The mentioned one is great, and I love the features. It uses node however, is a bit heavy and has dependencies. I am afraid of node after all the security incidents we had recently.
This one is just JS + HTML on one page. No tracking, no cookies, no data send over the internet.
Why might I (and you) need a detective board?
Let me quote the README:
"For me it is a simple way of wandering around thoughts that are naturally interconnected, but appear in a sequential fashion.
A detective board appears to give you a way of layering though upon thought, grouping them, reflecting on them as they are layed and layered out before you without vanishing and fleeting into each other and then working with the grouped and reflected whole.
I find it immensely useful for learning, analyzing, explaining, structuring problems and a lot of other related mental activities.
The option to use images is additionally helpful for me, as I can barely see anything with imagination (I am largely an aphantast). So I can keep visual clues next to my discursive thoughts."
Features:
- Double-click to create a note.
- Right-click and drag to connect pins with threads.
Right? All these "features", but they don't get the very basic stuff right a lot of times. User input is very very important for the user.
On iPhone swipe keyboard something that feels like a random generator replaces not only the word you swipe, but the word before, and in 2/3rds of cases with random nonsense pairs.
And you can't turn it off without turning off the similar word proposals you definitely want.
It's a strange design decision and I think the implementation is not up to the task.
I'm not staying cause I like it, but because I dislike the other options more.
There's tons of posts on reddit documenting the fact that everyone is making mistakes constantly with their keyboards for a few years, especially the.constant.dots.everyone.makes - they worked ok before, it's honestly almost comical how bad it is now.
If it's the right numbers (called measurement data) and the right excel sheet pushing (called running a validated model) that is exactly the way you can make these claims.
Overall it's called the scientific method.
I think it's rather the choice we are given at this moment in history. But I may be wrong.
If you abstract away any other problems and boil it down to environment, health and work protections on the one hand, and restriction of unlimited immigration from countries with very different sets of values no matter the sociological developments that will likely follow you can only choose one.
I just tried to summarize what we hear and see from voters in analyses as fairly as I could, not present my own opinion. If that did not work out, let me know.
But in this case you choose the one problem that appears bigger or makes you more angry probably.
You're giving something away by suggesting that a balanced framing is: (1) destruction of our world, health, and lower/middle classes vs. (2) brown people bypassing an insane bureaucracy that prevents us from effectively receiving the tired, poor, huddled masses that we explicitly invite on the country's figurative doormat. You can be against the latter, sure, but suggesting these sides are anything close to equal is a choice.
I actually think he was telling the truth (from his pov). Conservatives see the world in a very us-vs-them fashion. Makes it very hard for them to even notice nuances like in-group enemies (nevermind actually deal with them). It sounds like an oxymoron.
Democrats correctly understand that immigrants are out-group benefactors. But they have blind spots too. We all do.
I could not agree more. I am on my second try to master mathematics (30 years after the first), and I can see, understand and appreciate mathematics mainly from the constructive standpoint.
Nothing wrong with classical mathematics, as also used in this roadmap. Having axioms and drawing logical conclusions or searching proof does just not click for me.
Give me 0: N and suc: N -> N and I see how to construct stuff. Induction makes sense right away as a case distinction on those two constructors.
But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”
And
"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.
This isn’t that. To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
> So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?"
I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda".
The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can.
But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.
That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here.
What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.
Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?
> you can somehow magically decipher
It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You were originally responding to:
> To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.
I objectively answered your question to the best of my actual personal opinion. I just didn’t provide the subjectively baited answer you were hoping for.
I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely.
It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did?
You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.
Its a form of cognitive conservatism. You asked question A, and I gave you answer B, but you expected answer C. You cannot reconcile the gap between answers B and C, a dysjunct syllogism. The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.
Another case of "Trying to play chess with a pidgeon".
"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").
I have told you my opinion and you either are incapable of understanding it or choose to not understand it because diverging opinions aren't of interest to you. I am not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but agreement appears to be all you seek. I really don't care if you agree with me and I am not trying to convince you of anything. This seem lost on you.
The comment you're linking to was rightfully flagged and killed. Your characterization of "propaganda" is completely uncalled for.
The premises were explained before the questioning even started:
> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
The entire point was that the claim
> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.
Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.
The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.
Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.
I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information. I don’t think in the way you intended to do so at all but I’m suddenly a lot less confused.
> I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information.
GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.
More a case of it’s very clear that you think you’re much more intelligent than everyone else around you thinks you are. Of course it’s a natural fit. You couldn’t have provided a clearer explanation with that response it genuinely made me laugh.
I do. What’s weird though is that you find that offensive, as if this is somehow a competition. It’s not. There is no prize, no winning. I am not selling anything or asking for any vote. I owe you nothing.
For the fifth or sixth time now, your lack of reading comprehension has lead to a situation where you responded to the post you wish was written rather than the one that was actually written.
I said I was laughing at you, not that you offended me. Those two things are worlds apart and the fact that you mixed them up once again is the precise reason why people are laughing at you here. The lack of self awareness is a spectacle at this point.
While you are laughing I continue to think you don’t know what this conversation was ever about. Laughing at your own invented strawman is a form of self soothing masturbation. Again, this isn’t a competition, except possibly only in your own mind.
> Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
The problem here is that you are very clearly incapable of being able to do that and there’s a group of people very politely and patiently trying to point out to you the flaws in your own logic and your only response is to continue sniffing your own farts like you’re smarter than everyone else around you. It’s kind of embarrassing to watch.
I am skeptical of any numbers from a war zone with a public relations war going on at the same time. This appears to be generally admitted, as witnessed by quotes as the long standing and cross cultural "the first casualty of war is truth." [1]
So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are?
Sure, so get foreign journalists in there so that we can all know for sure. Until such time I will retain the personal opinion that Israel is lying about everything.
The article itself says that 100% phishing resistance is impossible. So I stand by my arguement that if you give an idiot a Yubikey, it still doesnt save them from themselves.
>Does this technology eliminate all risk? No. As this becomes widely deployed new attacks will be developed, but it will be MUCH harder for the cyber attacker.
> FIDO is extremely resistant to phishing attacks but adopting FIDO does not mean your organization is secure against phishing.
I was looking for one on the internet.
The mentioned one is great, and I love the features. It uses node however, is a bit heavy and has dependencies. I am afraid of node after all the security incidents we had recently.
This one is just JS + HTML on one page. No tracking, no cookies, no data send over the internet.
Why might I (and you) need a detective board?
Let me quote the README:
"For me it is a simple way of wandering around thoughts that are naturally interconnected, but appear in a sequential fashion.
A detective board appears to give you a way of layering though upon thought, grouping them, reflecting on them as they are layed and layered out before you without vanishing and fleeting into each other and then working with the grouped and reflected whole.
I find it immensely useful for learning, analyzing, explaining, structuring problems and a lot of other related mental activities.
The option to use images is additionally helpful for me, as I can barely see anything with imagination (I am largely an aphantast). So I can keep visual clues next to my discursive thoughts."
Features:
- Double-click to create a note.
- Right-click and drag to connect pins with threads.
- Paste images with Ctrl + V.
- Scroll to zoom.
- Ctrl + Click to delete.
Save / Load buttons for persistence.
Try it here in Github pages: https://stefankober.github.io/detective-board/
Comments and suggestion welcome!