ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
13d ago
I have never objected to the idea that regulation can kill innovation. Try again. Actually read what I've said and respond to it rather than a strawman. You have to at least try.
ControlsFreak
13d ago
"Artists" aren't real artists. They're just programmers and engineers at tech companies who developed a culture of believing that if they just imagined really hard that they were artists, it would be a good excuse for not being regulated. This culture grew out of the 90s and just happens to be a useful rationalization for them to refuse to do anything that seems "boring" to them. Sure, every other industry has boring parts of the job that need to be done in a proper fashion, but this cultural imagination gives them an excuse to object and only ever chase the "cool" stuff, no matter how much damage it does to the world. How long did they put off doing any sort of vulnerability work (except the "cool" red-teaming stuff) before it became such an incredible thorn in the side of the industry (and the world that uses their tools) that they were existentially forced to figure out some cultural modifications to actually manage a vulnerability disclosure and response cycle, pulling bodies away from the "cool" stuff and assigning them to "boring" patching work?
ControlsFreak
13d ago
Ok, so California required default passwords four years ago. Your nightmare world has already arrived. We've already crossed over the epsilon threshold. The boot has already eternally stomped the artist, and you should have already exited the terminally ill tech sector. I don't know why you're complaining now.
ControlsFreak
14d ago
Irrelevant. Obviously, people can choose to regulate something specific away. The question is whether there has been "any" innovation in "any" other industry (that is, the non-bits ones that have more regulation). Unless you're claiming that the US has no regulation on the oil/gas industry, the shale revolution, which literally has changed the world at a geopolitical scale, is a huge counterexample.
But there are many others. Space X. Ozempic. Etc. It's really hilarious to have all the huge techno-optimists, who think that AI and tech more broadly is going to revolutionize literally everything, and at the same time, they imagine that the tiniest amount of regulation on fucking light bulbs will grind literally everything to a halt.
ControlsFreak
14d ago
I can easily commit to saying that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in the UK any time soon.
Bruce Schnier noted that California had already implemented at least the number one item. Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?
No chinesium lightbulb maker is ever going to bother with formally proving their code is correct because they don't care.
I don't believe anything in this requirement is aimed at formal code verification methods. I don't think that's a requirement that is on the table anywhere, except for perhaps some niche customers (e.g., military/space). Probably not even at most "critical infrastructure" places that could blow up or whatever.
I mean, honestly, if that's about all you have to say for what results from this, that no chinesium lightbulb maker is going to meet a standard that hasn't been proposed and that some critical application spaces are going to pay for good stuff anyway, that's kind of a nothingburger? Like, abstract senses about Europe (not even the UK) and wild references to John Galt aren't really "concerns" that can be addressed in context of the very specific document that we have in front of us. It really seems like you just don't have any meaningful concern that we can investigate.
ControlsFreak
14d ago
Your original post expresses considerable contempt for "tech folks" and demonstrates absolute joy for us having regulation "dropped" on us "in a much stronger way that you really won't like." This really doesn't fit with an idea that you think the regulations will be anything like easy or simple to follow
This does not follow. It's just a non sequitur. It can be easy and simple to follow, but incredibly grating to the personality of "artists". They don't like coloring inside the lines, even if it's easy and simple to follow.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I mean, you're missing alllll sorts of qualifiers that would be needed in order to accommodate your meta-ethical position. Like, you could have easily said, "You think that Catholics and Protestants think that violent terrorism between Catholics and Protestants...." But you didn't. Because you wanted to heavily imply that there was a generic moral truth of the matter. It is only after pressed that you revealed that this was a slight of hand.
Moreover, when SlowBoy clarified that he didn't believe in god, it would be a clear indicator that he was not asking for an answer of the type that your meta-ethical position would allow without specific qualification. Again, I think you just shrugged this aside in order to be able to imply that you were speaking about a generic moral truth of the matter... just playing hide-and-seek, violating the norms of discourse. I just ask that you be on the lookout for this conflation in the future and be more precise to avoid confusion. I'll try to help keep an eye out.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
I think you missed most of my comment.
Fyfe's attempt pretty much grabbed Marks' descriptive theory, but then pretty inexplicably tried just grafting utilitarianism onto it, and it basically doesn't make any sense. He swears that desires are the only reasons for action, because he thinks he has to have this strong rule to keep any sort of god from floating back into the picture... but then immediately introduces a "Golden Rule" (I don't want to look up his exact wording, but the 'do things that tend to fulfill desires' rule). This "Golden Rule" just comes from magic; moreover, it immediately breaks the idea that the only reasons for action are desires. For if no agent in the system desires the "Golden Rule", where does it come from? He can't take the Marks exit (which is not a "Golden Rule" at all, but instead positioned as simply a piece of practical advice for how one can vet their own desires and then go about achieving them). There really is just nothing to save it; it's self-contradictory, pretty quickly.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
I think something 'like' Fyfe style, desire utilitarianism is probably the best moral theory out there; and if that isn't true
I might have some bad news for you... this attempt is pretty bad. It gets basically no play in academic works, for good reason. It was a result of peak Internet Atheism, where the trend was that one of the biggest pain spots (places where Internet Atheists felt like they were getting crushed argumentatively) was morality. This led to a bunch of different offshoot directions. Most academically-credible was Joel Marks' desirism, but that version was explicitly anti-realist, TBH not really much of a contribution to the moral question beyond that of Mackie (he was trying to conjure up a slightly different descriptive theory of ethics, attempting to position it apart from morality). Another example would be whatever words you want to use to describe whatever the hell it is that Sam Harris went off to try doing.
Fyfe's attempt pretty much grabbed Marks' descriptive theory, but then pretty inexplicably tried just grafting utilitarianism onto it, and it basically doesn't make any sense. He swears that desires are the only reasons for action, because he thinks he has to have this strong rule to keep any sort of god from floating back into the picture... but then immediately introduces a "Golden Rule" (I don't want to look up his exact wording, but the 'do things that tend to fulfill desires' rule). This "Golden Rule" just comes from magic; moreover, it immediately breaks the idea that the only reasons for action are desires. For if no agent in the system desires the "Golden Rule", where does it come from? He can't take the Marks exit (which is not a "Golden Rule" at all, but instead positioned as simply a piece of practical advice for how one can vet their own desires and then go about achieving them). There really is just nothing to save it; it's self-contradictory, pretty quickly.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
Nope. Not ignoring. Looking at the funnel plot. Weak evidence of weak positive effects. But, ya know, I already very clearly stated how my claim was different from the question that meta-review was analyzing. You seem to have not read it, so you're just sort of talking to yourself.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
the passable positive studies find weak evidence of weak effects
Congrats! We agree!
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
You know that you can search for pre-2019 papers, right? Citing a post-COVID review is likely shot through with motivation, one way or the other. In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit. Not surprising, given the wide array of different situations/interventions/adherence that they're having to muddle through in this type of meta-review. My position is vastly smaller in scope and cannot be dismissed by simply citing such a large agglomerating meta-review. Masks/quarantining/such can have a small effect of reducing risks in small, discrete settings. That is saying nothing about widespread use, which is rife with all sorts of weird interactions, adherence effects, etc. We don't have to say anything about that mess of a problem to be able to say, "If your sister is sick, do you think you're more likely to catch the disease from her if you both just stay at your respective houses all week, or if she comes over and sleeps in your bed with you all week?" We don't need to say anything about that big mess of a problem to say, "If your sick sister comes over for a few hours, does wearing a mask for the short period of time and washing hands help your probability a little bit over hugging and kissing?"
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
They were not really analyzed at all in that discussion.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
ROFL if you think it was "covered" in that discussion. That thread has no real analysis or meaningful argument that they cancel out. It's just throwing up casual thoughts into basically one-liner comments, likely by non-experts. It's classic shit tier internet forum 'analysis'.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
Wow, I forgot how utterly terrible many translations of that passage are. Huge oof when you look at the Greek, then back to this translation, then back to the Greek. Just amazingly atrocious attempts to squeeze in the translators' preferred beliefs.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to the dangers of that type of censorship power, but censorship powers and the cultural/political dysentery they produce don't really hit on what was claimed:
How can you be richer than other people? You can have more wealth than them, or you can take resources and opportunities from them. Currently the elites are all in on the latter plan, not even secretly, pods/bugs/own nothing is a tired meme.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
I definitely won't take any objections from you in the future as being made in good faith.
That makes two of us.
I've given you the opportunity to explain where you perceive unfairness, and all you can do in response is be smarmy.
Let's work step-by-step. What was your complaint? And what was my response?
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
Ok, so it's a "property" that is "possessed" by some metaphysical systems. Great. You've also said that metaphysics is not amenable to exploration via the means of science, which is a constrained endeavor. Presumably, then, you would agree that when you say "evidence", you're not meaning "scientific evidence", for that would immediately fall directly into the obvious trap of mistaking methodological constraints for metaphysical theory. So, uh, what do you mean when you speak of "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence"?
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
It is inherently an aspect of any metaphysical system
So, you're saying that it's a metaphysical system? Or that it's a component of a metaphysical system? Something like that?
To people like Goodguy, the only point is to hear himself call his ideological opponents irrational. That is the ground where the battle has been declared.
There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the universe operates according to a mechanistic evolution of relatively simple laws of physics, with no external intervention at all.
What experiment have you conducted which demonstrates equality between methodological constraints of science and metaphysical theory of ontology?
EDIT:
That's a relatively new one in these parts eh? Leave aside arguing why my ideology is superior, let me claim that yours is just as bad. I can see this is an immensely convincing argument.
Also, it's telling that you didn't come to say that... to Goodguy, who, after all, did nearly nothing but say that someone's ideology is just as bad as another one. Big oof by you, but telling of the fact that you're far more critical of things you're predisposed to disagree with than things you're predisposed to agree with.
ControlsFreak
6mo ago
Not a goalpost shift at all. Instead, I'm just trying to fill in the details of the argument and trying to figure out where his goalposts are. There could be other things in the middle. Like, perhaps you're proposing:
- Ichthyosis vulgaris exists.
- ??? [something coming from reality]
- Such a Creator could not create a physical universe where "real bad non-fundamental shit" exists, however that term in quotes is defined in the previous premises.
- Therefore, the person allowing it to exist isn't omnibenevolent or at least not that and capable of doing anything about it.
I think you still have some question marks to fill in. But thanks for starting to specify where you think the goalposts should be. We didn't even have that before.
ControlsFreak
6mo ago
I did not ask whether it confirmed that materialism and rationalism are correct. I asked which part of your materialism and rationalism the conclusion that an Omnibenevolent loving Creator could not create a physical universe where even a single bad thing happens came from.
ControlsFreak
8mo ago
I’ve always felt like it’s absolutely on the woman if she doesn’t want sex to make it absolutely perfectly clear with no contradictory signals.
Let's look at the tape.
The former person has at least walked it back to, "The debate is only on the magnitude of the effect.", and we have proceeded to have a more fruitful conversation since then. The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims other than that the only thing you can do is to make it so that the industry "can't produce the new stuff any more". If they would like to walk this back from being in the land of hyperbole and into the land of reasoned argumentation, we'll be making some progress.
More options
Context Copy link