self-protective to believe we are correct and objective people. It’s certainly an unpleasant feeling to beĀ proven wrong. However, working on ourĀ intellectual humility will make us more open to feedback. Yes, it may sting in the short term, but if we value truth, that’s a small price to pay.ā€

      I think Matthew resorts to a bit of intellectual arrogance himself in this article as it has its own polemics. However, I fully agree with him about the desirability of intellectual humility.

      Worth thinking about.

      Similar articles

  18. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:43:32 EST Strypey Strypey

    "Intellectual humility is the psychological construct that can generally be defined as 'understanding the limits of one’s knowledge.' Those with higher intellectual humility are more likely to be open to opposing viewpoints".
    - Matthew Facciani, 'Why Identifying As A Skeptic Can Be Problematic'
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2017/11/identifying-skeptic-can-problematic/#cjxxXhHxB9tBplvA.99
    #Skeptics #CounterClaim

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:43:32 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. Invalid filename.
      Why Identifying As A Skeptic Can Be Problematic
      By Matthew from According To Matthew
      Science suggests skeptics can be extra vulnerable to bias.
  19. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:31:42 EST Strypey Strypey

    "Intellectual humility is the psychological construct that can generally be defined as 'understanding the limits of one’s knowledge.' Those with higher intellectual humility are more likely to be open to opposing viewpoints".
    - Matthew Facciani, 'Why Identifying As A Skeptic Can Be Problematic'
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2017/11/identifying-skeptic-can-problematic/#cjxxXhHxB9tBplvA.99
    #Skeptics #CounterClaim

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 07:31:42 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink

    Attachments

    1. Invalid filename.
      Why Identifying As A Skeptic Can Be Problematic
      By Matthew from According To Matthew
      Science suggests skeptics can be extra vulnerable to bias.
  20. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 04:56:46 EST Strypey Strypey
    in reply to

    Weyrich might be getting #Paleo diet theory confused with the #AtkinsDiet. Apparently this is pretty common:
    https://paleoleap.com/paleo-can-learn-diets/

    Being #vegan, I'm not totally down with Paleo theory, especially the idea that animal protein is necessary for human health. But I do think that eating more whole foods - local where available - and less refined junk food, is good for anyone's health.

    In conversation Sunday, 13-Jan-2019 04:56:46 EST from mastodon.nzoss.nz permalink
  • After
  • Before
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

Switch to desktop site layout.