Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

Before you answer, try to look at your behaviors from an objective perspective. Ask yourself questions like: when I do the same things as everyone else, do I have my own reasons for it or do I just do as others do? Do you feel it’s easier to “get into the spirit” of things when there are others in the spirit or do you just do what you feel like doing? Are you with the crowd or are you a loner?

This is an important question to ask yourself, not because one is better than the other, but just so that you have a good idea of who you are. Solomon Asch conducted several experiments to determine how likely it is that a person would conform when they can clearly see that the majority is wrong. His study had shown that  virtually everyone would give an obviously incorrect answer just because everyone else was giving the incorrect answer. The study had also shown that just one person going against the majority resulted in the person giving the correct answer even when the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer.

What does this mean? Well it could mean very little for you, but it means a lot to me. I want to be right all the time, and if I can’t see when I’m wrong because everyone else is also wrong, it worries me. I need to make sure the concepts that define my reality are as close to reality as possible, this is important because I make decisions, I vote and I talk to other people. So are you the helpful dissenting voice even when you’re wrong or are you the harmful conformist who doesn’t care if you’re wrong?

There is apparently a big debate over what atheism is, there are many and varied descriptions: atheism is the lack of belief in a god, atheism is the lack of belief in any god, atheism is the belief that there are no gods, atheism is a set of philosophies that one must have in order to be an atheist, atheism is a religion… etc. I will cover the semantic definition and why many sources have it incorrectly defined, why every atheist mustn’t subscribe to the philosophies of other atheists and why it’s intellectually dishonest to think that an atheist must have a certain set of philosophies.

First the etymology of atheism comes from France… at least as far as we have records. It’s derived from the Latin prefix ‘a’ which, “denotes the absence of” (or Ancient Greek as without or not), and theos which means god. So basically the etymology of atheism means, “without god” but also with the ism it means “without the belief in god.” Even with a different definition of theism, the “a” prefix still denotes “not that.” You could spend fifty pages defining theism and all atheism means is “without or absence of that.”

So what does it take to be an atheist? Well that is more simple than you may think. Just like all it takes to be a theist is that you have to believe in a god of some kind, all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe a god of any kind. While the term was originally used in a specific context in that if I was a Christian I would call non-Christian atheists because according to my beliefs, they are without god. But the modern self labeled definition of atheist means that one does not believe in any god. So just don’t believe in a god and you’re an atheist, believe in a god and you’re a theist.

As simple as it is, many people feel like making it more complicated than that, by saying that an atheism is a belief. The only way atheism can be a belief is if it meant that an atheist believes that there’s no god. However given the meaning of the word, this is inaccurate. While one who believes there is no god is an atheist, the only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in a god.

The most dishonest tactic employed by some theists is that atheism is a specific world view and set of philosophies that every atheist must follow. The problem with this concept is that if equal standards are applied to theism, then every theist must have a certain world view and set of philosophies. This goes beyond the scope of the words and should just be ignored as an attempt to sneak in a Trojan horse definition. Also, if every atheist must agree with every other atheistic view, then equally every theist must agree with every theist view. Clearly that is impossible, so this idiotic concept needs to be dropped.

So if you’re a theist, remember that you don’t share the same world view and philosophies as every other theist, so don’t expect or attempt to force every atheist to have the same world view and philosophies of every other atheist.

A simple question that can have a very complicated answer depending on the depth and philosophical route you wish to take. This is not some kind of mid-life crisis or existential crisis video, its an explanation of how you cannot fully answer who you are no matter how deep your answers may be, how you cannot fully know another and my advice for dealing with it.

While this fad is all but over, there are a few people who still believe that NDEs are evidence of an afterlife. When examining these experiences it is very important to remember that, despite a lot of progress, we as humans are very far from understanding how the brain works.

How do we objectively study these experiences? Simple, do not resort to fallacies.

Lancet Study

That study of 344 people that were resuscitated from heart problems shows that only 18% have NDEs and only 12% have significant NDEs. Another result of the study showed that 70% of the people that experience NDEs are religious while only 10% of the people that did not have NDEs were religious. This shows that religious people are more prone to NDEs. I won’t speculate what religion has to do with it, I will just let it sit at that.

The study also had some stories in it, but they were only recorded, not verified. They are just stories as far as objectivity goes. Several people make the mistake that because a story is logged in a scientific study that the stories themselves are scientific fact. They are not, unless they had been verified. None of these stories were verified beyond that the people had the stories.

This doesn’t mean that these people are lying. I highly doubt that they would lie, and because of that, I fully believe that the experiences are real. I also don’t think that people that are hallucinating from taking LSD are lying about their experiences, but I would be insane to think that their experiences are reality. This is were we must remain objective: just because they had these experiences, doesn’t mean that it is evidence of an afterlife. You can trust that they had these experiences, but that doesn’t mean you can trust their conclusions of them. Several pilots that blackout from extreme g forces experience the same kind of experiences, but they are not dying. This suggests that NDEs are caused by lack of oxygen to the brain no matter what the cause is.

There are people that say that the experiences of extreme gravity blackout out of body experiences are different than ones resulting from heart failure. The problem with this is that no one can verify that there is a difference because there is no objective measurement. Just asserting that they are different is irrational.

Then there are those that have NDEs when their brain is in a state of inactivity. This would mean that the brain is not recording anything because it is not functioning. Some people propose that because there is no brain activity at the time of the experience, it shows that there is something other than the brain that provides consciousness… a soul perhaps. The problem with this illogical leap is that no one knows when these NDEs are experienced. It is far more likely that the experience happens as the brain begins to receive oxygen again rather than when the brain is inactive. This is not too far fetched as anyone who has ever had a dream should know, because the state that which the brain is providing images while dreaming is an extremely short period of time while the dream may seem to last for years.

In the end, NDEs are not reliable, verifiable or rational evidence for an afterlife.

If you paid someone to mow your lawn, and they decided that they didn’t want to but kept the money, would you agree that it is fair or lawful?

If you paid a grocery store for groceries, but instead of giving you the groceries they decided to keep them and the money, is that fair or lawful?

If you paid a company to cover your expenses in case of injury or to provide medication at a reduced cost but they instead decided not to pay your medical bills or help with medication, is that fair or lawful?

We all know it is illegal for someone to be paid to provide a product or service but decided not to and kept the money anyway. So why do so many people think it is perfectly ok for health insurance companies to do this?

Here is my scenario: I am a software developer, I have had 5 different jobs in the last 7 years. Every time I get a new job there is a 60 day waiting period for the companies insurance to kick in. I can’t afford health insurance for my wife and I on my own. So I use the companies discount. Because of the 60 day waiting period at each company, my health insurance is not considered “continuous coverage” so all my pre-existing conditions are not covered. I have been paying for insurance for most of the 7 years, but only got to use it for about 7 months. So I am paying for a service that is not being provided. This is wrong and needs to change.

I should have been smart and just saved up the money I wasted on health insurance to pay for what I was also paying for out of my own pocket. $300 a paycheck for, let’s say 6 years = $300*26*6 = $46,800. I paid the same amount one would for a decent car, but got almost nothing for it. In fact I only saved about $1,500 from using my health insurance. The reason I kept paying for it was because I don’t want to get injured and have to pay for that out of my pocket, but what my health insurance companies promised to provide was a lot more than just injuries.

So if you tell me that the U.S. has the best health care, I’ll beat you to a bloody pulp… rhetorically.

Think for Yourself

Why is it important to think for yourself? Why is it important to question authority? It’s important to think for yourself because you are the only person you can trust will be honest with you. You question authority because their authority is only an illusion and they need to be watched no matter how much you trust them.

Think for yourself

If you don’t think for yourself, who will? Who will be your voice? Who will make sure that you are getting what you need and want? No matter what any one else says, no matter how many times they have been honest with you, no matter how much they have to lose with being dishonest with you… they cannot be trusted as much as you can trust yourself. You will know when you are lying (at least I hope so), and you will know when you are telling the truth (I also hope so). Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean that you should never listen to anyone else, it just means that you just don’t take what someone merely asserts is true as the truth. Does this mean that you don’t respect their opinion? Not in itself. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. But you don’t have to do or just believe in what ever other people tell you in order to respect their opinion.

To respect someones opinion do this: listen to what they say, use knowledge to determine how true the statement might be then make a decision about how you will react to the statement. If you do these three things then you are respecting what they have to say while still respecting yourself. There is no one else in the world more qualified to make judgments for yourself than you.

Question authority

Now I know it seems like it’s some kind of wish for anarchy to want people to question authority. That’s what people who are trying to gain authority want you to think. Merely questioning someone is not asking for anarchy, it’s making sure they are doing what their position requires of them and no more or less. It should never be considered a bad thing to question authority, it should always be perceived as a good thing. Well you can go too far and actually make questioning authority a bad thing. Like with the mentally deficient town hall meeting crashers. They loudly ask to be heard and ask questions laced with the venom of ignorance a thousand times more potent than a Bill O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity statement… then not even listen to the answer. What the fuck?

Retard: Listen to me!

Speaker: Ok, what is your question?

Retard: Why are you trying to destroy America by trying to force all men to have pineapples for penises?

Speaker: That is insane…

Retard: Oh BS! And what about the growing Astronaut infestation?!?!

Speaker: What are you ta…

Retard: Oh more lies! What about the poison contrails, watermelon patch migration, twin tower zeppelin conspiracy, lunar landing…

Questioning authority and not listening to their answer does no one any good and makes you look like an idiot. “Der, emma ask a queue stun, an not list in to teh ants sir! ’cause it merks may lookr smert n patrick attic!”

When you question authority, listen to the answer. Then you can determine whether their response is worth anything. But questioning authority while already deciding that no matter what they say is going to be bullshit usually means that you are taking someone elses authority without questioning it. There is a huge difference between questioning authority and ignoring authority. They are the opposite and you should stay away from anyone that attempts to explain that questioning and ignoring authority are similar or even worse: the same. Questioning leads to order while ignoring leads to chaos.

One of the worst things you can do, is to question one authority but not another. Taking sides if you will. This will always lead to you becoming an automotron, sheep, drone follower. Why? Lets take a look see: You will just take whatever your favourite authority has to say while constantly questioning the their opponents. This leads to you just believing in what your side says while disbelieving in what ever the other side says. So you absolutely need to question all authority, not just the ones that you think you can’t trust. The authority you think you can trust is the authority that is the biggest threat, because fewer people will question that authority.

So wake up you mentally shackled ass hats, because you aren’t just hurting yourselves, you are hurting all of us. Question what anyone tells you not just who you perceive to be the other side.

Being a developer that almost worships object oriented design, I am often very critical of several concepts that are released into the development world under the guise that it is the absolute solution to development problems.

The Single Responsibility Principle (SRP), happens to be one of these. It makes sense on a small scale or for certain areas of a big project, but then creates more work if it is held for large scale programs. SRP can help to organize and protect objects from falling into a huge mess of garbled code, but on the other hand, strict obedience to the rule can create millions of objects that need to be maintained.

Now I will use a straw-man to argue this first point because that it is the only available example (there are hundreds examples but in principle, there is just one), used to support the idea. Say you have a class that totals out an order, but it only has one function. So all the item discounting, client discounting, taxing, shipping and printing exist in this one function. Clearly this will create a big mess of a function. So to clean it up a developer will obviously separate the logic into functions. For SRP, this is not good enough. SRP requires that each separation becomes its own class. This is an example for how SRP can help to clean things up and fix issues with updating or adding functionality.

While separating every single bit of functionality into classes is not a problem for such a simple example, when the application starts to become very complex, an issue of finding the object with the right responsibility to modify becomes a problem. In the real world, programs get very complex and if developers blindly followed this principle, no amount of documentation would help a developer to quickly find the right class to modify. In the example, a developer will likely create 5-6 different classes, no big deal. Now what if the same principle were applied to the whole program where the orders are taken, items are entered, warehouse levels are modified and monitored… etc. The developer would easily create hundreds and even thousands of classes. Now how does another developer come in and find the right class to modify? Lots of searching, stepping through and trial and error.

Should developers just give up on object oriented methodologies? Hell no. This just means that the developer must use discretion when deciding how to make a function a function or a class. Too many classes makes just as big a mess as too few classes. SRP is a good guideline… a guideline is not a rule or law. It is good to separate functionality, but most of the time a function will suffice and still maintain good object oriented design principles. Just because you are using objects, does not mean that you are using object oriented designs.

I may be taking SRP to the extreme, but in all the SRP articles I have read, they never offer up the idea that maybe several functions are better than making each function a class.  The biggest problem I face when working on code is not that the developer is not concerned with object oriented design, its that the developer loses sight of the purpose of object oriented design: to make fixing, extending and designing functionality easier and faster. If you keep that idea in your head while developing, then it should be difficult to not follow object oriented methods.

There are a lot of people that can be right all the time despite having no idea about what they are talking about and pulling “facts” out of their asses. You see, being right is more about attitude and speaking the right way than it is about the truth. After reading this series you will be able to be right all the time just like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Sean Hannity, Ray Comfort, Ann Coulter and other assholes.

Valid Fallacies

Most people know fallacies are illogical, but hardly anyone knows why they are illogical. So if someone calls you on a fallacy, you ask them why the fallacy is illogical. Argue them on every point. Take up as much time as possible so the other person is forced to move on. If they explain the fallacy then claim they need to explain why your statement is wrong, if they explain why your statement is wrong then claim their need to explain why the logic is wrong. Repeat this until they give up, which they will, because they are probably more reasonable than you are. If you have no opponent, then don’t even worry about it and do as many fallacies as you want as long as they sound pretty true. The best fallacies are hasty generalizations (he’s a democrat so he likes to kill babies), false dilemma (your either a Christian or you worship Satan), negative proof (there is no proof that unicorns don’t exist, so they do) and many, many more.

Foundation in the Sky

Ever heard that “truth is stranger than fiction?” Well this tactic uses that principle to make fiction stranger than truth, and therefore truer for being stranger. Make the “fact” so grand, that to make it up without evidence would be way too crazy. Once you have made the decision on what the”truth” will be, now start taking and warping any bit of information (no matter how unreliable), from any source you can, that supports your “truth” in any way. Most of Ann Coulter’s arguments use this tactic. How does one come to the conclusion that, “before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event” without some kind of evidence? Well  surely the LA Times has the proof right? Well if you said “yes” you are wrong, if you said “no” then you are right but not getting any of this, but if you said “it doesn’t matter what proof there is,” then you are getting the idea.

Redirecting the Direct

Every once in a while, some asshole will ask you a direct question that is meant to get you to make a direct answer. This is a trick used to make you solidify your views instead of having your views in a super hazy cloud that allows you to do anything with. Don’t let them make you form an actually firm and refutable ideal, you need to keep all your ideas and vague and versatile as possible.

So when some jerk comes along and tries to pin you down, you pretend to start answering the question, while slowly turning it around to demand that they answer a question first. This is best used when you have asked a question previously that they haven’t answered or if you haven’t yet accused them of redirecting or deflecting the question. Sometimes you divert it quickly and start on some other random rant to make the other guy refute the new claim and ignore your diversion. The goal for this tactic is to avoid any direct questions.

Straw to Stone

No one respects a person that always takes the easy fight, but they also don’t respect a person that loses. Well fortunately you don’t have to lose and you don’t have to take the hard fight. Take an easy to knock down argument from the other side (doesn’t even have to be true if enough people think it might be true), then spend most of you time building it up into how it is a staple in their belief or one of the basis of their arguments, then quickly knock it down. Any objections or being called out on your bullshit is easily thwarted by calling them sore losers, poopy pants, stupid or illogical.

Practice these techniques and watch all the people at the top for these and other tactics to always be right without having to research, think, listen or work for it in any way.

How to Always be Right: Knowing Stuff

Like parents mis-use the Santa Claus myth to get their children to behave, once a person loses the childish notion the only true God is the one you happen to believe in, then an awakening occurs which often causes a sort of revolt towards rules, ethics and parents.

When a child learns that Santa is a myth and is not real despite what their parents told them, the child feels like they have been betrayed by the very people that are supposed to be protecting and teaching them. If the Santa myth had often been used to coerce the child into behaving properly, then the child is more likely to be harder to coerce into behaving properly when they learn the truth about the myth.

This is a parallel to when a child no longer believes in the religion of their parents. If the religion of the parents was used to convince their children to behave without explaining more than, “because God said so” or “because God said it is bad,” causes a similar Santa style revolt on ethics and values. Its not because there are no morals without God, its because the child was not taught a higher, universal reason for behaving a certain way in society.

This hypothesis (I will not call it a theory because it has not been developed or studied yet), can explain why there is a period of social dissent as a child matures into an adult. Maybe I am wrong about it, but its OK to be wrong, its the most efficient way for humans learn.

To test, we would need a group of about 200 split almost evenly between religious families and non-religious families. Half of each group would then teach their child morals according to the Bible, and the other half would teach the children morals according to how it affects to society. Then track each child and see how they feel about their parents beliefs throughout their development into adulthood.

I am not saying that the world be better without religion, I am saying that children need to be taught to understand morals mean more than being punished or rewarded.

Composite applications are just applications made with the intent to reuse the functionality created in them to make the development of other applications faster and easier.

The implementation and stigma around the named composite methodologies (like Model View Presenter and Model View ViewModel), is that they are some new complicated methodology for application development. The sad truth is that they are an old programming methodology; it is just object oriented programming rehashed, narrowed and renamed. I assume it’s so that a person that has nothing to offer the development community can still profit from it by restating OOP in different words.

Many companies just hired “developers” and let them do whatever they wanted as long as they produced something that worked. I blame these pseudo developers as much as I blame the mental dwarfs that keep rehashing the old shit and placing it in a shiny new wrapped gift box… with sparklies. Just because most of the people hired to be developers did not follow the principles of object oriented design, does not mean that those principles did not previously exist. But these talentless unproductive mouth breathers know that they can make a pretty penny by pretending that all the problems caused by the old developers was because the shiny new box of shit that they just created didn’t exist before.

The actual ideas behind the buzzwords are older than even C++ (my favourite language), there were other languages before C++ to adopt the, “easy to maintain and reuse” philosophy of object oriented design. Just because I think it’s ridiculous to rename and old ideal and sell it as something new does not mean that I think it is a bad thing… at least not in itself. The ideas behind composite application development show one way that you can use OOD principles to make developing, maintaining, testing and deploying of applications faster and easier.

The negative effect is when these “developers” start to believe that this one way is the only way. Even when there is almost half a century of good object oriented development principles. Although making something easier and faster to maintain, develop, test and release is a good thing, its like teaching a child to ride a bike using training wheels. The kid can get up on the bike and pedal without falling over, and it can help the kid learn to eventually ride the bike without the training wheels. It’s not bad that developers start with training wheels, it’s bad when “developers” just trade one set of training wheels for another set and never free themselves from the limitations.