Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
Are you kidding? The official, encrypted, auto-record keeping email system the government has used for the last 40 years.
Are you seriously proposing that people use e-mail for instant messaging? What is this, 1993?
The one they undoubtedly can't access from their private iPhones, because allowing that would be an obvious, glaring security flaw.
“Security” is just a jobs programme for people who couldn’t get into the real police. They did it this way and what happened? Did the heavens fall down? No. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
6mo ago
My own personal preference is a complete meritocracy. If that results in a 55% Asian, 40% white, 5% other split, so be it. Nothing else seems fair to me.
How is it “fair” that 1950s Chinese communists who despised America, get to send their grandchildren to occupy (and profit from) the top 0.1% of prestige occupations in America, which is the patrimony of the very 1950s Americans they despised?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8mo ago
Can you give three examples of their fresh bold takes on policies which Dems usually tiptoe around?
How are they on the JQ?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
If they manage to grapple the booster consistently, then we can talk about “inaugurating a new era of space”. But one lucky catch does not an industry renaissance create. And tbh I’m not even convinced that catching the booster is actually that reusable. Sure, it LOOKS more reusable than a smouldering crater on the landing pad or a rusting wreck on the seabed, but is it really? Given how anal the FAA is about testing each sprocket and screw a trillion times, I’m dubious as to whether the inevitable damage caused by just the Working As Designed rocketry stuff of having 15 tonnes of liquid methane lit on fire inside it will allow (physically or legally) a booster to consistently fly for a second time.
I really want my consumer moon vacations, but I’ve been burned so many times before by spess hype that I’m kind of a doomer at this point.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10mo ago
A country notorious for faking its math test scores, macroeconomic indicators, astroturfed ‘5c army’ political engagement, and COVID case numbers, is having unexpectedly great entertainment metrics?
I don’t think we need to do any sort of self-reflective cultural soul-searching here. The reflexive 4chan screech of “BOTS” is both sufficient and necessary in this case.
How many planes did the Houthis manage to shoot down due to this “failure of OPSEC”? Zero. Therefore, the level of OPSEC that you want them to deploy is evidently unnecessary. OPSEC is not reducing military casualties; all it’s doing is giving “security personnel” a paycheck, and conferring no actual military advantage.
This is OPSEC’s “The emperor has no clothes” moment. All OPSEC’s recommendations were disregarded, and nothing bad happened. This proves that OPSEC is stupid, not that its violators are stupid.
I would also like to point out that anyone who condemns this “security breach” without in the same breath condemning Hillary’s e-mail server is double-standards-ing HARD. It’s OK when Dems do it?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5hr ago
As a man whose girlfriend is addicted to her phone, I’m telling you that it’s actually a blessing in disguise. She puts much fewer demands on my time than the non-addicts I’ve dated, because she is capable of entertaining herself rather than pestering me for validating attention every 10 seconds.
And it’s not as if I entered the dating pool in pursuit of riveting conversation in the first place.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
How many humans live out their lives by, ultimately, convincing lots of other humans to just bankroll them?
About 24%; we call these people “wives”.
Is what Shiloh is doing really all that different to what any non-breadwinner does? Making themselves out to be sufficiently sympathetic and weak that a nice man (or in this case, crowd) pay for her life? Is her present shameless willingness to get money for doing nothing any more shameless than what she was already doing: chilling with her kid on a playdate at the park while (presumably) her husband (or child support provider) is wagie-slaving away in his cubicle?
Your post title is more accurate than it might at first appear: grift upon grift indeed, and it ever was thus since separate X and Y chromosomes evolved.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
28d ago
I preface this by saying it is entirely devil’s advocacy, but it seems like this sort of legislation would be logically coherent under the ‘libertarian violinist’ pro-abortion argument. It’s the woman who is inconvenienced by having another person strapped to her circulatory system, so she has an excuse to get away with murder. No-one violated the NAP on the doctor, so he doesn’t have an excuse.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
Oh come on. The “if you have this opinion you’re an incel” implication is the most trite of Twitter-tier ad hominems.
Obviously it would be a terrible precedent in such agencies to say 'actually you can discuss your work if you, as an individual employee, decide on a random ad hoc basis that its probably fine this time'.
Can you elaborate? Because I think it unironically would be perfectly fine.
Better that everyone know USG’s secrets than I have to pay taxes to keep them under wraps.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
at that time UK was not bombing Russia
I don’t really see how assassinating Palestinians overseas becomes more palatable if you’re also gunning them down by the thousands with ground infantry.
Or is this a “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic” thing?
As I said, it was devil’s advocacy. I agree that one should be required to reap what they’ve sown, and if she didn’t want a baby, she should have kept it in her pants.
In non-devils-advocacy, I think that the negative externalities of an unwanted child and a resentful mother are sufficiently bad for society that my desire to profit society exceeds my desire to force people to eat their just desserts, so on balance I come down grudgingly pro-choice in the end. And I wouldn’t prosecute doctor or mother for straight-up infanticide, let alone late-term abortion. The UK’s new legislation moves us closer to that.
I am reluctant to laud it though, because it’s pretty transparent that British lawmakers’ motivations are, as @Southkraut speculates, “Women can do no wrong”, which means we have good law (or at least lesser-evil law) for bad motives.
I feel like your model of the situation can’t explain why Daniel’s discord mods resigned en masse even after the truth came out (so there was no way they still did believe the allegations). What is your explanation for their behaviour, if you think the parties in this situation were choosing sides based on what they believed to be true (rather than what they believed to be expeditious)?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?
Most mainland European countries in 1946.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
it's basically guaranteed that foreign adversaries have access to much of that information.
“Basically” seems to be doing a tremendous amount of work in this sentence. You’re constructing an entire catastrophic narrative from one piece of evidence where nothing catastrophic happened. Here’s an alternative take that fits the evidence just as well: when they’re discussing adversaries who have more hacking capability than stone-age Yemenis, they stick to more secure channels.
If this had been discussing China or Israel I would be more sympathetic to your concerns, but it’s bombing a group of people who have never seen a computer in their lives, not bombing 1337 h4X0rz. The Pareto frontier of convenience vs. security is placed in a very different location when Yemen is your foe vs. when China is your foe.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
I am not an expert on the US classification system, but I do know that producing an unclassified summary of classified information (including, for example, the classified information you worked on in the last week) is difficult work that only a few people in each department are qualified to do. The rule in corporate finance departments at banks (where almost all staff have access to market-moving non-public information such as upcoming mergers) and it is "Do not discuss live deals with anyone outside the department, even in general terms." For a corporate financier, sending a meaningful response to that e-mail would be a firing offence.
But this isn’t, like, a fact of the universe caused by the legitimate praxis of those jobs. Rather, this is itself administrative bloat designed to give bullshit jobs to the summarisers or inflate the self-importance of managers who want to pretend that their work is super serious. Everything you said constitutes organisational-calcification red tape that SHOULD be dismissively cut through, not “omg the freak-out-ers are right”.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
The entire institutional ecosystem is soft-rigged against the GOP, regardless of whether there was any direct voter fraud. This is an argument that I have a lot of time for - if one faction has a huge advantage in political communication, and its credibility is laundered by all the major epistemic institutions of its society, then it's hardly a free and fair contest of ideas. …However, these were not the actual arguments made by Trump and allies, nor were they the arguments voiced on January 6.
This seems like some sort of reverse-motte-and-Bailey on your part. Some crazies yell extreme theories, therefore the moderate theories are not worth considering?
At some point you're just too far away from the candidate himself or his campaign.
It also seems like an effort of sophistry to avoid the question of “how to get Republicans to accept the election results” by playing around with definitions until the people with legitimate reasons to distrust the election don’t count as Republicans any more, ergo dusts hands job done.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1mo ago
but the task is entirely artificial.
It is trained on the corpus of human text, most of which pertains to artificial problems rather than real problems. So AI should be better at the administrative-state stuff than the real stuff.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
28d ago
First of all: It's fun
Came here to post this. Arguing online is entertaining. I possibly spent too much time in high school debate club as a teen
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8mo ago
The only reason 4B ‘works’ in Korea (or at least doesn’t instantly collapse as farcical) is precisely because Korean society is actually great for women. In Africa if you try to withhold sex from men in general, or especially your husband, you’ll just get raped, and everyone will call you an idiot because OBVIOUSLY that’s what would happen.
Say what you will about sexual violence’s moral deficiencies, but it does keep women in line, as the fertility rates in Africa demonstrate.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Russia is not winning the war because it is taking and may keep territory in the Donbas, it is losing the war because Russia itself framed the war not as a conflict between itself and Ukraine
Ok, question: did Shogunate Japan lose the First Imjin War? They occupied Korea, but by your logic they lost because Hideyoshi had once told his retainers that his ambition unironically included “world conquest”?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
Can you imagine Ben Franklin telling politicians they don't have to accept the result of a vote because the Pennsylvania Gazette wrote absurd lies about the candidates?
No, but I can imagine 2017 Democrats yelling “not my President” ad infinitum, and trying to impeach on tendentious grounds for an entire term.
Vance gave the right answer here. He should have refused to certify the election - not because he had just cause, but because he who does not fight fire with fire, specious lawfare with specious lawfare, is a sucker.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
It's hard to see that 90 days is sufficient to conclude trade deals with most of the countries in the world (TPP took over 8 years to conclude), it's just a panic button.
That depends on whether or not you believe that long trade negotiations occur as a means of negotiating trade, or as a means of furnishing the sinecures of lazy trade negotiator bureaucrats.
We saw the same thing with Brexit and the length of negotiations were all BS there too. In no possible universe is [https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-eu-laws-bananas-retained-eu-law “How bendy can a banana be”] a legitimate negotiating question.
I’m not saying that no parents are short-termist psychopaths, I’m saying that no childfree people aren’t short-termist psychopaths.
Outsourcing the necessary work of (both literal and figurative) species reproduction to god-knows-who (and in all likelihood it’s to 7-kids-per-woman educationless Third Worlders) is a rather spectacular indicator that you Just Don’t Give A Shit, no matter what prosocial rhetoric might come out of your mouth.
More options
Context Copy link