EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7mo ago
Polarizing and niche appeal people like Musk often doom their own projects to niche appeal by the very fact of being involved, for one. Nearly any other mainstream tech-famous figure would have far more cachet right away, or even a determined but unknown media whore. This matters not just for getting users to the site and retaining them (obviously important - see the failure of Truth Social), but also because at the current state of AI to do this you functionally need human volunteers to supervise said AI, and so you want to cast that net more widely. You want curious and motivated people, not tech castoffs with an axe to grind against the “establishment”. Making an encyclopedia is foundationally an establishment thing to do anyways, the ideas are not very nicely compatible. Wikipedia’s faults are in execution, not a flaw in the core mission or even necessarily in its processes. One reason why all challengers have failed was attempting to reject that - more similar projects have their oxygen stolen by the more mature free product, but that’s obviously not a concern for an AI encyclopedia which is a novelty in and of itself, and at least theoretically could offer some things Wikipedia cannot.
And don’t get me wrong, given the recent history of Grok models, not only would Grok need a lot of hand holding, it’s quite possible even with said help it would be flatly incapable of obtaining an acceptable final product. Some smart engineering might allow current gen models to achieve some sort of success, but that’s again something where the engineering is often the point, not the final output. As an example, it would be genuinely interesting to see if a horde of slightly differently tuned and varied models are able to produce an emergent AI “wisdom of the crowds” equivalent, or would get stuck in certain fail states. Musk gets this paradigm all wrong, because he is plainly treating the project as both advertising for his specific shitty model, as well as a partisan vehicle to launder his sociopolitical complaints into greater coherence or acceptability. These are not sustainable directions on multiple fronts.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7mo ago
Something like Grokipedia is a good and valuable idea, even if poorly monetizable and requiring a lot more money and effort than was spent here. In fact setting up agentic loops to produce Wikipedia would be a fascinating and useful study and playground for AI models.
Musk is the wrong one to do this and Grok is the wrong tool for the job besides.
However, I expect something like it to eventually exist.
“Very few other reasons” is also not a good standard for regular use of deadly force. If you’re not actively at war, which we are not (certain Mexican cartels are functionally at war with the Mexican military but not our own), then if not a beyond reasonable doubt standard, you need to be in that similar ballpark. That innocent reasons are unlikely does not make them impossible.
The entire point of having a different standard for actual war is that different standards inherently apply. But philosophically and legally, using wartime standards because you’ve used some kind of indirect killing logic is a terrible, terrible precedent. Actual terror groups have histories of directly and intentionally killing Americans, and so there is legally and philosophically more latitude. Drug cartels sell drugs to other people, who sell those drugs to Americans, who occasionally misuse the drugs and kill themselves (which the cartels don’t even want to happen because it deprives them of ongoing revenue)*. That’s… morally still somewhat direct, but the famously law is about far more than just morality. Doubly so when it comes to lethal force, something which definitionally is irreversible in multiple ways. Which, weirdly, is under appreciated in our society today.
(*Vertical integration among cartels varies widely and intentionality can vary, so there’s a theoretical maximalist case where a completely vertically integrated cartel deliberately laces their drugs with lethal doses and use false marketing to directly sell them to Americans only, but that’s not even something the Trump admin has bothered to argue and is highly implausible to boot).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
7mo ago
I see two main issues. One, is that actually a fair characterization of all SYG laws, that they only narrowly remove avoidance? I remember seeing it strongly argued that #1 was often directly undermined or made irrelevant by such laws, though I’m not sure about the truth of that. Related, and you see this a bit in the thread, is that SYG sort of “begs the question” in a sense where the very presence of a gun re-interprets a fight as lethal disfavorably to a would be assailant quite often. I realize sympathy for assailants is low around here, but common law does usually support the idea that e.g. a fistfight or an unarmed mugging is usually not a fight to the death (of course intentionality matters). The presence of a gun obviously changes the calculus. But who assumes this extra risk, is the operative question? I appreciate what SYG laws are trying to do but I do wonder if the matter is quite as clear cut as you say. As an example, should a conscious decision to bring a gun to an otherwise nonlethal dispute have any bearing on the legal responsibility, and do SYG laws impact that kind of finding?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
You can tell civil war is not the trajectory because of a few things. A non exhaustive list includes the simple fact that the George Floyd protests eventually stopped. That kind of street protest is not the new normal. Even slavery which was a far more potent issue than all of those today took decades and decades and decades to result in war.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Isn’t that just MLK-ism? The whole “unjust laws” bit, how it doesn’t challenge the legal legitimacy but rather the moral legitimacy, and despite the time worn temptation is to conflate the two they are not the same. I’d want to see more elaboration of this point than jump to that assumption. Unless you have an actual issue with MLK-ism?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
This is a shooting based on anti police sentiment. There’s no strong connection between that and the debate here, which is about anonymity.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
But not, notably, targeted ambushes. A 2014 report claimed somewhat lazily that about a quarter of all ambushes had an assailant that had a prior relationship (broadly and vaguely defined) with the officer. Two thirds were spontaneous. Reading between the lines, the reasonable assumption is that it’s probably more like 1 in 8 ambushes that loosely fits your profile (ambushes themselves seem to be maybe a quarter of all “officers get shot at”). And I suspect ambushes where a very specific officer is the actual and only target is small, even there I’m not convinced their name being public is moving the margins much.
Dont get me wrong policing in general is “fucked”. I wouldn’t want to be one. In the general sense though, we do trade cop deaths for other benefits, much like we trade other deaths for other benefits all the time. It’s normal in a society. Cold as it may sound, it seems the marginal drawbacks to no-mask policy are worth the non-marginal gains in trust. And for that matter, at least naively my first assumption is that ICE agents are more, not less, safe from targeted retribution (presumably mostly gangs and cartels) because they know escalation doesn’t benefit them (stateside).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Words are words, and actions are actions. If ICE agents actually come to major and life threatening harm as a direct result of city-mandated inaction, that’s one thing. If the Chicago mayor says inflammatory things that’s another. Trump floated using the Insurrection act, but it’s a major stretch from the actions POV (which is what matters way, way more in legal matters) to jump straight to claiming actual insurrection and rebellion. Trump has gotta sit and wait for evidence. Much like I disapprove of “declaring” emergencies (IMO you need to have, you know, an actual emergency and not just a political agitation) I strongly disapprove of that kind of crackdown based on what “might” happen. I know it kind of sucks if you’re convinced overreach is inevitable (on either side!) but the simple sucky fact is that usually you need to wait for things to actually happen (or not happen) before you can take the next step. Perception of inevitability is time-proven to be not at all equal to actual inevitability.
And on the facts the local government will always be reasonable for preventing the feds from setting up in school district parking lots (the practical and contextual issue at hand, less so some kind of Seattle lawless zone 2.0). It’s reasonable for the city to object to these actions hindering the normal and peaceful operation of their city. Even if you’re a “make immigrants uncomfortable on purpose” type, there’s a compelling public interest in making schools off-limits.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
I am terrified of wasps and yellow jackets. But ticks are not to be underestimated - I say, out of maybe irrational fear, because I don't live and haven't lived in major tick-infested locations, but the idea that I could go hiking and end up with a life-changing inability to eat meat without even realizing is scary
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Honestly I don’t mind EA as much as some of the other mega studios. They put out some decently fun Star Wars games, BioWare was BioWare’s own fault apparently, Apex is okay, Split Fiction and It Takes Two are examples of creative games rare elsewhere, their bombed games rarely break my heart. I’d like them to be a little looser with owned but semi dormant IP, but that’s every big company.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
I mean, they already did this in the 2010s with Battlefiled One, did they not? I don’t think it will happen again for a bit. Their next game is maybe 50% likely to be another Bad Company or Vietnam era one, 30% it’s a Cold War one, 20% something else (maybe 10% space age and 10% a 90s/2000s confused middle)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
It’s a play for hearts and minds of current young Americans, and it’s probably working. Youth today probably don’t think of Saudi Arabia in the same breath as Iran, and that’s what they want.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Look, I don’t know about inner circles or whatever, but on a practical basis if China had control over TikTok then if war ever actually was threatened (eg Taiwan, and I’m a doomer there) TikTok would become overnight one of the single most powerful and effective propaganda weapons ever known. Yes, it’s a national security threat. At the very least if the algorithm is in Oracle’s hands, it’s a lot easier for the US to take further steps if, for example, Israel actually became an opponent or whatever.
True, but our belief in a single authorized baptism is also accompanied by a belief that said baptism can be accepted even after death, so it’s not exclusionary as a complete package! And you really do need to include both, seems to me. It’s not as if this is the only very significant theological difference among Christian sects.
Well, qualified in one respect. It’s not as if we think that God ignores the prayers or genuine authentic intentions toward God of others. Functionally someone who confesses a sin to a Catholic priest, exercises faith in Christ, repents of their ways, is essentially forgiven (or will be) - just the priest didn’t actually serve an official role in it. So I guess I still don’t quite see it. Perhaps similar to how many Christian sects have walked back beliefs that the unbaptized can literally never enter heaven and won’t get a chance to, Mormons have also toned back the emphasis on how other sects are all extremely misled people. Early LDS history, (in)famously, was not quite the same - many especially older Mormons even thought of the Catholic Church as a somewhat devilish deception. So in that sense there’s an argument to be made that this distinction is no longer as true as it used to be.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Not Tenaz but my take, and I think you even concede this at one point, is that the word Christian itself is best understood as a perspective looking from the outside, not an inward one of self-identity. A Muslim or atheist will feel labeling Christians as such quite natural, because the doctrine emphasizes, well, Christ. I feel even better about this definition because it’s the one the Bible itself uses! At least initially. Note Acts 11, the first usage, is strongly implied to be a moniker given by the crowds to these new-breed not-quite-Jews, and even predates the official expansion to Gentiles.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
I think it’s more accurate that we think of God the Father as… a father. Parents want their children, broadly, to grow up and become good people and raise their own families. Why would our Father be any different? Partly why our doctrine so highly emphasizes family, while some Christians even believe that all family bonds are meaningless and dissolved upon death. Thus “growing up” is not disrespect to a father, and it also doesn’t dissolve those relationships, so the idea of being Jesus’ equal still feels sacrilegious to most Mormons, even if the doctrine implies something of the sort (and there are plenty of doctrinal implications, but not as much hard official doctrine, so that’s all they usually are, at the end of the day all Christians can but speculate about certain aspects of heaven and eternal life).
I’m trying (was trying?) really hard not to explicitly litigate the Christian point unless someone wants me to, but I do want to register that part of the Mormon dissatisfaction with your reading of the situation is that while any Mormon will freely concede the first point about the Trinity beliefs being decently different, the point about seeing Jesus as insufficiently divine is seen as rooted in a false and/or bigoted understanding of our doctrine. As a trivial example, we believe Jesus to be Jehovah of the Old Testament. So while we might call ourselves, I dunno, 80% the same about Jesus’ role and identity, maybe higher, others seem to feel that the figure is something like 10% - which, wherever you put the actual figure, it’s definitely not there. As a matter of “general religion”, viewed broadly, we LDS consider Jesus’ atonement and assumption of our sins an absolute and pivotal requirement to get to “heaven” and in fact to avoid eternal death. Sure there are some divergent ideas about what heaven looks like but isn’t that a bit… academic? Especially when traditional Judaism doesn’t even stress a concept of Heaven and Muslims specifically reject Jesus as having a special role altogether, so when people lump us in with them it feels even more strange and absurd. And even more so when you consider that the internal model one has of the true nature of God debate has, in practical terms, almost zero outward manifestation. We even use the same key phrase that Catholics and many other Christian churches require to mutually recognize baptism. And it’s not like if you talk to a regular Christian about the nature of God, they won’t say something that violates the Nicene Creed is a not insignificant number of cases in pretty short order.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
As a Mormon, I have access to the Mormon rumor-news network via my mother, which can confirm that the Robinsons are Mormon - it’s been a bit so can’t remember specifics but the guys who talked him down from suicide and into turning him in? His home ward bishop (volunteer pastor-ish), and due to worries about being treated roughly or poorly if he just confessed to random cops, I believe it was a former young men’s leader who was a part time sheriff or something along those lines that used his connections to make him turning himself in discreet.
Regarding anti-Mormon sentiment (violence is rare), I will say that despite us being quite long-suffering, we still might be at least the third most badmouthed religion in America after maybe Jews and Muslims - yet receiving the least popular protection. Just this very week, BYU played Colorado and sure enough the student section had some “Fuck the Mormons” chants. Can you imagine the media shitstorm if people chanted that against Jews, Muslims, or heck even Baptists? But nope, it’s the Mormons, no one cares. It’s a double standard. Nothing new for us of course. The leader of the church who passed away also this last week at 101 (a pioneering heart surgeon on the bleeding edge of open heart surgery in the 50s and 60s, on the team that developed the heart lung machine, who brought open heart surgery to Utah as only the third state with such abilities, and more) spent a lot of time talking about being peacemakers, especially in private life, an approach diametrically opposed to that of many other right wing religious ecosystems and also the growing chorus of advocates for political vengeance (though admittedly general politics does not always dovetail with private politics). At any rate, it’s heartbreaking that the people first shot were literally people going to assist someone they almost certainly assumed had crashed their truck in an accident, and that said attack put a child as young as 6 iirc in the hospital.
If anything can be said about cultural and political significance from this shooting and its aftermath, it’s that the right is not immune to the fact that all victims are not created equal. While many right wing commentators will loudly point out that leftists tend to be bothered more by certain idpol crimes than others, lo and behold rightists are also bothered more by certain idpol crimes than others. Yes the Kirk shooting had more explicitly political implications but there is an unmistakable relative silence here. As just one example, I looked up the first MAGA type Senator that came to mind: Josh Hawley. Not even a tweet about it. Yet yesterday, we do get another tweet about Kirk, and not even a banal one: “Charlie Kirk would debate anybody and do it cheerfully. That’s what we do as Americans. Meanwhile, Democrats’ insane rhetoric is causing deranged people to commit deranged crimes. It needs to end”. The Bible thumping Christian Senator from, okay yes, Missouri, doesn’t care. Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville posted single tweets without using the C word of course. Ted Cruz? Not a peep - but four tweets today about murders in DC!
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
Perhaps the buried lede is that Egypt wants to do it themselves but don’t currently have the technical chops or funding to pull it off - especially if it would require pumping out water without making the whole thing collapse?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
I’d say civil indoctrination isn’t wildly effective but it does provide a decent “anchoring” effect, where kids assume it as a baseline truth and adjust from there, rather than a first exposure be TikTok.
Also the point about mandatory service seems strange since many countries do it, and it doesn’t seem to have the same claimed impact. If anything, it often permanently disillusions young men who are experience a lot of the “sitting around bored” aspect, and witness corruption firsthand, at least in cases like Taiwan and South Korea. I assume you could figure out a better donated labor system - the Inca would have people build roads or otherwise build stuff in addition to military service and it worked well - but that would be a pretty broad change and difficult to implement well.
Outside of a major economic collapse, that is.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
It’s a relevant fact. Not to ICE, you’re right that they like police often toss prejudicial technically-facts in press releases all the time. But to the district, because it’s against policy to carry guns onto school properties there, so if those are regularly in his car they are regularly showing up at schools. (Now do I care actually, and is that a good policy? Not actually sure.)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
In theory yes, in practice nearly every superintendent wants to make their “impact” and so tosses any program affiliated with a predecessor and replaces it with their own shiny new toy that they obligate teachers to drop everything and follow. And yes, it’s horribly inefficient.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8mo ago
In a just world we would have passed legislation allowing prosocial and well behaved people the chance to make their decades-long participation in the country’s social and economic fabric official. Maybe tax them higher for a while as a sort of restitution or something.
We do not have such laws as far as I can tell. So in the absence of such, I see no fundamental issue with deporting him, even if it’s morally mean and probably counterproductive. I also don’t begrudge people mad about it, you know, unjust laws exist and objecting to those is normal political discourse, though this concept is on a sliding scale. Does the lack of a just law “fixing” an unjust situation have equal impact as a literal on the books unjust law? Can we allow characterization of an otherwise just law as unjust by virtue of ‘external’ flaws alone? Those questions aside, in that light some conservatives rub me the wrong way when they insist that it’s a clinical issue with correct and incorrect answers, and ‘why could liberals possibly be so mad’ is a dumb thing to wonder.
I do often wonder about what it must be like to live for decades presumably looking over your shoulder. I once drove with expired plates for nearly a year (insurance was current though) and I was constantly a little bit on edge every time I saw a cop car, and then some. Not fun, a little tiring. To do the same for decades? I guess if enforcement is spotty maybe you just forget - perhaps it was only a year or so of this (since the deportation order).
Possibly unrelated: I have no issue working for even big defense contractors, generally speaking, although a few friends and two siblings might disapprove some. But ICE? Personally I find the idea of working for them right now morally repugnant. That’s not to say ICE shouldn’t exist or anything, but my conscience simply would not allow it.
I hope you knew what you were getting into bringing up Sleeping Beauty, haha. I have a degree in statistics (which doesn't necessarily grant me as much insight into probability theory as you might imagine) but I usually avoid getting into the weeds by simply stating that the question: "What does probability mean in real life?" is NOT a settled question, at all. You cannot escape bringing in philosophy. I recommend this Stanford encyclopedic entry for a pretty nice and thorough treatment/overview of some of the difficulties involved in what initially seems to be a simple word.
Put more simply, it's not fair to imply that there is a mathematically "correct" interpretation of probability. This is wrong. In fact you can axiomatize something mathematically in several different ways while still retaining most if not all desirable math traits we want out of "probability" (see link), even if many end up being fairly similar... with that said, however, you are correct as far as I'm aware that Sleeping Beauty is better seen as a semantic or definitional disagreement than a mathematical one per se. Even there, though, you go too far. You can make the math satisfy your basic probability axioms of your choice, whether you're a halfer or thirder alike, once you've defined a sample space (and thus what counts as a "trial") and any other relevant definitions have been clarified (especially clarifying what, precisely, is being conditioned on!!). In short, no experts consulted are making math mistakes, they merely are speaking in scissor statements, as we might say around here.
More options
Context Copy link