What are /r/lectures' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

TL:DW - It's really worth watching though

FYI this is strictly Western Thought, but it is a fantastic lecture. Dr. Brenzel's basic premise is that you must read the classics in their entirety to truly have a cultivated understanding of what influential greatness is.

What Marks a Classic:
1.) Address permanent & universal human concerns
2.) Game-changer
3.) Influences other great works
4.) Respected by Experts
5.) Challenging yet rewarding

The Books ~ Author - Title - Time:
1.) Artistotle - The Nicomachean Ethics (350 BC)
1.) Plato - The Republic (380 BC)
2.) St. Augustine of Hippo - City of God (500s AD)
3.) St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica (1300s)
4.) Dante Alighieri - Divine Comedy (1350)
5.) Martin Luther - The Ninety-Five Theses (1517)
6.) John Milton - Paradise Lost (1667)
7.) Thomas Malthus - An Essay of the Principle of Population (1798)
Modern Philosophical Influences:
* Socrates >- Soren Kierkegaard (1800s) - Godfather of Existentialism > Hiedagger & Sartre
* Socrates >- Nietzsche

The Five Values of Reading Great Classics:
1.) Value of Forgotten Ideas
2.) Value of Connecting Ideas
3.) Value of Strangeness
4.) Value of Building intellectual Muscle
5.) Value of Better Judgment
Great Writers:
1.) William Shakespeare (Breath and Range of the human condition)
1.) Jane Austen (narrative of English gentry culture of late 1700s)
2.) Emily Dickinson (uniquely poetic mind and emotions)

My Critique - This lecture along with historical understanding of each book should be done prior to reading so that one would can truly understand it's social, political influence. Remember to apply this philosophy of learning to all great works from a variety of cultures and your mind should truly be worth inhabiting.

Did you watch from 00:14:00 onwards? He explicitly says he used to be against free speech for fascists, but that he now agrees with ACLU's position, who he refers to as "first amendment fundamentalists." I think you got Finkelstein's position backwards. The rest of the video he's basically going through Mill's arguments, who, as I'm sure you're aware, is very much in favor of freedom of speech:

>We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion...

<em>On Liberty</em>, p. 97

So how is your TL;DR an accurate summary of this video, not to mention the rest of the series?

I found this to be extremely well presented. I am going to have to go look up his other lectures in this course before I formulate any opinion or critique.

If anyone was interested in the book he mentioned I found it on scribd, free to read for 2 weeks:

> Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson

https://www.scribd.com/book/187537876/Golden-Rule-The-Investment-Theory-of-Party-Competition-and-the-Logic-of-Money-Driven-Political-Systems

Not seeing too many good citations there. Fiber, especially from leafy greens like spinach, is great for weight control and intestinal health.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983

The groups of peoples who live in the longest have diets high in vegetables and fibrous legumes, daily moderate exercise, and community where they can enjoy meaning and purpose with others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone#Characteristics

While ketosis has short-term benefits for weight loss, I would be wary of becoming a keto kultist for the long-term.

> who decides on what the "basic" amount of income is

Varies by implementation, most likely by the needs and resources of the governing body..

>how will it not cause inflation?

This speaks to that. It was just posted to /r/basicincome yesterday, actually.

Another good non-"woo woo" (and much shorter) lecture on this area: &quot;The mindful brain: If the Buddha was a neuroscientist&quot; by Philippe Goldin, PhD. Philippe is out of the Clinically Applied Affective Neuroscience lab at Stanford and is an interesting speaker.

Full disclosure: I run the lecture event where this was filmed.

That segment was pretty hilarious, itself. I am far from expert, but I do think he rather over-simplified this "problem" currently with bitcoin though. Also the terminology is wrong. I think what he means is "transaction confirmation", rather than "authorization". Bitcoin transactions are instant, but confirmation lags. However it doesn't lag a set amount of time; there are a bunch of factors, including what the particular transaction initiator considers "good enough" confirmation. See Why do I have to wait 10 minutes on bitcoin.org.

As described there, and elsewhere, one factor which can reduce a transaction confirmation time is the inclusion of optional fees which sort of oil the machinery. If a transaction has fees payments attached it it, it will likely get confirmed faster because other notes will pass it through faster being motivated to pick up fees.

This also is a simplistic and possibly wrong explanation. The system is complex! And I am not defending bitcoin or denying that transaction confirmation is a significant hurdle for it -- just pointing out the issue is more complex than Tim Jones' off-handed remarks, and there may be solutions to this particular problem. Jones may or may not be wrong about this particular point, or it may just be that bitcoin will never be suited to time sensitive transactions, but still his overall perspective on how banks work and view such things is still quite interesting and valuable.

Fascinating. BofA is blackmailing either Wikileaks or Assange personally. He said that it will be resolved eventually, and the nature of this blackmail "would probably be your first or second guess"[sic].

I haven't the slightest idea. There's some speculation on metafilter.

I was looking for the same word. Somehow I feel his visions (which come through better in his writings and other interviews) are still ahead of where we've come. I strongly recommend at least skimming through his augmented intellect paper, ditto with Vannevar Bush's essay.

Here's a interview with him from 2003, seems like an amazing person as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeSgaJt27PM

The other day, Web Annotations becoming a web standard is bringing us a little closer. (https://hypothes.is/blog/annotation-is-now-a-web-standard/)

>New York Times columnist David Brooks will speak with the Nobel Laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman about the latter’s influential career and his new book Thinking, Fast and Slow. > >A Nobel laureate in economics (one of the only non-economists to earn this honor) and a research psychologist world-renowned for his seminal work on judgment, decision making, happiness, and well-being, Kahneman is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Princeton University and Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs Emeritus at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He received the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics. David Brooks's column on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times started in September 2003. > >He has been a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and he is currently a commentator on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. He is the author of Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There and On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense.

The main theme of this talk is exploring how states interpreting international human rights laws for their own benefit or convenience (or use as political tools) tends to subvert them.

The link skips the lengthy pre-amble.

If you're interesting in this sort of thing, there's a very good introductory Coursera course on the topic...

https://www.coursera.org/course/intlhumanrightslaw

Germany has a strict policy of never having a budget deficit, Sweden privatized all its hospitals and reduced its debts, it is easier to open a business in switzerland than in America. You want to know why this economies are doing better? They are bigger at intervening macroeconomic sides but leave microeconomics aspects intact. There are no minimum wages in Sweden, no need for a license to do something trivial as cutting some one's nails. The overall system is more liberating economically. America in comparison more restrictive economically, there are too many damn laws, too many liabilities (that can pose as legal threats to businesses), legal protection from politicians, eg. in the automotive industry, which is legally protected by govt against competition from foreginers, or even out of state dealers and online dealers. Agriculture is subsidized so that prices can fall, yet they block competition from Brazil. The American economy is less capitalistic than you average nordic economy by a long shot. But you tell people you are gonna open up you're gonna open up competition, let go of red tapes that help businesses and people lose their minds and shout out for their livelihood.

Here is how america reacts to innovation: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/sidecar-uber-express-disappointment-seattles-proposed-ridesharing-regulations/

Upvote from me even though I didn't download your link. I'm not a huge fan of downloading direct links unless they are from TPB or a torrent site.

I did however look into E.F. Schumacher. I hadn't heard of him before. Interesting story so i found the following video on vimeo: COMING HOME: E.F. Schumacher &amp; the Reinvention of the Local Economy. Interesting again. I will look into his work further. Just wanted to say thanks for the intro.

I haven't watched the lecture yet but I wanted to recommend the book he's written called The Design of Everyday Things. We had it as the textbook for my usability class and it's the only book from school that I gladly would read in my free time. It's a fun yet informative read with good examples that makes it easy to relate to even if you don't have any previous experience in the field. It's also quite short at 200 pages or so.

Well, since you asked. This article has sources too. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/meat-hunger-is-real-for-some-people-not-you_n_9632646?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS9zZWFyY2g_cT1XaHkrZG8rcGVvcGxlK2NyYXZlK21lYXQmb3E9V2h5K2RvK3Blb3BsZStjcmF2ZSttZWF0JmdzX2w9bW9iaWxlLWh...

I have read her book and it is a classic of misinformation and invalid arguments. Typical techniques she uses:

1. Closely examine every study that does not fit your preconceptions, looking for nitpicks.

2. Take on face value every study that agrees with your preconceptions.

3. Add factors biasing the result the other way eg compare highly motivated women with unmotivated men. Or men placed under a disadvantage with women under no such disadvantage.

4. Pick the weakest exposition of the view you disagree with and criticise it. Eg rather than picking current top-notch researchers, pick some random 19th century clergyman.

5. When a different is 2% towards men, claim it is insignificant. But the same size difference is "large" when she likes it.

6. Mix speculation with fact, to make the speculation seem more credible.

See Simon B-Cohen's rebuttal of her arguments here. He points out that she blatantly misrepresented the experiments he conducted.

http://issuu.com/thepsychologist/docs/psy1110?mode=window&amp;pageNumber=1 (page 904).

You can also tell from reading the book that she is very emotionally committed to one answer being correct ie that men and women are only different because of conditioning, even though if this were true we would be the only species like that.

Very sad because her other book "A mind of its own" was very interesting, because it was not about an ideologically fraught topic.

If you truly want to read more on the subject and understand what I was trying to say, you should read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. He presents the argument 100x more eloquently than I do. I'm afraid I don't do it justice.

A lot of this is lifted (intentionally or not) from "Think and Grow Rich." By Napoleon Hill. It's a book written a very long time ago that was pretty much the catalyst for the entire personal success/self help movement. I highly recommend it.

>If you are involved in software development in any shape or form you really should watch all of the Clean Code Talks. I've watched them all several times and it fundamentally changed how I program.

I am. Will do :o

> The USSR is the best thing that happened to Eastern Europe since Genghis Khan dying before he could conquer everything west of the Dnieper.

Point: The USSR is the best thing that happened to Eastern Europe since Genghis Khan dying before he could conquer everything west of the Dnieper.

Counterpoint: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3VE6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1

The USSR wasn't a worker's paradise man. Also, your diminution of Russian responsibility for 2016 hasn't age well, even though it's only 9 hours old.

> And I am going to say this partially based on how you edited the title of your submission. I'm going to point out that "hack" has multiple meanings.

I uneditorialized the title of the youtube video and used his book title:

https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Hack-America-Cyberspies-WikiLeaks/dp/1510723323

If you like this then also check out Danial Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow, which, among other things, discusses the planning fallacy and Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yes, though his stance on climate change is rather questionable, his writing on biology (see <em>The Red Queen</em> and <em>Genome</em>) are actually fairly well appraised. This is an just an extension of that in background in biology to the world of ideas and technology--climate change isn't mentioned.

Yeah, and it seems like Jerry has just released a book with the same title too. ~~Couldn't find any other reference to the title in my quick google~~

Interesting, thanks. You might also like the book The Tyranny of Words, it's along these same lines.

Author Chris Rock (not the Comedian) investigates how to kill people, not physically, but legally. He then investigates how to create "virtual people". People who exist as legal entities, but not as physical people.

This uncovers flaws in the legal system, and how it implements birth, and death certificates, as well as the future implications for law enforcement in the areas of terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud, and espionage.

He goes into more detail in his book "The Baby Harvest"

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Baby-Harvest-terrorist-laundering-ebook/dp/B013AZ6MKS

And if you're poor, or just want to browse it,

kat.cr/the-baby-harvest-by-chris-rock-binangotit-t11208805.html

Enjoy!

The Cornel West Reader, showcased in this video is very representative and comprehensive of his writings. I recommend it. https://books.google.com/books?id=bNJD8g1e-QQC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false http://www.amazon.com/Cornel-West-Reader-Basic-Civitas/dp/0465091105