Now I get it. It will be a place where some posts are NSFW but not all. It's just a place for all adults to be away from kids. Nudes are okay but not sex scenes.
Good luck, i'm sure people might be interested in using the site. How do you verify age? Isn't that a big hot button topic currently with age verification for limiting youths from viewing social media? It seems there is a lot of pushback from ID verification
There's no issue with minors viewing social media because minors 13 and above are permitted to view social media. I will simply put a sign saying that you must be 18 or above to view the site. Thanks by the way for the good luck wishes.
"minors 13 and above are permitted to view social media" - did you read the news lately? australia has restricted access to social media for < 15y (?), france's newly passed restrictions for social media ban for teens has been turned, but will be corrected and issued again. Germanyand EU is in talks of chat-control and age-verification, UK is preparing or already having the law of adult registration / id verification to even view adult content. There is happening so much lately and the consensus "a sign is not enough" is common to europeans and other legislations. So, the question is how to gain traction in difficult markets when you are suddenly not allowed to advertise your service or any other "law violations".
as for me personally, my kids in distant future will mostly follow my footsteps where they discover their world early and without restrictions except on drugs and other criminal bad things. so, i won't use - but may be them :)
(edit; not directly responding only to your comment, also to the parent)
Advertising is shitty but how would you realistically even make it illegal without violating free speech.
Also, advertising does have a good-faith purpose in functioning markets.
Failures in regulation IMO are mostly at entirely different levels.
E.g. monetization of public utilities and public space. Noise, brightness, and of course deceptive tactics could all be better regulated as well.
But advertising, including its diffusion into general pop culture and entertainment, is older than the printing press, and I think for a broad sense of "advertising", even a lot older.
Corporations are not natural persons and do not have constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights that can be violated. Any individual shilling for a corporation can be held personally liable for damages.
And we already don't allow everything that is technically speech. Harassing people is already illegal, unless you're a corporation. Taking advantage of the vulnerable is already generally illegal, unless you're a corporation.
Thank you for the follow up link, it brings up good points. I think the 1st Amendment angle is too quickly brushed off by the author and not sure how this would be settled in a legal dispute--especially considering the means and depth of advertising and tech companies. The article is worth reading and great food for thought.
Isn't this a part of legally excluding under-18s from using social media?
Seriously. I did not consent to these companies to be manipulated into giving them money. It's an invasion of the public sphere, and worse it is highly authoritarian which should always be resisted on principle.
Can you elaborate on why you would _never_ recommend an MBA for a technical individual? I'm not opinionated here, despite recommending the opposite above, just curious on your reasoning. A "success story" is someone like Khan Academy founder Salman Khan who has an MEng and MBA.
I guess mainly opportunity cost, marginal gains, and relative abundance of MBAs. I could be dead wrong, completely open to it being bad advice.
You can learn as you go, and have someone more experienced and especially more interested handle a lot of the business side (i understand that handling everything by yourself is optimal in the limit of infinite capacity and time, because of lossy transmission).
One of the main things in MBA is case studies, right? No better case study-like info than talking to other founders and advisors you're going to find faster becoming a founder. I don't think learning the history of Amazon, for example, is not valuable. But time is limited.
Learn the business stuff as it comes, maybe front load info about cap tables, VC mechanics, basic accounting, DCF, basic marketing and gtm and such. Read some of the oft-recommended books on him. Also note in all of the above you can narrow in on material particular to your case, whereas MBA is more focused on larger corporations and established business and business types, because that's where most of the MBAs go.
Now you may ask why this doesn't apply to a PhD? Well it does to some extent. But the knowledge and experience from an MBA is much easier to gain outside of school than that of a PhD, assuming a good PhD program, advisor, and experience.
Maybe I'm discounting the value of MBA connections, but I think those are highly concentrated in the very top programs.
Edit- the question for a founder is largely what do you bring to the table few others can. But I admit you want as many edges and basic competencies in as many relevant domains as possible, if only to better understand what the people in charge of those domains in your company are saying. But you can't know it all, especially in the beginning. I just don't think 2 years in an MBA program is the most efficient route to gaining all of that.
Haven't read any of their articles in maybe almost a decade (in aggregate they seem so whimsical with fantastical titles) but am bored enough so far today at the 9to5 to where it is an exceedingly great option.
Right, but the question is what came first, minds or language? That is, is language a product of mind or is mind a product of language? Of course another position is that they co-arise and the question of order is ill-formed.
But these ideas have to be placed with respect to the modern and typical materialist/physicalist view of reality. If we trace back time, there was a time before our solar system existed, before our Earth existed, before any kind of physical lifeform existing on the Earth's surface that we could associate with a mind. And we might be tempted in this view to draw a line or identify a point in time where we say "before" and "after". We might say "before this point no minds of any kind existed" and "before this point no language of any kind existed". And if we are to do so then we can talk about how those two points relate to each other.
How does one consistently define "language" and "mind"? I present the following in genuine good faith:
A good case study may be the octopus. They are highly intelligent organisms and a strong argument could be made they have "mind". A quick search [0] shows some evidence they communicate via "posturing and changing color"--is this language? How does one prove an individual has mind?
Regarding the definition of "mind" the mirror test seems very relevant but does "mind exist without the sense of self"? What about emergent phenomena amongst highly social animal groupings...?
Edit: I must be in the "mind" came first camp but in this case mind === consciousness but mind != consciousness
As I mentioned in my earlier post, what I mean is closer to semiotics [1], precisely because "language" is too fuzzy a concept and leads to the wrong conclusion. In that view, communication using posturing and changing color is obviously signalling.
As for minds vs. consciousness, etc. we'll just end up in a language game there which isn't productive. Personally, I am more interested in a more abstract conception of "attention" which I see as preceding "awareness" (which may or may not precede self-awareness). But again, how people use these words in different circumstances makes any discussion of the topics nearly impossible unless they are rigorously defined so as to avoid confusion.
But in a "food for thought" kind of diversion, not an argument or even really a point, consider you are walking through a forest and you see some berries and your mouth starts to water. There is some relationship between your attention, your awareness and some kind of information being communicated between nature and you. The berry is signalling something to you and your attention is drawn to it.
I've been slowly getting through the entirety of the original article but it's written out well:
> What I mean here is that art did not serve to express a humanity that already existed. Rather, it acted as the mirror we needed to catch sight of our own image in the flux of nature. The question of when humans invented art leads us to imagine early humans much like ourselves, deciding one day to express themselves through symbols and figures. The assumption hidden in the question is that they already had minds like ours and simply chose, out of all the things they might have done on a frigid day in the Ice Age, to pick up ochre and make animal pictures. But the evidence, it seems to me, points the other way: it was the practice of making images, repeated over hundreds of generations, that occasioned the emergence of those minds we take for granted. We are putting the cart before the horse when we understand ourselves as the source of sense and meaning. In reality, we are participants in something that exceeds us, and the aesthetic, poetic dimension of great art reconnects us with that excess as a matter of course.
It's interesting to think about iterating over "drawing pictures of animals" before starting to "draw pictures of humans"
Yes, that is close to what I was gesturing at with the walk in the woods and the berries. Before humans had a word for berries or hunger we had a latent relationship with nature, in the ability for nature to draw our attention to objects and effect our nervous system. And the first expression of that relationship may well have been externalized in the pictorial representation of animals, or maybe in gestures, or grunts - we can't know it was too long ago.
A larger point that could be drawn from the article is that we then gained a new kind of relationship, not just with nature but with the very expressions it elicited. Instead of our mouth watering at berries, suddenly our nervous system was reacting to the art we created. It is this indirect relationship, with the symbol itself, that the author is arguing created what we think of as the human mind. So nature creates the grounds for expression creates the grounds for minds. My original point was that "drawing animals" is only one kind of possible expression, and it is possible to broaden our idea of "expressions worth contemplating" well beyond paintings on cave walls, all the way down to how a flower attracts the attention of a bee.
Not all humans
reply