RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
No bio...
User ID: 317
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Women aren't banned from education today or for the last 50 years in Western countries. Yet there's been no huge surge of amazing female-founded companies as if we suddenly stopped squandering half the talent in the world. The female Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos does not exist, nor does she need to. Extremely stressful, high-risk or very high-performance roles are what men are supposed to handle, by and large. Likewise with dying for their country or getting maimed in industrial accidents.
It can't be 'all the good things about women are due to their innate superiority, all the bad things due to men being mean and oppressive'. Feminism isn't 'women keep all their old privileges and get new ones on top', that's not how it's worked out.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Good point, for some reason I thought it was like '92 or something... Nevertheless foreign aid and support for black South Africa continued and still continues today. It's not exactly the height of Cold War realpolitik to support putting the Soviet-trained, Soviet-funded guerrillas into power.
If rationality is so masculine, why do men keep gambling away their money, driving drunk and get fat?
It's men who contribute the vast majority of scientific advancement and creation of new things. The steam engine, the transistor, the telescope, the polio vaccine, antibiotics, nitrogen fertilizers... There'd be no cars to drunk drive, no statistics to collect, no jails, no guns to shoot and no slot machines without men, who made all those things in the first place.
And no men without women, for that matter. I reject this kind of 'war of the sexes' framing about who is better, both sexes are essential and have a distinct but complimentary role. It's not a good thing when men show up in female domains and start trying to change things up to suit their mindsets, the reverse is also true.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Louise Perry, Cancel Culture is Girl Culture
I think you mean this, the link just redirects back to my post... https://www.louiseperry.co.uk/p/cancel-culture-is-girl-culture
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Women are viciously competitive
There are multiple kinds of competition. Are women known for violently beating or killing eachother for a stranger looking at them the wrong way? No, that's a male thing. Women do not compete like men compete. What kind of man does this:
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.”
What helped get sanctions on apartheid South Africa was the largely male Western governments being afraid of the almost entirely male governments of the Soviet bloc and almost entirely male government of red China and the almost entirely male governments of various third world countries fomenting a more intense global anti-western movement if they didn’t support the end of apartheid. Indeed this drove the entirety of ruinous American ‘decolonial’ and ‘anti colonial’ policy back to the late 1940s, through Suez and Algeria and onward.
And so it stopped when the West won the Cold War, all sanctions on South Africa were ended? No, of course not, people believed this stuff. It was the Cold Warriors like Nixon and Reagan who were amongst the more positively inclined US presidents towards South Africa, not the reverse. South Africa was actually on their side in the Cold War, possessed useful naval bases, fought communist-backed states.
Most importantly, Andrews has this statistic:
One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
What is that if not indicating wokeness? Maybe it's not 'conservative' or 'liberal' since that depends on context. In the imagined Trumpenreich, it would be very left-wing to fight for free speech and Stand Up against His Lies about a cohesive, all-white society. But in the modern day, in the real world, we know the polarity of 'free speech' vs 'cohesive society'. I fail to see how calling for the undermining of free speech in the America of today to protect a cohesive society could be interpreted in any other way than as woke.
And if women are woker, then having more women in places of prominence where they can implement this mindset can only make everything woker. If those two lines of argument hold, then everything else falls into place.
Helen Andrews and the Great Feminization
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Some excerpts:
Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981). A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.
And we wonder why men are dropping out of the workforce/university...
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it?
I found the whole essay quite interesting and also somewhat obvious in that 'oh I should've realized this and put it together before' sense. I read somewhere else on twitter that you could track the origins of civil rights/student activism to women gaining full entry to universities in America, as opposed to just chaperoned/'no picnicking out together' kind of limited access. Deans and admin no longer felt they could punish and control like when it was a male environment, plus young men behave very differently when there are sexually available women around. So there's also a potential element of weakened suppression due to fear of female tears and young men simping for women, along with the long-term demographic change element.
Though I suspect it may be more multi-factorial than that, with the youth bulge and a gradual weakening of the old order. A man had to make the decision to let women into universities after all.
I also find Helen Andrews refreshing in that she's not stuck in the 'look at me I'm a woman who's prepared to be anti-feminist, I'm looking for applause and clicks' mould, she makes the reasons behind her article quite clear:
Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Another idea that occurred to me is that the committee that drafted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR's wife. The UN Declaration of Human Rights was instrumental in establishing what we now understand as progressivism. That piece of international law, (really the origin of 'international law' as we understand it today, beyond just the customary law of embassies) directly led to the Refugee Convention of 1951 that has proven quite troublesome for Europe's migrant crisis, it introduced the principle of non-refoulement. It also inspired the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965):
Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races
Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination
Sounds pretty woke! Note that states don't necessarily follow through on international law or sign up with it fully in the first place: Israel, America, Russia and so on routinely ignore these kinds of bodies in the foreign policy sphere. The Conventions and Committees are feminine in a certain sense in that they can be ignored without fear of violence, unlike an army of men. Nevertheless, their urging and clamouring is real and does have an effect, the UN Human Rights Commission helped get sanctions on apartheid South Africa.
To some extent international law could be considered an early feminized field, or perhaps it was born female. Are there any other feminized fields we can easily think of? Therapists, HR and school teachers come to mind, though that seems more recent.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Hey, Gemini 3 Pro looks pretty damn magical if the clips people are posting on twitter are true. Of course there's no actual use-case for oneshotting a crappy replication of the windows operating system (documents, paint, calculator and so on) in HTML, recreating a crap version of the Binding of Isaac or Vampire Survivor, making some mid music to go along with the game. But there's no use-case for going to the moon either, it's a way to flex, a costly show of ability. The real strength of an AI is in things that can't easily be shown off visually, stuff that needs it to be fully released first!
Check out what people have been saying, it's pretty good: https://x.com/search?q=gemini%203.0&src=typeahead_click
Sonnet 4.5 is genuinely creative in its writing IMO. Every six months, there's a significant improvement in capability.
And the US does need some kind of qualitative edge, otherwise China will wipe the floor with America. They're bigger, they have more talent and they have more energy and industry. Their government is just smarter too, they don't feel the need to shut down the government over whether illegals get healthcare or not, they're just not in that genre.
It's probably too late to avoid a future of "brutal serfdom" regardless of what happens, even if we reach singularity escape velocity.
Why would we even be serfs, what do we have to offer? Unless things go well and the AIs are nice, then the situation totally different to human politics. It's not 'new king sweeps in and loots your city, forces you to pay heavy taxes'. The new king would have no need for meatbags, he could dispense with legacy humans. Replace with androids or catgirls or whatever he finds aesthetic. Turn the world to computronium, planetary disassembly, full sci-fi. Serfs need not exist unless he's feeling sadistic.
Many people thinking about ASI are still way too politics-brained. ASI is above and beyond politics as we understand it. I cannot imagine a world where intelligence caps out anywhere near human level. 20 watt brains are miserly in the grand scheme of compute. When we get AGI, ASI immediately follows.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
All good points.
I skipped over the economic angle and indeed fascist economics is significant, it's all about advancing national interests rather than pure marketism or collectivism as you say. I think the key element is the demographic part though, fascism isn't about making the country rich but about making the people strong and populous too, Mussolini had his 'Battle for Births' and as usual, the Nazis and Japan did a better job at it with their pro-natal campaigns.
While Italy wasn't terribly racist by Axis standards, they did heavily suppress Libya and went in very hard against Ethiopia with gas and such. But it's hard to be that racist if you can't actually conquer very much. They wanted to resettle Italians to Libya and Ethiopia and parts of Dalmatia but didn't get around to it with wartime difficulties.
The People's Republic of China shares fascism's characteristic of binding capitalists, workers, intellectuals and so on under an extremely powerful and nationalistic government
Yeah China's an odd one, they've got the economics but not the foreign posture. Rhetorically, diplomatically, they're still third-worldist and anti-imperialist.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
The British, French and Americans didn't actually adopt and implement social Darwinism, they had 'the white man's burden' and 'the civilizing mission'. Kipling wrote it to encourage America to colonize even though he makes it out to be a thankless, exhausting burden.
Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
That's critically different from actual fascists who would say 'wtf is this, we're here to extract as much as we can and couldn't care less about the welfare of these subhumans'. The Nazis wouldn't have had any problems with Ghandi, they'd just keep shooting until the Indians were under control.
The native Americans weren't subjugated to eliminate them or permanently other them, they were subjugated to integrate them as Americans, they got treaties and reservations. The Australians went around massacring Aboriginals in an ad-hoc bottom-up way because it was easy but there was never any actual policy to get rid of them, the closest they got is 'the arc of history bends towards us, no big deal if they wither away but we won't actually make it happen, we'll do weird things like them away from their parents and raise them as our own'.
Not social-darwinist, full-bore racism, it was wishy-washy 'civilizing' racism.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Nobody even seems that interested in what fascism actually is.
Is Miller really a fascist because he wants to enforce immigration laws? Surely not, otherwise we would have to define Eisenhower of Operation Wetback fame as a fascist.
IMO, fascism is a combination of militarism, imperialism and racism within a social darwinist worldview. Not merely 'I don't like these backwater savages' but 'it's our job to subjugate them in the short term and maybe get rid of them outright, we need to tile the world with us and ours'. Nazism is fascism + anti-semitism.
Also, all violence is political to some extent. If a thief (poor) robs someone (rich) then there's a political angle to it. Some leftists would say it's justified, especially if its a big corporation. The whole point of the police is administering violence to baddies, how much violence and who is a baddy, that's a political question. Politics is about power and violence is the most important kind of power. Challenging the sovereignty and values of the state is very political violence.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
The joke is that the US is already a mess from the perspective of outsiders. Economically and technologically advanced, socially backwards.
I have a copy of 'Don't Make the Black Kids Angry', the entire book is examples of the non-stop American race-hysteria and tragicomedic, farcical levels of injustice and dysfunction that your country tries (with great success) to reframe as correct and enlightened diversity, while the actual Americans make workarounds and scuttle around anxiously referring to the issue via euphemisms or trying (for the fiftieth time) wimpy methods that failed the last 49 times.
What is this if not a backwards society? I view it as such, that's my opinion, based on my first-hand observations of dysfunction (drug addicts shooting up in public), observations via video, observation of American political rhetoric and observation of statistics.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
You can't have a wrong opinion, that's not how it works. You can only be wrong about facts like 'X is richer than Y', not opinions like 'I don't like X'.
the EU is just an expression of the Europeans' native urge to bury everything in layers of bureaucracy
White Americans are British and European in ethnic background. There is no 'native urge' in Europe that does not also exist in America, only social, economic and political differences. Going on a boat did not create a new people.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
They can keep telling themselves that
Americans don't seem to believe this today but there are many outsiders who visit America and really dislike the country, not out of jealousy or poverty but genuine dislike for how society works. This was before Trump too.
New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco... they came, they saw, they don't like it.
Europe is stagnating. Why is this? In large part its due to US influence, US NGOs, US foreign policy. For better and for worse, the US leads the West. Yet there's this kind of schizo American attitude about their role in the world.
One day America is the best and greatest country ever, leader of the free world. The next day the lazy Europeans won't pay for their own defence (suppression of Russia) - they need to buy more weapons from America. Oh and go deal with Russia by yourselves, we're not interested in that anymore. Now it's time to bomb the Middle East and stir up some chaos there. Next, pivot to Asia - the vassals must enforce sanctions against China. Who cares whether this is in their economic interests. Australia needs to buy some submarines (we won't actually hand them over though because after taking their money to build the docks, we're still too clueless to build the damn subs). After that, everyone needs to copy American cultural norms and racial hysteria. Import some sub-Saharans, get some diversity (the refugees from our retarded wars we make you join will do for starters). Copy everything down quickly, you need to be woke... no now you need to be anti-woke. And why are you so poor, unlike us?
Europe and other US allies may well have retarded and despicable governments but the US has a special, higher level of responsibility for how it wields power.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
The joke is that the US is already a mess from the perspective of outsiders. Economically and technologically advanced, socially backwards. Any actual improvement is so unimaginable to Americans they come up with these warped eschatological narratives about civil war or apocalypse, or they twist themselves around to see this weird lifestyle as normal and any change as a threat. Like a nation of people who tunnel and dig in refuge from a self-inflicted disaster, only to be dazzled and frightened when they see the sun or feel fresh air, rebelling against surface.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
People here like to sneer at litrpg as slop - that's way out of date:
https://x.com/JerusalemDemsas/status/1976740387344814365
A new type of entertainment called 'vertical drama' has emerged: shows filmed in vertical format to suit smartphone users. Each episode lasts between two and five minutes, and after a few teaser episodes you have to pay to watch the rest. The dramas are usually taken from popular web novels. A title can be produced in less than a week, and the requirements for the actors are basic: they just have to look good on camera. Nuance and subtlety are the preserve of artistic films; verticals need as many flips and twists as possible. Production is often sloppy. If a line is deemed problematic by viewers, the voice is simply muffled, without any attempt to cut or reshoot. The stories are sensational. One that has got lots of viewers excited is the supposedly forthcoming Trump Falls in Love with Me, a White House Janitor. According to an industry report, vertical drama viewers now number 696 million, including almost 70 per cent of all internet users in China. Last year the vertical market worth 50.5 billion yuan (€5 billion), surpassing movie box office revenue for the first time. It is projected to reach 85.65 billion yuan by 2027.
See this is where AI is going to make insane profits, disrupting/expanding the immensely lucrative but radically unprestigious media formats you never knew existed. Just a few minutes, no need for fancy acting or cinematography, just stimulus in your face. I bet this will come to the West too and make Netflix look like a joke. Maybe it already has.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Klaus Schwab's nightmarish visage emerges on the projector screen, staring down on you like a god from on high
You vill enjoy fresh food from local stores rather than chemical slop from Walmart.
You vill have a healthy waistline.
You vill have a walkable neighbourhood with trees and park amenities.
You vill commute via bus, train or ferry in safety from lowlives - ve have dispersed them
And... you vill be happy.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
They do police outflows but that's part of their managed float of the currency, it's not freely floating. You have to maintain control on money if you want a tethered currency. It's all part of the plan, they want a cheap currency to have more competitive industries in world markets and to aid their industrial goals.
They want Chinese investors investing in Chinese industry to develop the country more. But Chinese industry is struggling with a very competitive market with razor thin margins (see the Chinese share market's poor returns), investors would much rather buy Sydney real estate which constantly goes up in value. There's this tension between government/national interest and private interests.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Smart leadership solves this.
China doesn't explicitly have a policy against offshoring (though they have been trying to keep India from getting the tools and capital to compete), they have a strategy of fostering industry in their own country. They have smart leadership.
It's not just offshoring that matters, what about foreign countries paying large sums for key workers to come over and share skills? China did this to South Korean shipbuilding when they were in a slump, paid the best people to come over for a few years. And now they have the biggest shipbuilding sector in the world.
And why is offshoring a thing? Energy costs are lower, environmental regulations less severe. Smart leaders would lower the cost of energy and industrial inputs by relaxing the most onerous renewable/environmental/planning restrictions. Smart leaders would make the labour market more flexible (US hasn't done too badly here compared to other rich countries), would prevent ridiculous anomalies like caps on doctor training, would invest more in R&D, would modernize infrastructure, would shamelessly steal other people's IP as they see fit.
Individual policies are ineffective if the leadership is stupid. Subsidies just encourage inefficiency and corruption without discipline. Tariffs can be very harmful for imported components and cause uncertainty if they're raised and lowered willy-nilly.
Subsidizing R&D can also just result in people relabelling things as R&D, reducing energy costs can encourage inefficiency... Everything has a 'perverse incentives' evil twin. Sanctions on exporting sensitive technologies can just be busted or third-party routed around, as the US has discovered with AI chips. Any smart person could tell you that it's dumb to sell rare earth mines off to China, whether it's 1995 or 2025. But smart people do not run the US government.
Individual policies must be well-implemented and precisely targeted by a responsive, dynamic bureaucracy in accordance with a coherent long-term vision. It's a crisis of intelligence, not policy.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Later on in the thread it brings up the closing of Mountain Pass for environmentalist reasons, one of the richest rare-earth mines in the world.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Surely Trump backs down here. US MIC hard-needs rare earths, can't do without them.
I think this is a targeted blow against the defence and EV industries, not against chips or electronics generally. Chips have only a tiny amount of rare earths. Only things with Big Motors or Exotic Electronics like military hardware are really affected. HDDs should be fine if we recycle more, F-35s on the other hand are in real trouble.
Yet another huge environmentalist error: https://x.com/skepticaliblog/status/1912469666272059526
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
IMO AI has a lot to do with how you prompt it, you need to give it the necessary docs and then do some troubleshooting with it. It won't usually one-shot a complex issue but it can eventually nail it... which is exactly what that guy said I guess.
I guess it's my 'lived experience' that it works eventually and there's not much else I can say.
Also, even if it's not helping you much as a researcher, is what you do representative? How many people work with tomography as opposed to spreadsheet jobs or just plain old programming? How many people even know what tomography is? It can be simultaneously true that it's not helpful for you but is for many others enough for it to not be a bubble. Terence Tao seems to find it useful for his rather abstract work.
only under the pure assumption that it happens, no implication meant as to the probability - if you think it hasn't happened yet, roughly how long until it does?
The American government apparatus has to actually be broken, not merely wounded but smashed. No rich country with a strong government has had a civil war without extraordinary pressure from outside. Rich countries are stable because the government is so strong compared to anyone else, power is uneven and imbalanced. They have huge security forces and loyal armies. Military coup, yes! Civil war, no! Whereas Nigeria is poor and the central government is very weak, easy to have civil wars there since the country is balanced between different power groups.
Germany at the end of WW1 - mass famine, megadeaths on the front, kaiser has given up, traditional authorities greatly delegitimized. Then you get a brief civil war as the freikorps show up and poleaxe communists. It was basically still an unbalanced country but under extreme stress the communists came out and got demolished by the army. In Maoist China, the Cultural Revolution saw militias fighting in the streets with tanks and heavy weapons but it still wasn't a civil war as the govt retained control. In Venezuela there's massive economic problems but the govt is unbroken, no major alternate power bases.
Yugoslavia is a special case where it's this anomalous composite of various nations who hate eachother intensely, propped up by Tito, a Great Man and the Cold War economics of being a 'neutral' power in Europe, courted by both sides. Yugoslavia was a balanced country with separate power bases. The Balkans were proper wars with armies, not low-level stuff like Northern Ireland.
America is imbalanced, there are no major power bases outside the central government. The state national guard aren't real armies and states don't truly hate eachother. Hundreds of millions of privately owned guns but no organization makes the guns totally irrelevant, they could not matter less. Owning guns didn't prevent machinegun bans or Patriot Act or mass surveillance or anything else. On ethnic lines, blacks are no good at fighting, they're no match for whites in numbers or organization. Hispanics aren't particularly resentful or good at fighting either. Plus there's an extra stabilizing factor of the nuclear forces, the serious players aren't going to start fighting with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, they'll choose restraint and stability. America is also very very rich and that's another stabilizing factor.
1990s Russia - economic depression, illegitimate govt, dubious elections, very unpopular president gets into a power struggle with parliament, president shells parliament into submission, no civil war. Unbalanced country, army and security forces are all united. It's very hard to break the power of a strong, rich government. Yes, Russia in the 1990s was rich. Rich is in an absolute sense of being industrialized, urban, there are televisions and electrification... not a relative sense.
So if a civil war were to happen in America, China needs to suplex the US in the Pacific, smash national myths about American exceptionalism. There needs to be an economic depression, maybe even a famine (Yellowstone going up?) There needs to be a massive, unprecedented economic crisis and delegitimization of old authorities. Somehow the central government needs to be split up or fall into different camps.
Or more likely, some black swan arrives and changes all the rules. I just don't see a civil war happening in the US.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
very nuanced ad
Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer ... Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. ... How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their Civil Liberties End When an Attack On Our Safety Begins!
This is good and correct, actually. Muggers and murderers should suffer. This is the foundation of justice. Why should Trump or anyone else be nuanced about this, where nuance means 'being really nice to everyone even if they're actively sabotaging and robbing you, give them a second chance, a third chance, a thirtieth chance'. It's cooperate-bot behaviour. Cooperate-bots lose most of the time, it's a very vulnerable and pathetic strategy. What about the nuance of 'be nice to those who are nice to you and punish those who harass you', there's actual nuance and distinction there.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Why would you read the book to the end if you found it boring and frustrating? Sometimes I get gifted books where I can intensively disagree with the author, think the author's a fiend who wants to make the world worse but admit the logic and argumentation given the premises and goals is tight and coherent. But that's non-fiction. If I read fiction and I'm not having fun, I dump it.
Yeah I get a fair bit of traffic from china on my crappy little website, up 25% this month. It's at least half my traffic tbh and not a single actual Chinese user, at least not one who uses any mandarin... But LLMs that are trained then direct people to me, so there are swings and roundabouts.
More options
Context Copy link