Could Swiss ~3$ Threema be an alternative? They say all is encrypted out of the box, including video stream. You can even use it without necessarily giving email addresse nor phone number : pure arbitrary numerical id if you want. Also, "for money" business model gives us a chance to not be "the product". I know it's not fully open source though, so it's no magic solution... Hmm wait : just checked it now and they say they are now ppen source! https://threema.ch/en/blog. AFAIR their model is still through centralized servers though : theoretically, one could systematically analyse envelopes and draw graph which remaine a valuable meta information. Yet... it looks interesting to me. Telegram not encrypted by default inevitably means not much privacy in da real world, ain't it? They also store messages on servers leaving them theoretically there to be red by third parties. Its "for free" business model leaves us with not much illusions. Same for Signal. Signal is USA = cloud act = forget about corporate privacy if one ever exchange work messages. Unfortunately, this is not at all far-fetched : Assenge tought us. On the contrary it's highly likely Signal is already feeding automatically NSA or you name it. Not a so easy choice! But there are alternatives.

This really is a nice post. A clear example of necro-liberalism if taken at face value. Maybe it actually is ironic ? I take the POV of "no" in this answer. Each point can be re-coined as an uncanny question. Examples.

> Why should someone contributing to the wealth of an organisation not get some fair share of it in return ? Whether carrying box or peeing liquid gold could be considered as irrelevant.
> The post is creating a job "importance" hierarchy. Though it is confusing importance with initial investment. See, garbage collector is one of your anyone-can-do-it-deservers-less-money-job (so you say), though it is immensely more important than your ... someone who had to study and get a varsity degree, and then work off his student debt and finally work his way up the ladder until he was making enough money to buy the flashy car..
> You see, your views on job hierarchy can be... questioned.

So what ?

So the post believes high school will land to most of us a "better" job. How outdated a view !

Very good point : there won't be salary for most of us soonish. So what ? Shall we quietly starve to death ? The answer is quite simple : we better not talk any more about salary. Instead we would get a living revenue independently of any job. And here we go : your box carrier would get the same money as thy engineer. Let's be frank about it : why not ? What else ? (I mean sincerely.)

You said it : jobs getting automated away ! It leaves us with one option only : people will be paid good money, for zero job. Other wise what ? Bloody revolts over and over by flocks of hopeless people ?

Yet an other good point. And the robots will be taxed so human beings can have a life. Really, again : what else ?

A nice religious belief : hard work and merit will win. Though your post already tooled us with the key : ultra-automation + ultra-competition = zero job. No matter how hard a worker and clever your are.

And per the post standard get indecently low money. And eventually, end up in generalised revolts.

And highly educated Bob worked hard for years, at high levels in his organisation, and was dumped (as many others) homeless, retirement less by Andersen Consulting collapse. I wish you and your wife will not have to face this harsh reality : she will be dumped despite of her so earnestly won degrees. Then what ? "You little piece of worthless unemployed person, move your ass off"? Will you really serve that to your wife ? Am asking because the post gives the impression you would say yes.

Be happy : your are not employed at the age of 14, mining in a coal gallery. Null argument.

Simply : why not ? I mean really ? Because you decide so ?

So you decide life is not fair. Really ? But us human species, we define what our lives are. So it is up to us to decide life must be fair. Full stop.

Yes...

... though... not totally. Humans need a little more than that. This statement ignore humans are beings of culture.

All in all, the parent post displays a very outdated set of views, is surprisingly short sighted and not fit for what's coming to us humans. IMO a good example of necro-liberalism.

Hello poor little pink unicorn. You feel hurt ?

I bet this user got one of his own little-pet-point-of-view-blabla removed from WP. And - obviously - it cannot be. It necessarily was "his self-esteem was personally attacked by very very not nice WP admins". Ha ha ! After 18 years some users still consider WP is a play-ground. What a surprise when they realise : no. What a rage when they realise there are some non-negotiable rules. Poor thing ! Childishness is hilarious when smeared over forums. Those users would tell you they do "what they want", including driving on the wrong side of the road because "who are you to tell me otherwise ?!". What a surprise when they realise they crashed. Haaaa ha ha. 'tis so gross.

Lol: What a round of utter crap. Just read WP history, inception goals, and rules before commenting further. Or go on FB, YT and the likes where you can happily do "what you want". (Well btw... did you notice it is changing ? Yes ! More and more... rules on FB and the like, to tame the truck loads of rubbish content generated by users who do "what they want". Poor thing.)

Spot on. +1 Insightfull.

Perpetually re-learning degraded UIs, changed nearly totally due to fashions instead of need, is unprofessional. Expecting this from end users as a monthly or even if only yearly standard routine, is unprofessional.

So easy to blame it all on end users. Yet, I so well understand them !

Debt: The First 5000 Years is a stimulating read, bringing in quite different point of views on debt, loan, responsibility, ethicality and so on. Quite radical. Arguable. Not a short read. Cut and paste from WP :

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present.

A major argument of the book is that the imprecise, informal, community-building indebtedness of "human economies" is only replaced by mathematically precise, firmly enforced debts through the introduction of violence, usually state-sponsored violence in some form of military or police.

A second major argument of the book is that, contrary to standard accounts of the history of money, debt is likely the oldest means of trade, with cash and barter transactions being later developments. Debt, the book argues, has typically retained its primacy, with cash and barter usually limited to situations of low trust involving strangers or those not considered credit-worthy.

Graeber shows how the second argument follows from the first; that, in his words, "markets are founded and usually maintained by systematic state violence," though he goes on to show how "in the absence of such violence, they (...) can even come to be seen as the very basis of freedom and autonomy."

Z.

+++ This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : http://www.origene.com/CRISPR-.... Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption. I know ([fr] https://www.franceinter.fr/emi...) some national defence office are well on the case. Already. We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?

• The far-left is: NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste) and LO (Lutte Ouvrière) : these are calling for armed revolution, and "grand soir" and so on.
• Then come : Communists.
• Then : Left parties : Front de Gauche, Gauche Unitaire, Partis Radical de Gauche, Ecological party. Mélenchon is trying to aggregate from this domain.
• Then : Socialists (PS) : In France PS is not any more "socialist". It's kinda rubish social-liberal proxy for openly right opinions.
• Then : Center parties
• Then : Right...

So to call Mélenchon a Communist is incorrect. Not only because he is not tagged so, but also for fundamental divergences.

For example : PC in France keeps promoting productivisme (producing a lot) and internationalism (free movement for workers). While Mélenchon calls extremely loudly for less & better production, and for joint-protectionism : we may exchange things, services and workers but with solidarity. Not at he expense of environment, local workers neither remote. So... see: these are not minor details. On the contrary : it makes Mélenchon's position quite different from extreme left and communists. And it makes Mélenchon's position simply socialist unlike those of PS in France.

Nope.

To coin it simply : beyond Le Pen on the right side there is... nothing. No other party. So, technically Le Pen is indeed extreme right. Yet the main reason why to tag Le Pen "extreme right" is its fundamental views : ethnic, xenophobic, anti-semitic influences, islamophobic, rather incompetent regarding public policies. These points will be vehemently disputed by this party and Marine Le Pen worked hard to soften the picture. Yet, fundamentally it is correct to state it is extreme-right : it is conceptually and historically. It is also little known yet well analysed this party actually picked-up many political concept from left movement. Yep : you see it is the other way around, Front National try to look acceptable and credible by diverting ideas from the left. Nice tactic isn't it ?! Classic.

Mélenchon (his movement is currently named "La France Insoumise" or FI or Greek symbol Phi) is a all together different story. Many have a strong interest into shaping this politician as an "extremist" : it would so much easier to discredit him. Yet he is not. At all. That would be as bold as stating Berni Sanders is a dangerous extreme left. Bold and... incorrect. Indeed he severely questions EU and globalisation as also do some... centre party, not only extreme right. That does not make him extreme.

First item : beyond Mélenchon on the left side in France one can find at least 2 groups : NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitalist) and LO (Lute Ouvrière). So, simply put : no Mélenchon is technically NOT extreme left. Second and more important item : these two party (NPA and LO) are anti-republican (they do not believe in the concept of Republic as a collective type of organisation). They promote armed revolution. Their view is very much labour-class centric. These party (NPA & LO) are technically and conceptually really extreme left. On the other hand Mélenchon promotes an "extreme-republic" (his words) view. He calls for pacific drastic changes in the form of a 6th republic. He cares not only for the labour-class but more importantly for the human-class : the one that is being shredded by necro-liberalism and environmental lunatics. He for example explicitly calls for legalisation on long-term-illegal-workers. He is not maniac about Muslims or other religions (He calls for a clear state-church split. He thinks citizen should believe what they want at home and at church. (He also stresses in France more than 50% is agnostic or atheist)). And so on...

So Dude wake up ! You may not like Mélenchon or left or far-left or or extreme-left or socialists or your auntie or you name it : fair enough. Yet, you cannot just go banana and disseminate random idiocies. I also notice that for me to give a little context, it takes... this. While for you to libel it is as easy as a one-liner idiocy. This is classic malevolent rhetorical technique : dump a crap-load and force your opponent to waist energy and time on the clean-up. Did that for you.

Sorry, I don't buy your bullshit.

Now let's imagine : let two AlphaGo machines play each other Go games. More games. More time allowed... Folks : it becomes IMO so abysmal. Where will it stops ? I literally shiver in awe. I believe this could be radically extreme disruptive technology. Keep in mind, AlphaGo invented moves it never observed before. Keep in mind, it can learn quite some different games, just by being exposed to samples. Wooooooaaaaaa. Impressed, concerned, exited, I am. Z.

FTA on SD : "it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers"

IMO it is missing the point : intrusiveness is the problem. Overabundance is just one type of intrusiveness. Intrusive means : consuming the resources I own ( cpu, mem, disc) or that I pay for (bandwidth). Putting my very own resources at risk with the malvertising. Rendering my interface slow. But mostly : too big, too visible, too noisy, flashy. AFAIK it's one of the points fought by AdBlockPlus : Ad is not the problem, intrusive ad is. It is enough to have one single intrusive ad - the contrary of abundance - to make me install all I can (ADB+, etc file, FlashBlock, etc). Z.

Hi there. Marc Trévidic was judge at anti-terrorist office in Paris for 10 years. On this [french] France-info 14.12.2015 radio interview, he states "Murderers motivation is at most 10% religion based. Main reason are personal path. Religion is only a varnish." At minute 18h 15m 25s [fr] http://www.franceinfo.fr/actu/.... So even though religions are indeed delusions, they are not guilty of these murders. Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility. Let's not play terrorist game. Their goal is to divide and trigger retaliation against Muslims in France so a vicious circle is started. Every one : do _not_ sort people according religion or atheism.

+1. Tanks. Simple. Judgment less. Auto-teaching. Thanks.

This is an interesting statement your are making : because your are (so you say) more educated you would be less subject to believes. You will be surprised to know that this statement has been properly studied. And... the results are exactly the opposite ! Yes. ( I was actually surprised too.) http://www.lazarus-mirages.net....

The concepts of "believes" and "faith" are extremely interesting objects. Homeopathy is good test case to study them.

Hint 1: Indeed. That is a good way to check whether something is magic or real. In general, a medicine with no scientific evidence has quite some chances to not work at all.

May I stress the following: The scientific understanding of a "thing" is not to be confused with the fact that this "thing" must exists in order to be (or not) understood. Rephrased : scientific evidence regarding homeopathy still means today "is there a 'thing' at all to be explained ?". And up to today the answer is : no. The status of homeopathy today is not whether one can explain it, or which theory is good about it, but is there something to be explained. And, again, up to today the answer is : no. Explaining homeopathy - today - is like explaining how good father xmass is at going through chimneys : wrong question. Question is : is there a father xmass ? And up to today the answer is : no.

To be noticed : No one denies the "feeling good" one may express after having ingested homeopathic pills. I am sincerely happy this happens. I feel good after a cup of coffee. Because coffee dos not claim to be a medicine there is not need to prove a link between my feeling and the coffee. On the other hand, homeopathy explicitly claim to be a medicine. Wow ! Then, there is no choice : proof must be produced.

Hint 2: Yep. That is also a way to detect real medicines. A real one will have effects and side effects. Both are even - or should be - documented on the notice. That is actually what is expected from a medicine : have at least "a" effect. Unfortunately it comes with "side" effects. This is a reason why medicine should be prescribed only by trained medical staff : because they are indeed dangerous. This is a good hint : a medicine claiming to have zero side effects is very more likely to have zero effects. Welcome to homeopathy which - up to now - have never produced any measurable specific effect.

This is IMO where the problem is. No, you cannot "look at the evidence for yourself". Reviewing the quality of a test protocol, checking the statistical significance of some numbers, in a double-blinded, against placebo group, against control group is certainly not accessible to random one. Sorry. That needs proper education and training. That is named "scientific training".

So to make it short. Homeopathy specific effect has never been observed. Nor validated by enough independent scientifically trained reviewers. The number of studies brought into the picture has little - if not none at all - evidence value. Studies must be verified. Many times.

So to make it short. Homeopathy has not been shown to have any specific effect at all. Ever.

For the homeopathy to work or not, it must first have any observable effect. Until now, homeopathy have shown zero effect.

Maybe tomorrow.