Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Alex Christoforou" channel.

  1. 38
  2. 31
  3. 28
  4. 24
  5. 21
  6. 15
  7. 15
  8. 15
  9. 14
  10. 14
  11. 14
  12. 14
  13. 14
  14. 14
  15. 13
  16. 12
  17. 10
  18. 10
  19. 10
  20. 9
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 8
  24. 8
  25. 8
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 6
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. Heh. Due to a condition, I've been injured (busted bones, torn tendons, etc) a jillion times. Scars everywhere. A former army ranger saw me in short sleeves and said "I see you've been through the wars, too. 'Embrace the suck.' You get it." I told him "I get 'embracing the suck,' but I NEVER got hurt putting my life on the line on behalf of someone else. You're up here and I'm down here," holding my right hand up high and my left down low. "I'm just a stick boy, who does stupid shit. Thanks for your service." I figure if I were fit, I'd've tried for the 82nd airborne, 'cuz that's what Dad did. Anybody in my presence, who's served in combat, never has to buy a drink or a meal or go without a job and some dollars in his pocket. I don't think it makes him necessarily any smarter then me about anything, EXCEPT the combat, but he earned more than just his pay when the bullets were flying and the bombs were dropping, and I always try to do my bit to pay that back. I'm what you'd call a fiscal conservative, civil libertarian, and half-ass-self-taught student of history. I ain't big on federal programs. But our VA hospitals should be the ones civilians WISH they could get into. After all the soldiers are taken care of, VA probably SHOULD be one of - if not THE - biggest charity comprehensive-health service, that does a LOT of good for those in need, when we're not busy gettin' our guys shot at. Not interested in many of the other gov't programs, but ya gotta take care of the guys ya put in harm's way.
    3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. As a math prof, I've been making videos for years, because students learn at different rates in different ways. I have thousands of short videos providing theory and examples that I wouldn't have time to deliver in the face time allotted. I used to win awards for my live lectures, but while I was winning those awards was probably my low point in terms of faith in live lectures as primary teaching method. But everything I do in ZOOM gets recorded and posted in public domain. I also make a PDF of everything I write during the session. In my traditional face-to-face classes, I was already going non-traditional, turning the face-to-face into an open work session, with students making use of any of my resources at any time, while I just HELP people when asked. I have to train them where the resources are and how to use them. Usually what ends up happening is they first look at the transcripts of my short videos, which are just the notes I put on the SMART notebook. If they need the voice-over, they can watch the video. If they don't, they can find what they need really quick by scrolling through the notes. Some students just slurp up all the videos. Some only watch the videos when the notes and the book aren't enough. Basically every student gets through as fast as they are capable, without me making them listen to me, live. It was a bit trickier in ZOOM, when all my classes went full-on remote and online. Now that the school's opening back up, they're keeping me "remote" and "online," because other instructors are so in love with the traditional "I'm the high priest and you will be quiet and listen to me." My approach is "I'm the facilitator. I hope the videos and notes work for you. If you need me, I'm here. If you don't, then just don't pester your classmates and turn in your homework." I try to give marching orders at the beginning of class as to where we are on the schedule and what they should be working on. But if they fall behind, they can catch up, with on-demand help. If they're ahead, I can accelerate their progress. So, basically, I have 30 INDIVIDUALS in class, all receiving a custom, on-demand product. Some students HATE that the clever priest doesn't entertain them every lecture for the full period. Other students LOVE that I don't waste their time, and have anticipated virtually every question with a video, and freed up our "face" time for their questions. I can talk to more students at THEIR level than I ever could in the traditional setting. There are also fewer mistakes in the videos, because you can re-record or edit them, to eliminate time-wasting blunders. Fewer mistakes than the ego-gratifying but inefficient live lectures.
    1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. C'mon now, Alex. You argue on the one hand how powerful Twitter is and then you scoff at them taking down accounts for swaying public opinion in a "wrong way." That's not the argument you should make. It's more "partisan" or "pro-Russian" position than principled position. Yes. Twitter is trash. Yes. Twitter is in it for the globalists and the stuffed-shirt, white-collar liberal elites and not for the common people. These platforms really should do more to ensure that the accounts on their platforms are actually held by real people and that those people don't have multiple accounts. I think that BOT accounts are a problem that could be solved very easily. But that still wouldn't address the thousands of 50-cent soldiers that any country can hire to spam their propaganda far and wide. It only takes a few HUNDRED to make it appear there is a groundswell of public opinion one way or the other, if they target certain things and say certain things, catalyzing thousands more goofballs to fall in line. That's the problem with the stuffed-shirt/white-collar elites. They don't MINGLE with regular people. They just use a bunch of electronic tools to test the political waters, remotely, which doesn't really tell them what's happening, let alone how to solve any problems. They see a "mob" of a few thousand people and conclude that's what everybody's thinking, which is why policies coming down from elite circles make absolutely zero sense to the vast majority of people. As always, the "elites" see which way they THINK things are headed, and rush to the front of the parade with their giant batons, pretending to LEAD. You see them proudly marching and brandishing the baton, and they get that wonderful photo opportunity for which they seem to live. Then 5 minutes later, they turn around and they're all alone waving a baton, while the actual parade is marching off in another direction.
    1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. I never saw the attraction in Twatter, when I saw how Tweets were limited to x-hundred characters. Heck, I have a hard time staying under 200 characters in realtime chat. And almost nothing I want to weigh in on and say can be said in a few hundred characters. You can float witty one-liners and post memes, I suppose, but you're not really being informed or informing anyone with one-liners. As for FaceBook, it was a wonderful platform for putting people in touch across the country/planet. Then its ownership saw how the free thinking libertarians and anti-establishment conservatives were DOMINATING, quite organically, because their IDEAS were dominating. Since then, FaceBook's been wanting to suppress conservative/libertarian ideas, and looked for any and every excuse to justify doing so What SHOULD be happening, now, is these platforms need to restrict themselves to PLATFORM duties. Instead of policing their own content, they should be creating and marketing content filters from which their clients may choose, to customize their feeds. The minute they start policing their own content FOR their customers, they SHOULD be held to the standards of publishers and LOSE all the special protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I personally think the entire CDA should be abolished. It's not government's job to enforce "decency," and it is DEFinitely not government's job to give a handful of Big Tech companies special protections not afforded to the rest of us. Equal Protection Under Law is a principle pre-dating the U.S. Constitution, and explicitly a part of the U.S. Constitution, in the form of the 14th Amendment.
    1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 3 minutes. You gotta jump to 2 minutes to get past the commercials. He sneaks 'em into the middle of his shows, now, too. I think he's good at what he does, but he's a semi-grifter, who'll show you the tippy-top of a graph a mile high, zoom in on a 2-inch drop, and shout "Stock Prices Imploding!" He really likes the word "implode" in his headlines. Still, a person who's not up on the storylines can get up to speed on some of them from Dr. Steve. He exaggerates everything, but he is correct about the underlying socio-cultural trends that run in the exact opposite direction of the establishment elites. There is a sea change taking place in the collective consciousness, and the Great Reset taking place in the highest places are nothing in comparison. He calls it "nationalist populism," and to an extent that's true, but I think it goes a lot deeper than that. It's back to family first, then neighborhood, then town, and the top-down stuff, dictated by establishment elites, is fighting a desperate rearguard action, which can be seen by the ENDLESS doubling-down on more and more outrageous nonsense that leaves more and more of the population saying "WTF?" Meanwhile, Yankee ingenuity is sweeping the planet. There are so many people in so many places around the world sharing ways of thinking and ways of doing things, that I think the people are changing faster than the legacy institutions who rule them. This has actually always been the case, or the Roman Empire would just be the world government. Or the Mongol Empire. Or the Chinese Empire. Or the British Empire. We just don't notice this, because all the history books talk about are the (increasingly) irrelevant actors at the top.
    1
  171. 1
  172. What Poland's doing will ultimately be bad. The last thing we want is to impose new regulations. What we should do is REMOVE special protections. That's what they're hiding behind. Big Tech and Corporate robber barons will most certainly use/twist the regulations aimed at them as a vehicle to crush any up-and-coming platforms who would compete with them. Just ditch the Communications Decency Act, entirely, including the infamous Section 230 that protects Big Tech platforms from the consequences of their blatantly political actions. Nobody's forcing you to watch ANYthing. You've always had the choice of reading whatever tabloid or conspiracy-theory rags you wanted, since publishing was invented. Let people filter their OWN content, by choosing from a wide array of filtering products. Want to protect your kids? Find parental-controls products. Otherwise, the government needs to step off and BACK OFF. There are plenty of laws on the books regarding defamation, incitement of violence, and libel/slander. Clean up THOSE laws, including the ones that allow you to libel or slander public figures. One law for all. Period. If a regular citizen can block a troll, so can the president or any politician or other public figure. Equal protection under the law. It cuts both ways. Usually, the politicians get special privileges they shouldn't. But under the current system, anyone challenging the establishment - even from within the establishment - can be crushed in the public square. That's BS. Trump is the poster child for this. Instead, we will make laws/regs that are messed-up and too complicated, and re-visit them over and over, adding MORE fine print, to the delight of the lawyers and the dismay of ordinary citizens. Sick of it. Make up a crisis. Then ram through bad law and bad regulations, while you've got everybody's attention and an apparent (rarely real) threat.
    1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. Abolish Communications Decency Act and its Section 230 that protects the censorious Big Tech at the expense of any new competitors. Government stepping in will just make the problem worse, the same as it has done to numerous other industries. You wonder why Big beats Small? Because that's the nature of government regulation. Right when the public thinks the government is sticking it to the big corporations, it is HELPING the big corporation. Complex regulations destroy small outfits that can't afford to comply with all the complicated rules. Small outfits can't hire a "compliance officer" whose only job is to keep the regulators happy. Small companies aren't big enough to hire anyone who doesn't actually PRODUCE something. Liberals and progressives do the bidding of big corporations while spending all their time complaining about big corporations. When CONSERVATIVES start screaming for the government to step in and "fix" Big Tech, then we are lost. If government just backed off and let everyone compete, the bad practices of Big Tech would destroy their bottom line. These PLATFORMS should just be PLATFORMS. Like the phone service has no right to monitor and censor phone conversations. There are already plenty of laws on the books. If YouTube's business model says they should censor content on their platform, then let them. And because they choose to censor, they become publishers. Because they are publishers, they should fall under all the same rules and regulations that apply to publishers. They should not have it both ways. It's bad for the public and it's bad for them, too, in the long run. You want to protect children? Have a KidTube to which access is totally under parents' control. Instead of worrying about filtering OUT bad content, let the parents decide what channels they will ALLOW, with a default door lock on everything else. On AdultTube, anything should go, consistent with the traditional standards of libel, slander, threats of violence and inciting violence. Communications Decency Act and Fairness Doctrine (created when regressive Christians were afraid somebody might use a cuss word on-air) end up meaning the opposite, in actual practice, because NO ONE should have the right to decide these things. If someone is blatantly breaking the law, then there are courts for that, already.
    1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1