Sunday, November 20, 2016

Better software tools - which are expensive - artificially inflate the capabilities of folks against those who aren't as well-endowed [COMPACTIDEA]

  • Good example is Grammarly. It proofreads a body of text and correct grammatical errors [and also suggests "better" and "heavier" words], thus making a person's writing appear more sophisticated and mistake-free than his or her actual capability. Basically an incorrect and inflated impression of the person. Truth gets hidden. But since Grammarly is expensive, only the rich folks can afford it, thus making them look more intelligent than those folks who don't have as much money. Clearly not good, since this is another way in which difference in economic status leads to difference in academic/professional status [and in this particular case the difference isn't real, it's only apparent]. In this sense, money perpetuates inequality, since richer folks become more likely to be able to score higher, to get jobs, etc.
  • Similarly, someone who can afford Microsoft PowerPoint at school/college is likely to be able to make better-looking presentations in lesser time, compared to someone who, say, can only "afford" LibreOffice, thus perpetuating inequality.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

It's possible that the 'Comments' section of The New York Times is actively being rigged in order to help Hillary Clinton [COMPACTIDEA]

Based on information in leaked emails, it's okay to conclude that Hillary can go to any lengths to win this election. Any amount of corruption and rigging are okay for her. Why are top/most-recommended comments on NYT articles extremely/unusually pro-Hillary, while comments on other publications [FT, WSJ, etc.], either not so pro-Hillary or outright against her?

FT article endorsing Hillary as well as FT's tweet about it both have extremely anti-Hillary [and anti-FT] top comments.









Top comments on this shamelessly pro-Hillary piece on NYT are also extremely pro-Hillary. They don't seem like normal comments written by ordinary people, but feel like professionally crafted paragraphs composed by experts at Hillary's campaign, with caution about Hillary carefully sprinkled here and there in order to appear balanced and not blatantly fake.


Saturday, November 5, 2016

Why do we eventually get bored of those songs which we initially like a lot, if we keep listening to them repeatedly [COMPACTIDEA]

Is it the case that we humans tend to get desensitized over time? Happens for both good and bad things [bad things start to feel less bad with time, as we "get used to" them and they become sort of "routine", while good things too no longer feel "that" good, perhaps because the exoticness/novelty of those good things becomes less exotic/interesting/novel/unusual for us and becomes more of "routine" stuff].

Happens certainly for good songs. Initially they feel so good that we feel we can keep listening to them over and over again. But as we do this, the excitement reduces with time, and eventually comes a time when we might even skip them. Also happens for comedy shows. Something that's very funny the first time becomes not so funny when watched repeatedly [this seems more explainable - because there was a "surprise/unknown" element when we heard it the first time, and now that we already know what's coming ahead so the surprise factor is lost permanently and thus we do not laugh as much].

The overall point is that it's possible or rather probable that us folks tend to get "bored" over time.