@FeepingCreature's banner p

FeepingCreature


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 311

FeepingCreature


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:42:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 311

Verified Email

I kinda like the idea as a reporting feature, along the lines of "I don't think this comment requires mod action, but it may benefit from mod support/feedback/supervision/private conversation."

Yeah Space Exploration feels almost like playing a vanilla extension. I have my own beefs with it - all the SE science recipes are basically the same layout (three rows of fluid buildings that eat data cards, one aggregate, two wildcards and then you make the science) but it's mostly just a great normal ride, no difficulty adjustment, not much playstyle adjustment aside from, well, planets. :)

I will say that I strongly recommend playing it with friends. The multiple planets allow, or rather borderline require, division of labor. We play with a bunch of added mods on top, LTN, LTN Manager, Factory Planner, Inventory Sensor (this makes reactors ~ 10x easier to design), TODO List and Quick Item Search. I recommend all of them, even though LTN is less necessary now and it's still a bitch to configure - don't use it without LTN manager.

@ZorbaTHut Could you set the frontpage to Hot rather than New by default? Would make it easier for posts like this to disappear.

hi :-)

Hot take: doxing is still bad actually.

I mean, I think banning all links is going too far, but if you think they're a danger to others, call the police - and if not, I think people should stay out of others' personal life unless explicitly invited.

I mean - yes.

Discussing noncontroversial things is good training for discussing controversial things, because it's a lot easier to discuss dispassionately.

How is LOTR gnostic? Offhand, it doesn't seem to match your description at all.

I've never seen anybody use this phrase here. I don't think it's what people are thinking of with the "less heat, more light" idiom, or if so, it's so metaphorically removed there's no relevance.

Correct, utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics are intercompatible: "My utility is maximized if I behave in accordance with the rules/in a virtuous fashion" vs. "The rule I follow is utilitarianism; utilitarianism is the most virtuous form of behavior." But generally, utilitarianism just means you rate worldstates in a one-dimensional numeric fashion; it doesn't say anything about the nature of your preference. The utility function is not up for grabs. Similarly, I could say, idk, Randian ethics are not virtue ethics because I don't recognize their target as virtuous, but that's just not how those terms work: they're about the way in which you pursue the good / the rules / your preferences, not what those preferences are.

Now, lots of utilitarians, especially in these spaces, are also liberal humanists, and so rate all human life equally, and there are certainly arguments to be had for or against that, but neither side has a monopoly on "utilitarianism".

I can guarantee you that the local homeless guy would get more out of the $165 I recently earned than I will.

It's not ... directly obvious that this is true. Consider the stereotype of him spending it all on crack or booze. It may also depend on the region. There's probably studies on this; could you link them?

If you're hiring a lot of people but don't want to switch to blind hiring entirely, you can maybe do blind hiring spot-tests, where you get a preliminary accept/reject for a candidate via the regular process, then mask out or randomize the name and rerun the process. The distributions should be the same. If they aren't, that provides evidence that blind hiring may be better.

I don't think it's a given that death is more humiliating than jail.

I'd presume a large part of the point of jailing white-collar criminals is to prevent first offenses.

Is that insufficiently or invalidly bad?

Imagine, to pose an unreasonable extreme, everything beautiful in the world becoming ugly and disfigured. That would be a mere aesthetic change, but it would also drive near anyone to suicide. If we are agreed that this should ought to be prevented, we can then begin negotiating degrees.

Depends how close to the border you get. As a high-german speaker, I can say from experience that spoken Plattdeutsch is completely unintelligible to me. I'd have had more luck talking to that person in English - which is a problem if you're trying to book a room for the night! :) (We got through it with sign language.)

Might it just be that your aesthetic preference is different? Ie. you're judging the outcome by your own aesthetics rather than by the badness with which parent would perceive the outcome in this case?

commonly, historically and almost necessarily any virus allowed to replicate freely would turn less deadly with time since killing hosts is not conducive to spreading rapidly

Layman: This is true on average, but viruses have avenues to become more deadly without hurting spread. For instance, Long Covid does not penalize the coronavirus at all, because it happens after it has already propagated. Anyways, viruses can become more deadly and spread worse, then they just ... spread worse. They can still spread for other reasons, for instance immune escape.

Regardless, it's important to keep in mind that viruses are never selected for killing the host, it just happens as a side effect that sometimes (short incubation) has pressure to avoid it. All the killing that viruses do is coincidence to begin with. That's one reason why viruses may become more deadly, because it's a random walk to begin with.

I mean, I don't know if that's the case, but conversely maybe the poster is only there because their ancestors stayed within the same ten mile radius for the past four generations doing roughly the same job handed down the family line. Even if not, certainly people like that exist; are their preferences invalid?

Eh. I think there's a spectrum. The German government is trying to avoid paying the cost of supporting Ukraine as much as possible, because that cost will be internally unpalatable. That doesn't translate to rapprochment with Russia, which is broadly a domestic nonstarter.

I think it's that the pro-Ukraine position has broad support but is also new enough that politicians have not yet figured out how it's sliced. It's less that 70% are for supporting Ukraine, and probably more that parties are uncomfortable with how many people in their own electorate support Ukraine. There's no "common knowledge" that any party's votership is pro-Ukraine or anti-Ukraine.

If 70% of people want a product with feature A, and 22% want a product with feature B, then 100% of products will have feature A unless a company can figure out how to target the B market segment reliably. (Preferably both at once, of course.)

I'm sorry... Nyans? XD Is there a meme behind that or is it just that they sound similar? I have to know!

I think this is an overly restrictive reading. A communist still accepts that capitalism exists. Likewise, a libertarian may accept as a matter of fact that state regulation exists. Then starting from that position, the libertarian may have an opinion on what manner of adjustment to that regulation makes the system more free, or less free, even in a libertarian sense.

The domain of opinion of a political system is not limited to a complete instantiation of that system - and well so, because otherwise it would be impossible to reshape society to your wishes. You have to be able to target smaller steps than complete instantaneous replacement.

Once you notice a coincidence, you become sensitized for further coincidences in the same class.