Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I don't. If you think they were shitty and did shitty things you should feel free to say so.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I think it a dumb norm generally. One that does a lot of harm and we should do away with. This is not specific to my political enemies. Do you think we should avoid speaking ill of, even flattering, Jeffrey Epstein? Joseph Stalin? Mao Zedong? They are all dead!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Ok, but I don't think Kirk was a hypocrite. Do you think he understood himself, in that clip, to be saying something like "Ms. Rachel agrees with Leviticus 19 but not Leviticus 18... and so do I!" That he was a hypocrite about the bible in the same way he was criticizing? I rather think he believed it was a criticism that would not apply to himself, which entails taking scripture more seriously, and in this specific case agreeing with the part of scripture he brought up as an example.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Clip for the gay thing (I slightly misquoted) along with some additional context in this comment.
Ultimately, that claims boils down to Kirk said mean things about public figures based on a response from said public figures. You could say my summary is too charitable, I will respond that the other summary is too uncharitable, so one should look at the quote in context and make the decision for themselves how bad what Kirk said really is.
Yea I guess these public figures talking about how affirmative action helped them really forced Kirk into describing them as "not hav[ing] the brain power to be taken seriously." How could he have done anything else!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
They are also often assholes about it.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Why?
Because he was not a very nice person? He was very often a rude asshole. Please, watch this clip and tell me Kirk in it could be described as "kind" and "nice."
Wouldn't you want someone who believes in God's law in stoning people like you to death to make arguments to peacefully convince others through persuasion that this is correct?
No I would prefer they shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
The most likely alternative to that seems to be using violence to actually enact God's law (something that we know God's followers have historically not been shy about doing). And that tends to be less pleasant - and often more effective, sadly - than argumentation pretty often.
I don't know. I get the sense that if Kirk personally tried to enact God's law the most likely outcome is he would be dead or in prison from the attempt. That could be better than convincing a large number of people that gay people should be stoned to death for being gay.
Like, maybe his opinions were evil or beyond the pale or whatever. But he did seem rather nice and kind in how he tried to persuade people of his evil opinions. I think if both people with evil and good opinions decided to emulate his way of being nice and kind while commentating, I think America would be a better, safer place, especially for the types of people that would unfairly suffer if all the people who thought like Kirk decided to eschew scruples around niceness and kindness.
I defy you to watch the clip above and tell me that Kirk is "nice" and "kind" in it.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
If you think it was wrong to kill Kirk for his speech (as I do) then that's fine. If you want to go on to talk about what a great commentator he was and how kind and gentle and worthy of emulation he is, maybe you should quote some of the things he actually said.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Here is the clip where describes the section of Leviticus 18 about stoning men who have sex with men to death as part of "God's perfect law".
Here is the clip where he makes the comments about Ketanji Brown Jackson and others.
Edit for your edit:
The broader context in the clip above is that Kirk is criticizing Ms. Rachel for selectively quoting parts of Leviticus that she likes and ignoring the parts she doesn't. With the implication this makes her faith or invocation less sincere or authentic. That she is a hypocrite. For this to function as a contrast it would have to be the case that Kirk does not do the same thing, otherwise what is the point? Ms. Rachel selectively quotes scripture, just like me! So Kirk must either be consistent about believing the commands in Leviticus, presumably including the one he brings up, or his point in bringing it up is incoherent because it applies just as much to himself.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Charlie Kirk believed it was part of God's perfect moral law that people who are my friends, my family, my coworkers should be stoned to death. He described Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson (and other black women) as affirmative action hires who stole their spots from white people and who don't have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. This whole attempt to lionize Kirk after his death has been extremely black pulling, as a leftist. Basically none of the articles that try to do so can actually mention things Kirk said or believed because if they did their audience would not think he was worth lionizing! He didn't deserve to get killed for his views but this attempt to pretend Kirk was just the nicest kindest commentator we should all seek to emulate is insane.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
If Intel did sue to get the grants I predict a ~100% chance of success. Of course, Trump and the administration could try and punish them in other ways. "A party chose not to press their claims" is not identical with "an action was lawful."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3mo ago
I think one faulty assumption in your logic is that entities which Trump acts unlawfully and adversely against will always press their legal claims. Take Intel's recent announcement about them giving the US government a 10% stake in the company in exchange for grants in the CHIPS Act. There is nothing in the actual law passed by Congress that permits the executive to withhold these grants or condition their distribution on an exchange of equity. The Trump administration's actions are 100% unlawful. Yet, Intel did it anyway. Unlawful actions can create a lot of short term pain for a company such that they may decide it is better to eat the cost than press their claims. That does not mean the action was lawful.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
The response must reflect specifically the detailed characteristics of the threat. It is inappropriate to imagine alien technologies based on our own experience on Earth, which spans only a century of scientific research after quantum mechanics and general relativity were discovered.
Statements like this always seem so weird to me. Do humans have a complete understanding of physics? No. Do we have a pretty good approximation for macro phenomena? Absolutely. Often for the kinds of physics described for UAP phenomena the things that would have to be wrong are not, like, the nuances of quantum field theory. It is shit like "conservation of energy was wrong." When people want to talk about alien technology they should be required to specify which presently accepted theories in physics they think are wrong.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
This is awakening me to a sort of Gell-Mann amnesia effect: if the LLMs are this wrong and this stubborn in areas where I can test its output, where else is it wrong? Can I trust it in the rough analysis of a legal situation? In a summary of the literature on global warming? In pulling crime stats? I'm inclined to think it shouldn't be trusted for anything not either harmless or directly verifiable.
Angela Collier has a video about "vibe physics" that talks about this in some detail. In the section I linked to she discusses how crackpot physics emails have changes since the advent of LLMs. People will add caveats about how they talked to this or that LLM about their theory and the LLM told them it made sense. She'll point out in reply how LLMs will just agree with whatever you say and tend to make stuff up. And then the people sending the email will... agree with her! They'll talk about how the LLM made simple mistakes when talking about the physics the emailer does understand. But obviously once the discussion has gotten to physics the emailer doesn't understand the LLM is much more intelligent and accurate! It turns out having the kind of meta-cognition to think "If this process produced incorrect outcomes for things I do understand, maybe it will also produce incorrect outcomes for things I don't understand" is basically a fucking super power.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
I would agree that its analysis is often better. Even in cases where I ask it to solve a bug and it fails at doing that the description of the code and the problem often point me at a solution.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
My experience as a senior software engineer is that I am not worried about AI coming for my job any time soon. My impression (somewhat bolstered by the article) is that AI is most efficient when it is starting from scratch and runs into issues when attempting to integrate into existing workflows. I tell the AI to write unit tests and it fails to do all the mocking required because it doesn't really understand the code flow. I ask it to implement a feature or some flow and it hallucinates symbols that don't exist (enum values, object properties, etc). It will straight up try to lie to me about how certain language features work. It's best utilized where there is some very specific monotonous change I need to make across a variety of files. Even then it sometimes can't resist making a bunch of unrelated changes along the way. I believe that if you are a greenfield-ish startup writing a ton of boilerplate to get your app off the ground, AI is probably great. If you are a mature product that needs to make very targeted changes requiring domain knowledge AI is much less helpful.
I can believe people using AI for different things are having very different experiences and each reporting their impressions accurately.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
What is the alternative to an opt in system? In this specific case we're taking about the ability to add friends. Is no one allowed to add friends on discord until they prove they are a legal adult? Is that accomplished by setting a drop down box in their profile or must they upload a government issued ID?
How about parents take responsibility for their kids instead of imposing restrictions on all the rest of us because of their laziness.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
You have to get halfway through the Discord article before you get this section:
Many of the parents CNN Business spoke with said they did not enable any of the offered parental controls at the time, mostly because they were in the dark about how the platform works. If enabled, those parental control tools, including one that prohibits a minor from receiving a friend request or a direct message from someone they don’t know, likely could have prevented many of these incidents.
"Yes Discord does provide parental controls that would have prevented these incidents, but we didn't use them so it's still Discord's fault!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
I suppose I am less confident that even if Hamas turned over all the hostages we would return to anything like a pre-10/7 status quo.
How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks.
Is it so difficult to believe that under conditions of starvation people might organize even outside existing power structures to try and secure food?
I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.
What does "fundamentally" mean here? Is there a gene Palestinians have that makes them hate Israelis?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas? It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel. Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza? No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
FYI the post you're replying to is Filtered.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4mo ago
The dam is finally breaking on western support for Israel as the justifications for its post-10/7 actions have become increasingly deranged. "We must starve babies in Gaza, for the security of Israel. For they are part of an evil race tribe and would surely strangle every Jew if only their tiny baby hands had the strength."
Incredible mind reading powers you have. I chose the examples I did because they illustrate there are cases where ~everyone agrees there are dead that it is fine to speak ill of.
More options
Context Copy link