@ControlsFreak's banner p

ControlsFreak


				

				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					
joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1422


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ControlsFreak


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1422


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I sometimes wonder if Saddam Hussein was aware there were no WMDs in Iraq




I think the most believable retrospective history includes the idea that Saddam knew that there were no longer WMDs in Iraq, but he went to great lengths to obscure this fact, to the point that a significant portion of the chain of command of the Iraqi military absolutely believed that they did have them, planned their defenses around the expectation that they would have them, and had to scramble to replan after being blindsided by the fact that they weren't about to show up in the next month's logistics delivery.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We are now stating “presidents or vice presidents can accept bribes as long as it doesn’t harm the US?”




When you scratch the surface of many of the different attempts at lawfare against Trump, they're often undergirded by a necessary axiom: "The deep state, bureaucracy, The Party, whatever you want to call it, decides what is in the interest of the United States. If you do things that are counter to that decision, then it is inherently illegitimate, could only be for some nefarious personal interest, and is almost certainly illegal. But if you do things that are aligned with that decision, then you're a pretty good guy who really shouldn't be put through all the stress of, like, investigations and stuff. You're one of us." This was probably most obviously on full display during the first Trump impeachment.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed. On my read of the actual indictment, there are multiple purposes, and the crosstalk between them is what causes confusion of your type concerning what parts are supposed to support what charges. One purpose is to just yell "Trump falsely claimed" over and over again to provide negative affect and rally the troops. Another purpose is to actually present a cogent case, possibly one that could convince folks who are skeptical of the variety of different indictments as being thinly-veiled lawfare against a major political competitor.


Disclaimer: I'm a perennial skeptic on most of the various charges to date; I vastly prefer that we lived in a world where most of the facts presented in this indictment never happened; they are truly moving democracy in the wrong direction; nevertheless, I think it's important to be clearheaded about what is alleged, whether it's actually criminal, and why.


So the first thing I think the skeptic does is to ignore basically all the fluff about the former purpose. If you just read pretty much all the "Defendant falsely claimed" statements as "Defendant believed" (though perhaps was just wrong on the facts, once they all come to light), then nearly 90% of this indictment simply disappears. It's certainly not a crime to just be wrong on the facts or to have a situation where some people are saying one thing and others are saying another result in you believing the wrong thing, even if your belief is heavily influenced by personal political motivations (i.e., you really want to believe that there was something nefarious).


Then, I think what is nearly the only sentence in the indictment that might matter is "66. On the same day, at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings..." This is what needs to be fleshed out to convince the skeptic. AFAICT, nearly every other sentence about the fake elector scheme is pointing only to "co-conspirators". They quote conversations between other folks, but what did Trump actually do here, and what was his level of knowledge (required for the charge)? If they had quotes, one would imagine they would be dropped here alongside the others. 63 is trying to build the case for knowledge of Co-Conspirators 1/6. "...it's a crazy play so I don't know who wants to put their name on it." "Certifying illegal votes." '...none of them could "stand by it".' These are things straight out of a Matt Levine article that you don't want to have in your indictment, but usually when Levine is pointing them out, it's because it is a quote directly from the defendant or a quote of something said directly to the defendant ("Can you believe we're getting away with this crime?" sort of thing.) But even here, probably the best smoking gun they could muster for the knowledge requirement (otherwise they would have included better), it's still two layers away from Trump (co-conspirators 1/6 aren't even alleged to be part of this conversation, so at best, this is really "other people disagreed in their private conversations, elsewhere"). In a non-politicized trial of just a regular defendant, they would absolutely need to build a better record than this at trial to secure a conviction. Perhaps that could be done at trial, but at least as far as the document we have goes, it's still significantly lacking.


EDIT: I didn't want to actually dig up a real example from a real Matt Levine article when I wrote this, but I'm reading today's column, and it has a perfect example that has come up before:




“We are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro,” Binance’s chief compliance officer told another Binance executive back in 2018




Now that's how you drop a quote in an indictment to show that a particular individual has real knowledge that he's part of a conspiracy to commit illegal acts!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Science is an effective way to handle the material world...




Sorry, the what now? Where did that come from? I feel like I'm missing some axioms or something.






I could pretty immediately see the central flaws in a couple different attempts, so I kinda stopped paying attention to it as I drifted away from caring much about them more generally.








Wow, what a statement. If my position




Let me clarify what I meant. I could see the flaws in a couple different attempts to science their way across the is-ought gap to a scientific moral realism. This is not what you're doing, so it's not your position.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 30, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ohhhhh, that's pretty nifty, too! Thanks!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 30, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thanks! That's nearly perfect. One bookmark click and I can at least get the next two days in view. One more click gives me another two days.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for July 28, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


there was circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign worked with the GRU and Wikileaks to maximise the political impact of the leaks)




Not really.




The core claim of the Durham report is that there was insufficient evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime




Or really any of the people that they started investigating. It's very good that they eventually found some actually bad stuff like tax/bank fraud by people, but that had nothing to do with what they set out to do and what they allowed the public to believe about Trump for years on end. One would hope that they'd do a better job of finding tax/bank fraud without going on a massive fishing expedition on basically zero predication for partisan political purposes.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 30, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Very practical question today. I'm living in a new climate for me. I'd like to plan out the best day/time to mow my lawn at least a couple days in advance. For schedule reasons and for avoiding hotter temperatures, I'd love to mow in the mornings. However, I've noticed a significant amount of morning dew out lately, which is a real downer.


So, I'd like to be able to have some prediction for the next few days concerning the likelihood of significant dew. The standard weather forecast websites I go to all seem to give the current dew point, but not a prediction into the future. Any suggestions?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Science's core objective is to provide us with a reliable and predictive understanding of the natural world.




Of the what now? Where did that thing come from? All you have right now are some subjective perceptions.


EDIT: Historically, many New Atheist adherents leaned hard naive moral relativist, with nearly exactly the same positions as you. Adding on the papering over of how we go all the way from nothing to magic utility in one shot just sealed the deal for how close you are to where that community was, whether intentional or not. Of course, their naive moral relativism was the biggest thing that they were constantly taking Ls over in Internet Arguments, so a segment of them (including the aforementioned Sam Harris) pivoted hard toward trying to science away the is-ought gap and construct their own scientific moral realism. But yeah, I was more placing you pretty much exactly in that community, but prior to the pivot. Back in the day when I was most engaged in it. As I was getting a better phil education was when this turn started happening. I could pretty immediately see the central flaws in a couple different attempts, so I kinda stopped paying attention to it as I drifted away from caring much about them more generally.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm going to have to back out of this soon, because I can now tell that you've been too steeped in the New Atheists. There's not going to be much value in proceeding beyond simply suggesting that you spend a bit more time in some philosophy courses.


You've run absolutely roughshod over centuries of philosophical underpinnings of science, plus you've come to a plainly wrong conclusion to boot. Not a single word on what the actual object of science is, nor why such a thing should correlate in any way to "utility", whatever that means. If you lived in a Matrix where the only thing that seemed to bring you an ill-defined "utility" was pressing the experience-machine-go-heroin button, I guess that would be the proper domain of science or something.






moral relativism doesn't have the issue of needing to find a justification for moral axioms that as far as I can tell are fundamentally not possible to justify objectively. Can you explain to me how you can justify a moral axiom without relying on another moral axiom?








I would still like an answer to this please.




I'm sort of proceeding by reductio ad absurdum. Seeing how your test here would play out when turned against something you like. You seem vastly less willing to be even a tenth as stringent in favor of bounding over giant buildings in a single leap (of faith).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Is there going to be a machine capable of reading my 2020s era hard drive in 100 years?




So far in the history of electronics/computing, I feel like there have been few actual dead ends on the question of transferrability, particularly when the stored data is already digital (and my sense is that probably a majority of analog data resulted in at least one device capable of conversion to digital, even if it wasn't widely used). So, I think I'd be less worried about whether we can get your digital file off of your 2020s hard drive and onto whatever storage medium people will be using in 2120.


File interpretability seems like potentially a more difficult challenge. Look at all the old, like, DOS software that is becoming harder and harder to use. Sure, DOS emulation exists now, built to run in Windows, but if we jump to a new class of OS, who is going to write the new DOS emulator? Or are we going to end up with chains of "new OS emulates Windows, where we have a DOS emulator"? This would seem incredibly brittle and unlikely to be well-maintained enough to not inevitably have some significant number of original files become unsupportable.


That said, when it comes to digital books in particular rather than executables and other files generally, I wonder if I can reel us back a bit. If I fire up Calibre and look to convert a book, I see 18 options. Not all of them are really relevant, but there are a bunch. So I think the numbers game works in a different direction than that of the DOS example. The trend for executables seems to be toward not many different OSs, so if at any point, one backwards chain doesn't get emulated, you lose everything prior that was dependent on that chain. For pure data storage formats, if I can freely and easily replicate the same data in 10 different formats, all I need is one to make it into the new OS, and I've still succeeded. Hopefully, the same numbers game will happen in the new OS, and that one surviving format will become convertible into whatever ten new formats come along with the new OS. That the other nine died is immaterial in this case.


So, perhaps the strategy is that we just need to have people like you continuing to fill their hard drives, but make sure you don't collapse everything down to a single format. Have a script in Calibre or something that automatically converts every book into every format and store all of them simultaneously. Storage is cheap, especially with file sizes for books being so small.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The behavioral result is identical in my account and your moral realist account.




This is going to depend on things like the determinism/compatibilism/free will debate. It cannot be freely concluded.




The difference between the accounts is their explanatory power. moral relativism doesn't have the issue of needing to find a justification for moral axioms that as far as I can tell are fundamentally not possible to justify objectively.




This is not what it means to have more explanatory power. In fact, if it were, we could on similar grounds jettison the entire scientific endeavor for objective physical reality. No need to go to the trouble of looking for a justification when we can just happily settle for the subjectivist view.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You can say that they, the 21 people who believe cilantro is good - believe that cilantro is good.




Sure. You can say that the nazis believed that eliminating Jews is good. Nothing interesting seems to follow from this. On your view, there are no grounds on which we can say, "The nazis were wrong, and exterminating Jews is not good." We can only say, "There are some people over there who think that exterminating Jews is good and some people over there who think that exterminating Jews is bad. Nothing interesting seems to follow from this."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But it would certainly not be an error of language for you to say that those people over there believe that cilantro is good.




There's twenty-one people over there that like cilantro and one person who doesn't. I can't actually say that "they" believe that cilantro is good. In any event, you changed what it is that I said would be an error in language. I asked, "Looking at those twenty-two people, can I say that cilantro is "good" or "bad"? I think that even trying would be an error in language."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That two people happen to share some set of subjective things does not somehow elevate them to being any more primary. You and a buddy may both happen to share the taste axiom that you like cilantro. You may happen to share that with twenty buddies. Your experience is still secondary to them, even though they can find some familiarity with it. And it is utterly secondary to the twenty-second guy who dislikes cilantro. Looking at those twenty-two people, can I say that cilantro is "good" or "bad"? I think that even trying would be an error in language.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Instead, how about I say that subjective things can be overwhelmingly profound and important. They are in no way of less importance than physical material facts. They are not secondary.




I mean, your subjective things are pretty secondary to me. The same reason why the nazi's subjective things are secondary to you.




What is your honest moral judgement of my moral judgement of bad/evil people?




I think it's incorrect/incomplete.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Concerning risk of side effects, I still don't think you've answered the question. A variety of people may have different reasons to be tolerant of the risk of side effects. Some might be old, at higher risk, have fewer years to live. Others might have some other condition that bends their personal risk curve in favor of taking it. Others, like I mentioned, may have incredible amounts of their livelihood at stake. And there are other situations that we can't even think of. Why not just let them know the risks/uncertainties, trust that they know their own circumstances, and not make their decision for them?


Concerning limited supply, that's generally what the price mechanism is good at. Rather than having category upon category decreed by the government, when such politicized categories scarcely have anything to do with value, just let people buy it. Sure, you could buy some for some specific category where you know there is a need (like poor old people), but then just let people buy the rest of it. The price will help distribute it to people who have the most reason to get it (e.g., someone whose livelihood depends on it is likely to pay a higher price than someone who can work from home and is just a little inconvenienced by lockdowns). If the price starts out kind of high from limited supply, it also encourages people to pay significant attention to the risks involved, because if they're going to spend that money, they want to be pretty confident they know what they're getting for their money.


I would conclude from your points, limited supply and risk of side effects, that we should mostly just let people buy it, choosing on their own, from their own circumstances. Why do you think those points cut in the other direction? Why do you think they make it more likely that you're going to make a better decision for other people than they would make for themselves?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, you can do some encouraging for like old people and such. Whatever. But why not make it available to people who might have a reason to take it, but who aren't in your narrow category of people you know have reason to take it (i.e., old people)? Let them know the risks/uncertainties. They know their own circumstances.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I didn't say that I don't think you hate nazis enough, make strong judgments, say that your position is despicable or offensive. I just tried to understand and describe your position accurately.




I believe subjective things are truly real.




In what sense? Probably not in the traditional sense of the word.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What I would actually have done is a very accelerated rollout for the very elderly who had most to lose and then a more delayed rollout for everyone else.




The thing is, if you don't imagine that anything permissible must be mandatory, then you don't have to worry about making those decisions! Instead, you can put the information out there, including the appropriate statements about risk/uncertainty, then you can make it permissible, and your job here is done! People who have the most to lose, be it because they're elderly or because their livelihood depends on not being locked down, or any number of reasons that you haven't even thought of, can just make their own choice about how worth the risk it is! You don't even have to worry yourself to try to come up with a list of reasons why someone might choose to take it or not take it. They'll come up with that list for you, in a beautiful, distributed fashion!


Will some people make the "wrong" choice? Probably! But in the case where you're the one making the choices for everyone, will you sometimes make the "wrong" choice for some people? Probably! Why should society think that your choices for them are better than their own?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Hell, we have CDC advocating for adding COVID vaccine as mandatory schedule for kids. I think this decision is more about saving face for these experts than based on actual merit and prevention of severe illnesses among adolescents.




I won't be surprised if a requirement for the original COVID vaccine remains a part of immigration law for decades. Imagine marrying someone in the US after having come over to visit them dozens of times (vaccine-free), only to be told that you have to get a shot that has been obsolete for ten years... just so that some folks can save face about the political positions they took back in the day.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I guess I would say that evil and badness are states that I apply to things through judgement. Thereby attaching badness to the thing, subjectively. Another example would be beauty. It is real, but not a physical attribute.




It makes a lot of sense that you would intertwine these things. Like, some people would just find the Nazi regime to be beautiful, with the colors and the efficiency and all that. They just feel that way. One person just happens to like Nazis, feels like they're "beautiful" and "good", while another person just happens to dislike Nazis, feels like they're "ugly" and "bad". It's definitely an aesthetic thing, and that's just going to vary person-to-person; there's nothing actually about Nazis that makes them actually be "bad". Individual aesthetics very much develops over time via upbringing, education, cultural osmosis and to some extent reasoning.


I suppose you can be forgiven for using language too casually in a way that would normally seem to imply that there is something about Nazis that actually is bad, so long as you're able to clear it up. Would recommend you avoid using that language in the future, though.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The grounds on which I would claim they are bad is that they violate the expectations laid out by my own moral axioms.




That's grounds for saying that you don't like them, but it's not grounds for saying that they are bad. That badness is not actually attached to the thing; it is merely a state of mind that is attached to you. Why do you want to go further and claim/imply that there is some actual badness that attaches to the thing?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, lets say that Alice has somewhat different moral axioms to you. Would you say that her moral axioms are "bad"? On what grounds would you claim this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As such, this is another way that trying to transfer incomes has shot ourselves in the foot. We wanted to transfer incomes, so we came up with ideas like capping salaries or putting high taxes on high salaries. But the market still wants to pay people for skills, so various benefit schemes arose. Many of them have been slowly neutered, but the "healthcare and education are wonderful" effect makes it difficult to pull back on employers contributing to healthcare.


However, the guiding principle for healthcare policy is transferring incomes from the young, wealthy, and healthy to the old, poor, and sick. To do this without letting people in on the secret of just how insanely much it is doing this, it has to be designed in a way to maximally hide everything that is happening. So, nobody sees. Sure, I can kinda see how my mother is able to fight cancer using the best treatments in the world, hopping in to and out of the hospital as her condition goes up and down, while only paying her OOPM for the year so she doesn't even have to think about the "cost" of any given treatment choice... but I can't really see all the millions of people who are essentially forced to pay for it.


The side effects of all of this hiding are pretty brutal. First, since no one knows how much any actual thing costs, it leads to all the price inflation/"discount" games and ultimately, more money going to the healthcare industry. Since the healthcare industry benefits from this, they're more than happy to work with the government on the income transferring piece as a sort of baptists/bootleggers union. Second, they have to actually figure out how to force people to pay into the scheme, which results in the punishments needing to be harsh for people who are young and/or wealthy and/or healthy who try to opt out of having their income transferred away. Since it turns out to be slightly difficult to simply coerce individuals directly (see the individual mandate SCOTUS case) and because historical efforts to futz with the tax system resulted in widespread employer plans, by far the best mechanism the government can use to force people into this income transfer is by coercing employers. After all, they're the ones currently footing the accounting bill for a massive amount of the hidden costs!


The final result is a massive and perverse system that absolutely crushes people for, for example, lose their job and suddenly realize that buying their own insurance is incredibly expensive. We try to transfer incomes back to these folks via a variety of means, but the whole edifice of constant problems stems from our constant desire to transfer incomes more and more, in every situation possible, but trying to hide how much we're doing it.