I dont play chess that much but I think this discussion is somewhat interesting, because all the hobby analysts and human lie detectors come out with things like: look how this guy nervously swallowed, look at this timestamp what is he
doing why is he leaning forward and all that stuff. it goes up to the point where even intelligent people will believe that there must have been some device in his shoe, or elsewhere, putting a theory out there as the truth that, now, afterwards, can't be proved, but - more importantly - cant be disproved. That stuff is really dangerous.
It is dangerous, because people who do that know exactly they will not be able to provide evidence for their hypothesis to be true, but the other side won't be able to provide evidence either. So they rely solely on their convincing powers, and persuading others into their own belief system instead applying to reason.
I think, if at all, that all just proves one thing, something that scientists knew all along: if you want your thesis to be true, you will start interpreting reality in a fashion that supports your hypothesis. We don't do science like that for precisely this reason.
After all this, I think Magnus really ridiculed himself with this. His strongest evidence is "he wasn't tense"? Really, though?
also, there is no version that installs in a system directory (bad for deployment), and the deployment version is terrible (it downloads and installs teams every time a user logs in).
requires tracking protection to be cut for microsoft websites on linux
It's usable on Linux, I use it all day, every day. I just don't know why the Linux client is so far behind the web client despite being an electron app.
Everybody hates subscription services. It's called generating a steady and long revenue stream and to et rid of that you will have to burn the world down.
Somehow I got to feel a lot of unease when I read sentences like
> Fortunately you don't have to spend all your time with independent-minded people ...
Maybe it's the absurdity to divide people (and here obviously ALL people) simply into two groups and just by structuring them gain some meaning or knowledge. It's really easy and unprofessional: really you could divide society up by uncountable distinctions. But distinctions do not make dialectics or aren't anything but misleading if you're just asserting them.
Also the distinctions between conventional and independent are just blurry ones here, only derived by example; not by definition. There is no intellectual sharpness to the argument, right from the start of the "essay" – in that, that it appeals only to the intuition, not to the mind. There are no studies about "independent-minded" or "conventional-minded" people; not in hte sense he is using the term here. Quite the opposite: he is using the terms to appeal to a feeling. In no earnest science, or literature, someone talks so dull and undifferentiated about human beings.
Also I wouldn't ever think about a friend of mine, or someone close to me with such cold efficiency that derives from that really simplistic way of handling people and amateur psychology.
