Displaying comments 1 to 50 of 121
MeTa post:
Metafilter is....
Vanity Fair sounded absolutely bitter about Metafilter, considering they were upbeat about the tabloids and right wing bloggers with assmarks on their faces.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 6:44 PM on June 12, 2008
MeTa post:
Why the gender discrepancy?
The master experiences the scope of freedom, but only the slave understands its value.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 9:57 PM on May 29, 2008
I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Otherwise I'd be forced to think you were a complete idiot.
Pretending doesn't seem difficult for you.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:25 PM on May 30, 2008
MeTa post:
What gives?
Next up: could someone help me parse these two maps? Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain.
It looks like Clinton beats McCain by the numbers, and Obama loses to McCain. Why? Because of the state-by-state electoral college. The swing states matter more than anything else because they are up for grabs. So if that is the case, then why are Obama supporters so delusionally confident? Oh yeah, he won Idaho by a huge margin in the primary.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 9:41 AM on May 17, 2008
Post and links that my comment was replying to.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 9:43 AM on May 17, 2008
pyramid termite, could you be more specific?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:05 AM on May 17, 2008
certainly, you can tell what the best assumption is from my link, can't you? or am i tempting you to do something rash like showing off your latin?
Then you're bluffing. Did the electoral college analysis take you by surprise?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:14 AM on May 17, 2008
Different EC analysis's show diffrent things, and many show obama winning. here's one from Survey USA showing McCain with 256 EC votes and Obama with 280.
Also, since you don't understand mathematics, so it's not surprise that you didn't get the Gödel reference.
The Survey USA poll is included in the analysis that anotherpanacea linked to. Both here, and here.
What, specifically, concerning the Gödel... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:29 PM on May 17, 2008
Geez, you're the one who threw out Bayes' rule as a total non sequitur in another thread claiming that Hillary would win,
No, I linked the definition of Bayesian analysis to someone who directly challenged my claim and belief that so-called swing states statistically mattered more for candidate selection, within my brief explanation that assuming their previous status as swing states was sufficient in order to make the best assumptions overall. Like... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 2:45 PM on May 17, 2008
GOP prefers to face Obama rather than Hillary?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 3:22 PM on May 17, 2008
Poll: McCain beats Obama in Ohio, but Hillary beats McCain. Same holds for Florida apparently. If Obama loses both Florida and Ohio, there is virtually no hope of being elected. The Democratic party has chosen their disadvantage by way of a populist fallacy. Every bandwagon diver that trumped Obama's popularity over Hillary stupidly cited national polls instead of the inevitable battleground states. It's Nader times five.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 7:13 PM on May 22, 2008
I'm doubtful of the relevance of a poll taken more than six months before the election and before the democratic nomination has been settled.
That would be double relevance. Obama loses Ohio and Hillary wins it in May. Either way, Ohio has a mysterious Republican voting advantage, as documented. But that's not Obama's fault. If we want to talk of Obama's faults, that would be removing his name from Michigan and then using that fact to whine about... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 8:25 AM on May 23, 2008
MeTa post:
Metafavouriteness?
One warning: if you issue lots of them, their usefulness as a bookmark will drop drastically. But if you don't, you may not get as many of the posts you particularly like.
I agree this is a dilemma. In addition, the word "favorites" implies to many of us a rare or singular entity. I would therefore advocate the word "recommended" instead. And if someone wanted to copy or save a post as a bookmark they should also be able to do so... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 8:13 PM on March 24, 2008
MeTa post:
Are some more worthy of respect than others?
Actually, I really was wondering what God was thinking. He sees the thoughts and intentions of each heart here, to include my own, not just the thread itself. I think most of us who believe in God at times would love to know just exactly what He thought of a particular circumstance or situation.
Be careful what you wish for. You obviously haven't conceived of a possible God yet if you imagine that he glows at servile flattery. God would never need... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 7:04 PM on February 18, 2008
MeTa post:
Fallout from the Givewell affair
Death by a dozen alter-egos.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 6:42 PM on January 7, 2008
Am I (are we?) the one(s) with the weird concept of what does and doesn't constitute anonymity?
Many here demand full transparency for Givewell, but not for metafilter. This can be explained by cognitive dissonance, which is essentially a form of denial that serves to enforce a double standard. Holden represented the charity sector that is high on people's moral plane as a result of other moral assumptions they have accepted. Holden also violated... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:14 PM on January 13, 2008
MeTa post:
GiveWell, or Give 'em Hell?
Like organized religion, I assume that most middleman charities are tax scams for conservatives to exploit financially and politically, but, where was Holden dishonest? A liar? His actions weren't allowed under the site rules set up here, but that doesn't make it dishonest. He was serving his own interests, and his card was accepted twice. Anonymity exonerates him from full disclosure.
It is morally questionable to demand that a piece of information be judged as worthy... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 4:41 PM on January 1, 2008
Brian, Holden and Elie was dishonest by trying to trick this site's users into thinking two objective third parties were discussing the positive nature of GiveWell. Holden was a liar when he insisted that it was a momentary lapse of judgment instead of part of a long-standing and calculated plot to deceive people as to where the information he was providing was coming from.
It was stated that their responses were allowed under the rules. The bit... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:22 PM on January 1, 2008
No, we're upset about the things he misrepresents.
Well, we could argue about representation, but at the end of the day it's a charity, and some people expect Holden to walk on water rather than just deliver the funds.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:41 PM on January 1, 2008
Brian B., Maybe you could get a sweet job for shilling for Givewell posing questions, or answers, to various blogs. I'm sure Holden would be up for it, and you seem like the type of guy who would always be looking to get a sweet kickback deal for little effort.
No harm, no foul, right?
Balisong, I was being serious. And you were joking?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:50 PM on January 1, 2008
I don't think we're asking him to walk on water. We're pointing out (in a loud, snarky, publicly embarrassing way) that dude isn't living up to the values he purports to exemplify.
My point exactly. Oh, and FYI:
dis·in·gen·u·ous
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:59 PM on January 1, 2008
I just want to apologize to Holden for comments I made upstream about his self-interest, although they were made in his defense. I have no idea if he was self-interested or not. He seems sincere enough to run a gonzo charity in whatever guerrilla style he chooses, but I have no illusions of trickle-down supply-side giving. His scapegoating here will never be justified as a crucifixion, although that's what made the justifications necessary. Edgar Derby is dead, R.I.P.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:05 PM on January 5, 2008
Comments on blogs certainly can impact your life, especially when taken out of context.
Or in context.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:21 AM on January 6, 2008
I'm entertaining the notion that most wealthy people are into bondage themes and Phil knows it, perhaps playing the jester to distance himself. If true, Phil's a genius, as his enemies naively place the same people on some higher moral plane that doesn't exist.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:47 PM on January 6, 2008
and we really don't need to dignify this with much more, other than how thankful I am the collateral damaged was minimized in a hurry.
The mods should set up a separate entity to investigate the real lives of metahaters and those that don't sing in the metachoir. These detectives, with endless time on their hands, could strike terror into anyone who dares cross the line. We could call it the Dick Squad for short, and maybe name the page something catchy, like Metafucker.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 2:02 PM on January 6, 2008
MeTa post:
Metafilter post basis for Guardian Magazine cover story?
The story has made the rounds since, but what I can't figure out is why the Snopes article comes up when I searched on "the most kissed girl in the world."
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2007
In any case, I know the phrasing "Most Kissed Girl in the Word" wasn't unique to me, so I don't see plagiarism.
Searcing "the most kissed girl in the world" comes up plenty in a reference to a statue in Germany, for good luck. It may be unique in the context you used it in, but it surfaced in a Snopes article about the dummy being a daughter of someone who invented it, but it wasn't in the text.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 11:18 PM on December 2, 2007
MeTa post:
Are Questions Okay When They're Based Around Finction Worlds
It seems to be the same question as the "identity of indiscernables" which is a famous debate in metaphysics (especially between A.J. Ayer and Max Black) because it is foundational. Basically it is this: can two "identical" objects in space not be the "same" and how or why? There are lots of discussions about contingency, categorical and hypothetical identities. I recall talking of nothing but this question for a week during a metaphysics course.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 8:25 AM on December 2, 2007
I think it's that concreteness, that useful meta-criticism to the end of helping decide on a book to read, that really identifies the distinction between such a question and chatfilter. posted by cortex at 10:28 AM on December 2 [+] [!]
And certainty. It is presumed that when a concrete suggestion is made, the questioner is expected to know which suggestion is more correct.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 11:33 AM on December 2, 2007
What I haven't heard is a good reason why "Hypothetical" questions are somehow worse for the site than other unanswerable questions.
I'll repeat my earlier point. A questioner may be expected to submit a question for concrete suggestions that the questioner, or any reader, can make certain use of, whether or not anyone else agrees.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:32 PM on December 2, 2007
Why does this exclude hypotheticals?
It would only exclude hypothetical certainty for the suggestions. For example, "If I were dead, where could I be embalmed in Memphis?" Versus, "If I were dead, how could I visit my living relatives?"
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:53 PM on December 2, 2007
MeTa post:
Overmoderation.
OOH OOH AND WE COULD USE ROBERT'S RULES FOR ALL METATALK DISCUSSIONS! I MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ADJURNMENT AS 10:30PM, PACIFIC!
I smell fear.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 4:57 PM on September 12, 2007
What if a majority of thread participants voted to close a thread at any time?"
Good idea, that democracy method has worked so well with picking a US president!
It is the same plurality method, but it only works for a simple yes or no, not a multiple candidate race. And I don't mean to suggest that it merely works, but that it functions logically, while no other method does this. Under the majority rule any... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 11:42 AM on September 15, 2007
Good idea, that democracy method has worked so well with picking a US president!
The sentence above was supposed to be in italics above that, as a quote.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 11:44 AM on September 15, 2007
So you open a thread, the first two participants vote to close it: bang, it,s closed. And do you become a participant just by voting on a thread's fate, or do you have to post something in a thread you want closed first?
The latter. Which entails a degree of complexity, because if nobody immdediatly knows that it is a redundant post, then it wouldn't be so quick in that case.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:52 PM on September 15, 2007
To do this, to make such a major change, we'd have to have a huge section of users who were really unhappy with how the site currently worked
I don't even see it as a change, but a logical development for stability, just like a neighborhood watch. The owner would be delegating corporal authority over a minor thread function, no more or less, rather than increase the number of generals. The average user would be "happier" to have plurality... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 1:58 PM on September 15, 2007
The distinction between the current flagging system and a voting system is that flags are not considered trusted data; they're very useful, and on-target 90% or 97% of the time, but we don't let anything happen just because of flags.
Flagging is a form of deletion nomination and has nothing to do with a thread closure voting system. The latter doesn't require any second-guessing or reason-giving, but simply reflects a desire to move on sooner than... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 12:24 AM on September 16, 2007
Those who want to drop a subject can just leave that thread.
They could just leave the site too. But that would not drop the subject if they are the subject, and this is where trolls with infinite time on their hands have the upper hand. As stated, the Recent Activity is still reminding them how undropped it is.
The widget, yes, this is the widget. It puts an end to the problem in the same way of asking your neighbot to mow... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 10:22 AM on September 16, 2007
If 11 out of 20 people want to close a thread and nine don't, it's a bad idea to close a thread in my estimation.
I don't think it will happen either, because it is being confused for power. For example, you made the convenient assumption that 9 don't. There is no such fact if eleven do. It stopped at eleven, because that's all you logically need decide any social issue where equal rights are assumed. Filling up with noise and nonsense is fine if... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 11:20 AM on September 16, 2007
Brian B., what's not really clear to me is why we'd want to do this. I don't think it's axiomatic that, if a simple majority could vote to close any given metatalk thread, that should actually be sufficient to close it automatically. What's the actual gain for the site—not for the users voting, but for the site in general?
If a moderator showed up in a thread, without reading, and said that a majority of the participants expressed the need to close... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 2:15 PM on September 16, 2007
when much better and more important ones usually don't.
Which ideas are you referring to?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:05 PM on September 16, 2007
Almost any ideas other than yours, which is terrible and is not going to be implemented. I share stavros's puzzlement about why it is being taken so seriously. Also, you are really dominating this thread.
You sound very angry, jealous and insecure.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 3:23 PM on September 17, 2007
I just figured jessamyn was replying to Brian B. as a proxy for all the other users who think being able to vote to close threads is a good idea (it's not), but were afraid to announce their support for the idea lest stavros come and rip them a new arsehole.
She was opposed to it. You may have assumed that when people whined about her that it was because she was for it, but that's not why they were whining. If you aren't too afraid, you can ask the... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 3:45 PM on September 17, 2007
dg is Doris Gay?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 3:57 PM on September 17, 2007
I don't know, is Doris gay?
So Doris is your gay fantasy. I thought so.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 4:57 PM on September 17, 2007
Alvy, we already know about your motives.
From your profile: Gender: All man, mostly.
Did they botch something?
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:08 PM on September 17, 2007
Like a verbal alchemist, you are.
Doris something wrong with dis thread.
Like a verbal alchemist, you are.
Doris something wrong with dis thread.
Like a verbal alchemist, you are.
Doris something wrong with dis thread.
My prediction for the rest of the thread.
posted to MetaTalk by Brian B.
at 5:47 PM on September 17, 2007
