@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

It's an SS post, he always means Jews when he goes on about ethnicities doing bad things.

HD lady will learn that she has the wrong memes.

As I pointed out the last time this topic came up (though perhaps not to you personally, I can't remember): if this were true the culture war would be over by now. Because the right would've learned they have the wrong memes, and changed. The fact that this hasn't happened should be glaring proof to everyone that cancelling the left isn't going to teach them a thing. It will simply further stoke resentment and lead to further conflict.

Life is more than game theory, despite nerds' obsession with trying to reduce everything to game theory.

I agree that refraining from reprisals, by itself, does not lead to peace. In truth I don't know what will lead to peace, it's a hard problem! I just know that reprisals are going to lead to further war. So if one's goal is peace, then reprisals need to be taken off the table.

The very existence of your argument refutes it. If putting the screws to people got them to relent and peacefully live according to one's preferred ideology, then you wouldn't be mad because you would have relented. But in actuality, you're upset (rightfully so) and you want to hit them back as hard as you can the instant you get a chance to. Why on earth do you imagine the result would be any different when it's your (side's) hands welding the knife?

LLMs aren't helpful writing code.

What would you have preferred he do? Be the only honest real estate developer and go bankrupt cause nothing gets built?

Yes. "Everyone else does this too, it's how the game is" is not and has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. You are responsible for your conduct, no matter the circumstances you find yourself in.

At some point, it's more charitable to think that the "conservationists" here are a bunch of liars that just want to stop things from being built than the alternative, which is that they aren't capable of identifying species and have no idea whether the species they just invented will even be impacted.

It is never more charitable to call someone a liar than honestly mistaken. More accurate perhaps, but not more charitable.

Why on earth would I have any more idea what other countries spend on defense than I do with the US? I don't think you're factoring in how little basis for comparison the average person has here. To an individual, $892 million is an enormous amount of money. Even if I lived 100 times as long as I will, I still wouldn't come close to having that kind of money (I've done the math and figured I'll make about $2 million in my lifetime if things go well). I have no idea how much military equipment costs. I don't even have any idea how many people the military employs. So I don't even have figures I could use to try to make a rough estimate (not that I would've bothered, because I could just look it up easier than that). This is simply not a topic which your average person would have any reason to know about.

It doesn't need the holocaust and slavery museums though...

To be fair here, the national Holocaust museum in DC is one of the most powerful and memorable experiences I've ever had in my entire life. That museum is great, or at least it was 23 years ago when I went. Maybe it has gone down the drain since then, but I would be in favor of keeping it assuming it's still the same quality. We don't need more than one, though.

Well yeah, today I have people blowing up my inbox by replying to my comments. That by itself means I'm going to be a lot more active. Disagreement causes engagement as people argue with each other, agreement is more quiet by nature.

There seems to be something to that, yeah. I've noticed that in general, feminists tend to be people who desperately want a righteous cause they can stand up for. The sort of person who deeply admires those who participated in the civil rights movement (or other similar social changes), and wishes that they themselves could be a part of something so grand and heroic. Unfortunately, we're all out of causes like that lately, so instead people often fall into the trap of fighting that hard over insignificant things. Thus, modern feminism. It's plausible to me that you might find such people overrepresented among other types of moral busybodies.

Weirdly enough though, they also seem to be cat people, not dog people.

I'll do that when they start giving advice that isn't totally useless to me and my situation.

You need to consider that maybe your judgement of what is useful is flawed, and that people are actually giving you useful, actionable advice which you are rejecting because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions of what works and doesn't work.

Sure, I'm not saying the elected representatives necessarily correctly deliver on the will of the people. Lord knows they rarely do in the US. I just think it's inaccurate to claim that the people living in the UK don't have the right to decide to let in a flood of migrants.

your only option is people who are incentivised to lie to you: priests, gamer girls, masculinity influencers, MeToo journalists, etc.

I'm confused, how do you figure priests are incentivized to lie to people about how to find dates? I wouldn't go to a priest for marriage advice (for obvious reasons), but plenty of priests dated (and yes, even had sex - priests are sinners too) before joining the clergy. For example, the pastor of my parish is a pretty young guy who was engaged before he decided he was being called to the priesthood, so he could probably give decent advice about attracting women (if you're in Brazil where he's from).

Strongly disagree. Going that fast compared to traffic is way more dangerous than going normal speed (which is anywhere with 5mph of the speed limit in my experience).

Right, and I gave it then. Which is why I am not going to bother doing it this time. Like I said, nothing has changed.

I'm going to go against the grain and say I don't think it's a faux pas at all. I don't give a shit if someone wears cleats off the field, and to be honest I would think less of anyone who does.

There's a real sense in which it's just getting better at everything. It started out decent at some areas of code, maybe it could write sql scripts ok but you'd need to double check it. Now it can handle any code snippet you throw at it and reliably solve bugs one shot on files with fewer than a thousand lines.

What? That just isn't true. I've tried to have it write code and it's still in the same shitty place it was three years ago. You get something which looks correct, but maybe it is and maybe it isn't, and you have to double check every time. Which is to say, AI tools still slow you down rather than speed you up.

This is why I'm so skeptical that we'll have AI any time soon. The current tools aren't even good at the things their advocates say they are good at, let alone harder things. I have yet to see any substance behind the hype, at all.

I don't have specific examples to hand, but I was speaking from the judiciary's role in the American legal system. Since they are responsible for determining what is and is not in violation of the law, that would then mean that if a particular case comes to court they are therefore deciding if the actions of the executive were ok or not.

I don't disagree, but it wouldn't be hard to based upon how one defines 'morality'. What it means to be moral is rarely even discussed, perhaps because the once-bedrock shared understandings which would have made such conversation as possible have been so badly eroded. This occurs to me as concerning.

That's fair. I think it's a serious problem that we have so little shared foundation in the US today. I think it's very important that a nation has a set of shared values or goals to anchor them in times of internal disagreement, and it seems like we don't often have that any more.

What would you say to someone who asks 'why?'

Good question. I gave it some thought and I honestly don't know. I believe it because it was drilled into me from a young age by my parents. But I don't think I could provide an argument outside that context. I'm kind of bad at that sort of thing in general, and it's especially hard for me to think of a solid argument for my moral axioms (as this is).

The alleged reasoning is that the pardons only apply to those already convicted convicted of a crime

I actually agree with this, but we're way past that point (for better or for worse). But I do think it's way past time we had a constitutional amendment that the presidential pardon cannot be used as a way to block charges from being brought, it can only be used to overturn cases that were duly tried in a court of law. It's too late to undo the preemptive pardons of the past, but we should prevent future ones.

This is what has burned me out on most video games. Eventually you discover that there’s one “right” way to do it and everything else is pointless.

I maintain (with no personal disrespect intended) that this is a self inflicted problem. If the game is less fun when you go with the optimal solution, it is very easy to simply... not use the optimal solution. I do it all the time (for example, I played wide in Civ V despite all the game's mechanics pushing you away from that). Humans aren't rats who can't help but do the things that trigger dopamine in the brain, we have agency and should use it.

Parenthood? Dating for the first time? A career in physics (physicists all do their best work in their 20s, and are generally considered "over the hill" once they pass 30)?

No to all three. You're way too fatalistic, dude (and I say that as someone with too big of a fatalism streak myself). You can do any, indeed all, of those things at older ages. Most people don't, but "rare" and "difficult" are not the same as "impossible".

I think you shouldn't have kids unless you are both at least tentatively in the "yes" camp, personally. It's a big commitment which requires a shitload of sacrifice. If your wife is leaning towards "no" at the moment, is she going to be able to embrace the freedom she will have to give up to have those children? It seems to me like it'll be a lot harder for her.

My wife and I don't have children (and can't, as she had to have a hysterectomy a couple of years ago). I do not personally have any regrets. I think that children are a burden, not a blessing, and I am grateful that we don't have that weighing our lives down. I have two nephews (whom I love a great deal), and they scratch the paternal itch pretty well for me. We may come to regret it as we reach old age and have nobody around for us, although to be honest I don't really imagine I will live that long so the point may be moot. But for now, no regrets at all.