- More political about what is the best spirit.. - 1 Update
- More philosophy about how morality is going forward towards more and more perfection.. - 1 Update
- More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. - 1 Update
- Developers are handling 100 times more code now than in 2010 in more languages, for more platforms than ever - 1 Update
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Dec 30 07:09PM -0800 Hello... More political about what is the best spirit.. I think i am a philosopher, and i think that the best spirit is the spirit that creates pleasures in life that makes us more happy and this makes us more happy gives meaning to human life, and you can notice that you have to know how to be solidarity and charity because even solidarity and charity can become pleasures in life, since solidarity and charity can make us more "happy" and this this make us more happy gives meaning to human life, and creating products and services that make us more happy is creating pleasures in life that gives meaning to life, so you are understanding my philosophy (read about it below) this is why i am also creating pleasures in life by writing my poetry and by for example saying the following in my poetry: -- More explanation of my poem of Love below: Notice that i am saying in my poem of Love below the following: "But my beautiful desire for you is "also" always rolling" The "rolling" in my poem of Love below means: Happening like in a steady and continuous way. Read in the following dictionary to notice it: https://www.lexico.com/definition/rolling So here is my new poem of Love that i have just written, read it listening at the same time at this beautiful song: Cesaria Evora - Mae Velha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpAbA78IKM Here is my new poem of Love: Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful heart is always resisting Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful love for you is forever staying Time is flowing and walking and running But my beautiful desire for you is "also" always rolling Time is flowing and walking and running But my love for you is a so beautiful King Time is flowing and walking and running Like our love is also forever flowing like a beautiful spring Time is flowing and walking and running But my love is a beautiful ring around your beautiful angel wings Time is flowing and walking and running But my love is a so beautiful offspring Time is flowing and walking and running But our love is like our beautiful God that we are worshiping ! --- More philosophy about how morality is going forward towards more and more perfection.. I have just said the following: --------------------------------------------------------------- More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So i will ask a philosophical question of: What is the purpose and meaning of human existence? I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd. Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that society and morality have to be progressive: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- So as you are noticing we are moving forward towards more and more perfection that also creates pleasures in this life. I give you an example: look at my following poetry in english and french at how i am creating "pleasures" by perfecting with my smartness so that to bring more happiness: Here is some of my poetry in english: https://www.facebook.com/Poetry-about-Love-and-more-113452413628897 And here is some of my poetry in french: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/0AslKfJS9Nw Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So i will ask a philosophical question of: What is the purpose and meaning of human existence? I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd. Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that society and morality have to be progressive: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4 More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard.. I will be more rigorous, so read again: I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website called National Vanguard: Why Capitalism Fails https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/ And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails: "Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn't earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked." I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich). And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard". And the above article is saying the following: "Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves." I think it is not true, because read the following: https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/ And read the following: Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation: Following are some of the advantages of automation: 1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline, thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life. 2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker. 3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers). 4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry, as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created. These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other needed to use and operate the computers. 5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage increases without a commensurate increase in productivity will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to increase productivity. Following are some of the disadvantages of automation: 1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work. 2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing workers. 3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase. Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression. And to know more about economy and capitalism, please read my following thoughts: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/wlJu5j1xhPk And more political philosophy about the good taste.. So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following: "The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds." Read here in the dictionary to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality. So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important.. And you have to also know that i am also doing political philosophy by efficiently finding the patterns with my smartness, i give you an example, look at the following pattern that i am finding with my smartness: -- More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. -- I give you another example, look at the following patterns that i am finding with my smartness: --- What is it to be smart ? Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo: I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Dec 30 06:16PM -0800 Hello.. More philosophy about how morality is going forward towards more and more perfection.. I have just said the following: --------------------------------------------------------------- More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So i will ask a philosophical question of: What is the purpose and meaning of human existence? I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd. Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that society and morality have to be progressive: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- So as you are noticing we are moving forward towards more and more perfection that also creates pleasures in this life. I give you an example: look at my following poetry in english and french at how i am creating "pleasures" by perfecting with my smartness so that to bring more happiness: Here is some of my poetry in english: https://www.facebook.com/Poetry-about-Love-and-more-113452413628897 And here is some of my poetry in french: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/0AslKfJS9Nw Read the rest of my previous thoughts: More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So i will ask a philosophical question of: What is the purpose and meaning of human existence? I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd. Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that society and morality have to be progressive: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4 More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard.. I will be more rigorous, so read again: I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website called National Vanguard: Why Capitalism Fails https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/ And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails: "Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn't earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked." I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich). And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard". And the above article is saying the following: "Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves." I think it is not true, because read the following: https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/ And read the following: Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation: Following are some of the advantages of automation: 1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline, thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life. 2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker. 3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers). 4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry, as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created. These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other needed to use and operate the computers. 5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage increases without a commensurate increase in productivity will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to increase productivity. Following are some of the disadvantages of automation: 1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work. 2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing workers. 3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase. Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression. And to know more about economy and capitalism, please read my following thoughts: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/wlJu5j1xhPk And more political philosophy about the good taste.. So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following: "The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds." Read here in the dictionary to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality. So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important.. And you have to also know that i am also doing political philosophy by efficiently finding the patterns with my smartness, i give you an example, look at the following pattern that i am finding with my smartness: -- More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. -- I give you another example, look at the following patterns that i am finding with my smartness: --- What is it to be smart ? Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo: I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Dec 30 05:50PM -0800 Hello.. More philosophy about what is the purpose and meaning of human existence.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So i will ask a philosophical question of: What is the purpose and meaning of human existence? I think i am smart, and i will say that the meaning of human existence comes from pleasures of life, but you have to understand that so that to have those pleasures in life you have to know how to "balance" pleasures of life with a level of difficulties of life so that to be perfection, i mean that you have for example to work so that to be perfection that gets you "money" from your work, and you have also to know how to be perfection that creates pleasures in this life that makes us more happy, this is why i am not in accordance with the philosopher Albert Camus that said that human life is absurd. Also you have to know about the purpose of life by reading my following political philosophy about Morality where i am also explaining that society and morality have to be progressive: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/7UmkfURwoU4 More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard.. I will be more rigorous, so read again: I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website called National Vanguard: Why Capitalism Fails https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/ And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails: "Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn't earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked." I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich). And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard". And the above article is saying the following: "Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves." I think it is not true, because read the following: https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/ And read the following: Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation: Following are some of the advantages of automation: 1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline, thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life. 2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker. 3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers). 4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry, as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created. These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other needed to use and operate the computers. 5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage increases without a commensurate increase in productivity will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to increase productivity. Following are some of the disadvantages of automation: 1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work. 2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing workers. 3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase. Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression. And to know more about economy and capitalism, please read my following thoughts: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/wlJu5j1xhPk And more political philosophy about the good taste.. So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following: "The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds." Read here in the dictionary to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality. So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important.. And you have to also know that i am also doing political philosophy by efficiently finding the patterns with my smartness, i give you an example, look at the following pattern that i am finding with my smartness: -- More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. -- I give you another example, look at the following patterns that i am finding with my smartness: --- What is it to be smart ? Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo: I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Dec 30 01:59PM -0800 Hello.. Developers are handling 100 times more code now than in 2010 in more languages, for more platforms than ever. A complexity that has a personal impact on them. Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.developpez.com%2Factu%2F309305%2FLes-developpeurs-gerent-un-volume-de-code-100-fois-plus-important-maintenant-qu-en-2010-dans-plus-de-langages-pour-plus-de-plateformes-que-jamais-Une-complexite-qui-a-un-impact-personnel-sur-eux%2F Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment