| General > General Technical Chat |
| Technical things overlap the political topics, unfortunately. |
| << < (4/10) > >> |
| Bud:
Both engineers and polititians can do their calculations and make laws until the cows come home. Back millions years ago when the ice cap formed and dinosaurs died there was no engineers and polititians. As there was no engineers and polititians before that happened. Still, that happened. Think about it. |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: TimFox on September 25, 2023, 09:21:34 pm ---Opinion and facts: As an example of a present-day controversy, consider the increase in the Earth's surface temperature over, say, the past century. The scientific data show a clear trend of increasing temperature, and scientists have developed models that can be compared with future temperature trends and power usage, along with possible effects on agriculture, etc. Scientists and engineers can suggest possible methods for improving the future trends. Engineers can calculate the costs and benefits, along with practicability, of possible methods. The political process (whatever you may think about it) will determine what (if anything) is actually done about it. --- End quote --- Data can be open to interpretation, there's a huge level of uncertainty and risk vs benefit is often subjective. More often than not we have to choose the least worst option, but it's difficult to know what that is. People make this more difficult because individuals make decisions which benefit them personally and everyone has biases. Censorship is a big problem. If we're not allowed to debate ideas, which many consider to be bad, then how do we know they're really bad? Just because there's a consensus, it doesn't mean it's right. Government policies have unpredictable results, because how people respond is often too complex to predict, especially when it comes to economics. For example, raising taxes, doesn't necessarily result in increase income, as people avoid paying them and too higher tax burden hampers the economy. Some people believe it's always better for the government to intervene, whilst others think it's better to keep state interference to an absolute minimum. Full disclosure: I tend to lean towards the latter philosophy. |
| thm_w:
Yes they overlap. No the politics themselves rarely need to be discussed, yet people always feel the need to dump their opinions here which are not wanted. --- Quote from: Zero999 on September 25, 2023, 09:39:54 pm ---Data can be open to interpretation, there's a huge level of uncertainty and risk vs benefit is often subjective. More often than not we have to choose the least worst option, but it's difficult to know what that is. People make this more difficult because individuals make decisions which benefit them personally and everyone has biases. Censorship is a big problem. If we're not allowed to debate ideas, which many consider to be bad, then how do we know they're really bad? Just because there's a consensus, it doesn't mean it's right. --- End quote --- Then discuss the data and provide evidence or alternate data. For sure consensus is not always right, but thats not the issue here. --- Quote ---Government policies have unpredictable results, because how people respond is often too complex to predict, especially when it comes to economics. For example, raising taxes, doesn't necessarily result in increase income, as people avoid paying them and too higher tax burden hampers the economy. Some people believe it's always better for the government to intervene, whilst others think it's better to keep state interference to an absolute minimum. Full disclosure: I tend to lean towards the latter philosophy. --- End quote --- Now you've left the relevance of this forum and are discussing political opinions which many of us do not want here. Best kept to yourself. |
| MrMobodies:
If it is to do with the one I started yesterday about an article that I thought was true I am sorry about that it was a mistake and my fault. I got taken in believing it but it turned out to be fake/propaganda maybe? as Simon said it was to do with frightening people into voting for a political party and spreading it around. I was wondering how they'd go about doing such a thing in a technical sense (the point of the thread in question) but there won't be one as I see they were not being serious I did more checking later to find it something to do with a bill that targeted at landlords but they did a uturn on that yesterday. Joke: That one would be about showing "how reasonable they are." Spot on as Simon put it. The author who wrote the article was on a political newspaper, as a "political correspondence" in unclear faint front, near his name, according to his Linkedin profile he wrote for others newspapers that are too of the same political party. The article he wrote was about other members of the same party in question. I wasn't thinking of them and the influence they had over the article when I posted. I was wondering how they could technical and electronically make their plan work but as Simon sad it was garbage there to scare people into thinking they were good and now they did a uturn on it. I am relieved it is not true but still feel ashamed of myself by getting taken in by it thinking it was real and spreading it here where they gain attention. I thought the newspaper in question was an established respectable one but how wrong could I be. Next time I will cross check to see, if the article has political influence with the newspaper itself and the author/journalist and verify other facts about it. Sorry about that again. |
| RJSV:
Note for MrMobodies: I wouldn't think you should tear yourself up, about a little glitch. For what it's worth, I've been trying to set this thread up in a 'Metadata' sense, where (mostly) any actual party, or even the country is discussed free of names or party affiliations. Funny thing, you've just mentioned a situation that relates to the 'metadata' here: Mention was made, perhaps casually, of the 'Political party, of Such & Such Newspaper'. Interesting (and perplexing) thing to say. My guess is that the Newspaper Enterprise, itself, would never say that. Indeed the opposite, as the usual claim is of being 'unbiased', and, ironically, claiming that the 'other side' is the one that is completely (and unredeemably) biased, politically. In a generic sense, we could start calling (the political parties) the Apple Party vs. the Fig Party, and then proceed with the discussion, using a more indirect language. Problem is still that (I bet) the whole of the readers is usually going to include some individuals that want to violate forum rules concerning refraining from attacking / confronting other forum participants. It's important, at least in my own evaluation of all this, important to not forget the denial that occurs, when someone points out the obvious, bias, or worse, when it's stated without any sense of uncertainty. Somebody says 'Trust me, not him', well that's a red flag right there. I don't care if that's the 'Apple' party, or the 'Martian' party, that's a red flag right there. Metadata can suggest results like 'The Apple Party uses unpaid volunteers, mostly.' That maybe allows discussion, while bypassing offending anyone. In theory. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |