@ArjinFerman's banner p


Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 626


Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 626

Verified Email

"people fail at dealing with complex things, are happy to exaggerate for rhetoric and ignore claimed implications" is nothing new

That's the thing, I don't know if it counts as a complex problem. It's a "you're picking small high-hanging fruits, when you haven't even started picking the big low-hanging ones" situation.

only for peasants, private flights are not going to be affected

luxury cars are exempt

I think I'm radicalized enough as it is, you don't need to encourage me more.

Nevertheless, you have weird people going with full denial of established physics and screaming about 2nd law of thermodynamics without understanding it, and fail to interpret simple graphs.

Yeah, contrarianism is a hell of a drug, ask me how I know. But this is why I think the establishment was, and is, playing a dangerous game, burning trust to meet short-term goals. We're probably gonna keep getting more and more people questioning the most basic things around them.

Preindustrial CO2 rate was under 300 parts per million.

2000 it was 370 ppm

2024 it reached 420 ppm


It is skewing to the last decades: half of the emmissions from 1750 to now were emitted in the last 30 years.

Well, that's concerning...

On the other hand, excuse me, but how am I supposed to take anyone screaming at me about global warming seriously? All the "adults in the room" are coming up with galaxy-brained plans to limit air travel and ban internal combustion engines, when the vast majority of that trend is coming from Asia? Why are we building solar farms in clouded regions of the northern hemisphere instead of chipping in for the nuclear electrification of the developing world?

I don't want to get you on a no-fly list, but purely hypothetically how would one accomplish that with a submarine and Twenty Good Men?

That's how it's supposed to work, though I heard somewhere that chronic nausea is a common side effect (yay, even more weight loss!).

I hate it when my clever jokes turn out be me dumbly not getting a reference. But I learned something today, so thanks for that!

Yeah I see what you mean about winning a few Keynesian beauty contests

Show me those AD-AS curves, baby...

On one level, the charge of hyperagency / hypoagency framework isn't a strawman as I'm not saying it's the argument being made, it's what I am characterizing the argument's form as in a meta-contextual description.

But it's exactly your characterization of the argument's form that I'm objecting to, not any specific claim you're making about the lead-up to the conflict, or the invasion itself. Hyperagency / hypoagency is something that's wrong on it's face. Generally in life there's few situations where someone has all the power while someone else has none, let alone in geopolitics, let alone when the country with hypoagency is supposed to be one like Russia. The reason why I'm objecting to the characterization is that portraying the argument's form this way allows for dismissing the actual argument, without touching it's substance. So even if this isn't technically a strawman, it ends up working in a very similar way.

A more accurate characterization of the argument's form is something like a "pawn sacrifice". Every game with even the most basic strategic element will involve making a move, and hoping your opponent will respond in a way that you can take advantage of. That's what the US / the West is being "accused" of here, except it's not really much of an accusation, because that's just politics. Nowhere in there is "hypoagency" being attributed to any actor. If we go with the example of Johnson's visit, I'll apologize for intuitively reaching for a portrayal of the affair that makes it look like the west was imposing it's will, but it doesn't matter whether they did it by screaming or sweet-talk, threats or bribery, the point is that they made a move hoping for certain results. If the whole thing ends up being a quagmire for Russia, and Ukraine gets out of it with just a few bruises, I will have to tip my hat to the western establishment, and congratulate them for a game well played. If it turns out to be a disaster for Ukraine, on the other hand, they will end up looking incompetent. If it turns out they always knew it would be a disaster for Ukraine they will end up looking callous. You can attribute the majority of agency in the situation to Russia, and I don't see how it changes the above calculus.

other than claims generally fronted by Russian-originated sources

Just to clarify, the most recent source of the claim, that I'm familiar with, was some high-ranking Ukrainian official. There were also some German politicians saying things to this effect, but I think they were from the terminally pro-Russian faction, so I was taking that with a grain of salt until more recently.

OTOH, I probably oversold how confident I am in the claim, this is in the "something that popped up on my feed, and I never followed up" category.

appeal to the hyperagency/hypoagency framework

But on this I have to push back. Framing it as a "the hyperagency/hypoagency framework" is a strawman, or a weakman at best. The point being made here isn't that Russians literally couldn't make another choice, it's that an American / Western move put them in a position where war seems like the best of all possible options. Normally this isn't a controversial framework, the US was justifying it's own invasion of Iraq in exactly the same way, not long ago.

To me, this is a bonus: I welcome most if not all animal sounds

It would be nice of dogs could STFU somewhat, but otherwise I agree.

OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.

How long do you have to warn people "don't do this or the same tactics will be used against you when the tide turns" before it's ok to make good on the warning?

I do appreciate the disagreements, for what it's worth. You argue straight and clearly, and even if I remain stubborn, it tends to be the kind of disagreement that triggers some introspection.

And in any case laughing at my jokes will always trump disagreement.

Two can play this game - why did he go there if he had nothing to say, offer, or threaten with?

I never said they were "hell bent".

"Either you go balls to the wall with this now, with Europe's and USA's full support, and potential rewards if you manage to win, or you're out on your own" is a pretty compelling carrot/stick combination. I don't see how Brexit enters into the picture if the Western establishment was of more or less of one mind on this.

How am I supposed to know? It's not like I was in those behind-closed-doors meetings, but that those meetings took place in response to the Russian peace offer is not in question, as far as I understand. I would imagine he did it the way countries usually do - the threat of withholding some carrot, or applying some stick, or both.

I'm not sure why you're reiterating your point about it being bad, when I explicitly said that it's not about that.

lol you can't just drop a wiki to comparative advantage. Robots and computers can do everything better, and cheaper. More so by the hour, I'm sorry.

Yes I can, because even in your response you're not addressing the point of comparative advantage. It usually is still more profitable for a person, and even country, that does everything better, to trade with a country that does everything worse. There's a reason why the west is actually buying manually mined cobalt.

99% of mined resources are coming from almost fully automated mines, why are you so focused on the few that have a terrible human cost?

Like I said in the other comment, my comment had nothing to do with the relative amount of resources produced through manual labor, I was just responding to the various AI scenarios put forward by rationalists.

It's not a question of it being good or bad, it's a question of not being able to understand the outrage at being forced to fight and die as others are out having fun.

If the Ukrainian government wanted to surrender, they could do so tomorrow without asking for anyone's permission.

Other countries have agency too.

Agency doesn't mean free choice. When they tried mere negotiations, Boris Johnson flew over to scream at them until they stopped.

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

Are the men the property of the Ukrainian government? Dase recently got in trouble for lashing out against this kind of "innocent" "shucks! I don't know what you could possibly mean" debate tactics, and while I don't want to be as aggressive as he was, I do share his frustration. This kind of clap-on / clap-off - we're just individuals pursuing happiness / we're part of a larger whole and you have to fulfill your duty to society, is somewhat maddening.

I'm not sure how that's implied. My point was addressing the idea of AI causing technological unemployment, or the more optimistic scenario of AI freeing us to do commit to higher intellectual pursuits. I've made no claim about the ratios of resources mined with manual human labor vs automated AI labor.

and it's not because the Congolese have a comparative advantage in digging holes.

The hell it's not! If they didn't have a comparative advantage there, they wouldn't be able to sell their cobalt.

So an almost fully automated mine can do in 22 days what it took 30-60 thousand people 43 years to do in the past. I bet no one even died in those 22 days, or even in 2 years, most open pit mines are pretty safe these days!

Everything will mechanised and automated. It just makes too much sense, which is why everyone who can manage to do so, does it.

What you're missing is that the question isn't just what a fully automated mine can do compared to 30-60 thousand people, it's also what those resources could have done if they didn't go to automating that mine. There's a reason why rich, automated, countries are buying resources mined by manual labor.

This is all pretty basic economics

Two things:

  • If he actually says he changed his mind, we can have a conversation from here, but half his schtick is pretending the "just of couple crazy kids on college campuses" was in fact just of couple crazy kids on college campuses, and Steelman Progressives never actually believed any of the craziness.
  • I feel a certain dissonance between changing your mind about something in a timespan of 2 years, and acting like it's "the first thing" to grant in a negotiation.


(horror movie thunder sound cue)

Cute, but it would be easier to believe that attempt at mockery isn't posturing, if everyone in the mainstream didn't flip out when alt-righters apply the exact same theory.

I'm going to wonder aloud here: maybe the current crop of woke storytelling is a bad reaction to the justified feelings about female characters in earlier games being focused on their art, uh, assets rather than narrative fulfillment

You could maybe make the case for the current crop of female 3d modelling, but storytelling? Miranda, as well as all the other ladies of Mass Effect, were all properly fleshed out characters, with their stories, struggles, charms and flaws. You could put them all in a niqab, and they'd still be interesting characters (as proven by Tali). The current crop of female characters are all cardboard cut-outs. Miranda's ass tipping the domino that launched a chain reaction leding to the collapse of the skyscraper of game writing, makes absolutely no sense.