That’s common culture/knowledge. But I don’t know, seems like rubbish to me. If English colonization has different methods, what can you say about Trinidad & Tobago? And the English Guyana? Let’s not go to Africa and Asia. It doesn’t seem to be their “modus operandi” to me.

I don’t think there is some big extermination plan for America and Australia. I think there’s just something different to those places, but that requires more study. Not of the common knowledge kind. Why would you want some kind of extermination colonization strategy for Australia? It’s weird. It’s more of a “counter-study”, but I believe there are people fighting the good fight out there. I’ll put it on my list and research it.

That’s good. It’s similar to Brazil in the sense of recognizing and preserving tribal cultures. That’s important, but it doesn’t extend to all native people. There are movements here advocating for the recognition of the urban indigenous—people who live in the cities but aren’t officially recognized as having native ancestry.

Even more, it’s increasingly expected that there were big cities in the Amazon, featuring complex trade routes. However, this topic still needs to be studied more profoundly for various reasons.

It all depends on History, specifically how groups like the Aztecs in Mexico and the Inca in Peru dealt with the Spanish. Their elites were often made kings (or viceroys) in the early post-colonization period. That makes a significant difference in the subsequent social structure.

Not children. People of any age. They’re dark skinned, sometimes slightly dark skinned. They look like japanese, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they’re hispanic without a spanish surname. They’re not told they’re hispanic, they’re just marked as hispanic by the demographics. They don’t need to be told what they are for people to oppress them.

That’s how it works: you mark someone as something and don’t give a shit about what they think about it. Sometimes, the person just thinks: “This is how I look like, and this is what my family looks like, so I’m correct and don’t know anything about this heritage thing.”.

They don’t need to be told anything, that’s how it works.

I think the french are more pasty? Any child of a frenchman had lots of rights. That’s how Haiti got to rebel, no?

Edit: I’m sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding from my part. Pasty means pale! Now I get it! I think it doesn’t make too much sense because America is a european concept for Americus Vespucius, so it’s more Mexico than latin america. The spanish are kind white, but they are also very african because they were colonized by the Arabs from the Magreb and beyond.

Italians are kind of dark skinned also, maybe because of North Africa? I don’t know. Anyway, the dark skin don’t necessarily means the person is hispanic or a original person.

The problem here is the acculturation. I bet some people mark themselves as white for convenience, and there are all the darkskinned “hispanic” people. I don’t know, seems kind of bogus to me.

Guess I’ll just pull the Terry A. Davis here and say it’s God.

I mean, agentic AIs are getting good at outputting working code. Thousands of lines per minute; talking trash of it won’t work.

However, I agree that losing the human element of writing code is losing a very important element of programming. So, I believe there should exist a strong resistance against this. Don’t feel pressured to answer if you think your plans shouldn’t be revealed, but it would be nice to know if someone is preparing a great resistance out there.

It’s the animals and the spirit of the forest. I’m not exactly an expert on Oshosi, but it’s not that kind of good vibes. It’s a relationship with the wild.

Liquid nitrogen in a pool is “stimulating” and generates an interesting physical effect. However, the point here in relating it to science is that there is some science behind it that gets the attention from people.

My argument is: people are naturally fascinated by this, but they’re put away by the strict laws, mainly mathematical laws, put forward by this.

Not that mathematics isn’t interesting, but you won’t incentivize people to go to a spitting contest by saying how you spit correctly. People want to see the strongest spit.

I think that’s all there is to it. If you can incentivize people into partaking on this endeavour (understanding chemical effects, in this case), you can bring much more value to science and people that are interested in it. You can, for example, explain interesting effects to people even though they’re looking at a clear liquid (most acids).

I treat my mind as a big great block. If something is disturbing me, I stop to put everything into place and move “all together” again. It works and I’m more productive this way.

I think for the big apps like Whatsapp and Facebook it makes sense that the companies want to hide the features that give users control beyond the “standard” way of using the app in places where they cannot find it.

Fear of Small Numbers, by Arjun Appadurai

Coming from my perspective a little. Iran is a part of BRICS now and Lula has defended Iran in latest interviews. Let’s see how things develop and if Iran representatives will come to Rio (for the BRICS Summit). This is troubling.

The article criticized the closing of the Internet by Tehran, but the Internet is clear vulnerability that can be exploited in times of war.

I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but maybe the Executive has too much power. Power needs to be more decentralized. Will policies that make sense come out of this? I’m no political scientist, but this amount of power isn’t good.

Don’t make me believe this is the kind of talk that’s going on Twitter.

Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality

AI is a modern problem, getting rid of negative traits is a potential problem. Getting rid of negative traits incur that something about the person or being is a disorder. That could be schizophrenia or autism, that are more considered like problems, even though these are problems that are at the core of society, not problems with the people themselves. Getting rid of these might seem logical, but they also meddle with what a person is at its core. Now moving on to things that are more accepted by the literature as non deviant genetic ‘traits’ would be homosexuality and transness. What if this defiant and deviant mode of living was to be erased by genetic modification? I’m sure the parents would be proud, but you just got rid of something that is at the core of what that person is. That is against diversity by itself. Genetic modification in the sense of eugenics or getting rid of negative traits is the same as eliminating diversity and difference, which is why Hitler picked at it so much.

I’ll elaborate even more: Arjun Appadurai implies at his “Fear of Small Numbers” that at the core of eliminating difference there is a deep desire for oneness. That those who are different are such small steps away from complete oneness and national identity. That is, I exist in the society which I identify as real, and anything against that is so close to inexistant that I could just wipe them out and be in my happy place. So close to it, but not quite. Something that Appadurai calls the state of “incompleteness”.

If there is no proper definition for what IQ is, it’s just another fallacy for normative thought. I mean by this that going through classical logic seamlessly does not incur into intelligence, even though it might incur into intellectual fitness. And then it’s all again why we have a certain model of thought of what is considered normal. This needs to exist if we are to assert “Intellectual Quality”.

Now, if we assert what is “normal” we also have to assert what is a “disorder” or “deviance”, which is what’s treated as “dumbness” here. If it is a desired “heritable” quality, that means to be included or fit to the current intellectual state.

Next to relate as to why I have compared this to the AI results. AI could predict race based on X-rays - but that means as much as IQ being heritable. A normative study for normative thought with no valid conclusions using formal logic as an excuse.

That’s true. How can we possibly measure logic if logic follows the characteristics of 1900’s classical logic? Does that translate to real intelligence or the ability to get things done? I don’t think so. What if the person just don’t want to get a IQ test? All the more, what if their qualities are not measured by finding out how many balls are inside a cube? I think classical logic doesn’t translate to intelligence.

It’s all about making the cut. Whether you do it or you don’t.