@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

I think smartphones/TikTok/AI are making us lose our attention, our ability to analyze and to think, and they don't offer anything in return

I would posit that the smartphone has observably reduced the need to store specific data because it's much easier than it used to be to load it (I'm old enough to "search the Internet", the kids these days "ask AI") on the fly when necessary. Lots of encyclopedia facts are useful to know on rare day-to-day occasions ("Which rivers empty into the Aral Sea?"), but I think in practice things are "better" (for some definition of "better") where I can pull up that fact at hand, which maybe a generation ago sometimes required referencing my shelf of encyclopedias or a trip to the library. And maybe I can use that mental space that was previously holding the population of Iran or the specifics of red-black trees for something that is more useful to me today [1].

I recall hearing from a historian a while back that the most numerous book on US Navy ships in the 1980s was a dictionary: has ubiquitous spell checking (and sometimes-wrong autocorrect) lost us something of value other than the "character" built by having to thumb through the dictionary to spell right? That one feels similar as a technology question, but I'd bet you have fewer takers for "the good ol' days" before spell check.

  1. I think whether that space has been efficiently re-purposed is a valid question, and I'm not convinced capacity hasn't declined somewhat. But I think that's best addressed as a separate question.

The bad cyclists are the ones who are committed to cycling as a lifestyle- either for fitness or for environmental reasons. Like, rules apply to you.

At least in my neck of the woods, the spandex-clad roadies and messenger-bag-toting commuters generally follow the rules of the road. Maybe they don't come to a complete stop at 4 way stops (frequently cars don't either!), but I rarely see them run red lights or disregard pedestrians (although there are relatively few of those here too). Large groups of roadies do sometimes run lights a bit (but so do cars), I suppose, but there aren't that many of those and they're pretty predictable altogether. Maybe it's different in more urban areas, but around here the biggest group of cyclists I'd complain about is when the local homeless decide to ride in the dark in dark clothes without lights and without a clear sense of self-preservation (the street one block over has a lower speed limit, less traffic, and a marked bike lane, maybe avoid the busy frontage road?).

It would be 2000 cruise missiles a day for three weeks before there was any kind of landing attempt.

And the presumed response looks like 2000 anti-ship missiles (or pre-placed torpedos) denying navigation to the entire strait, plus long-range anti-ship missiles used to declare a blockade of Chinese ports (see the Black Sea, but with potentially less regard for continued commercial traffic). Which isn't to say that would work out either, but the idea that Taiwan's defenses would crumble immediately like Iran's have isn't a guarantee either.

Gaza was “genocide” on Day 1. Exactly what does Israel get for not doing exactly that...

Somewhere here is a good observation about the importance of escalation dominance in the domain of information warfare.

I think Putin's stated goals of destroying the idea (the meme as it were) of a distinct Ukrainian identity is, under the more expensive definitions, considered "genocide", but I will concede that it's a much less central example than "industrially kill them all" or just "evict them from their lands and ignore the obvious implications" that people would typically point to in WWII.

You know, I consider myself a modest advocate in favor of better transit infrastructure, but the "induced demand! Just add another lane bro!" partisans irk me because there really are more (diffuse) benefits to more total miles traveled --- not necessarily commuting to suburbs directly, but mobility is generally good, and I'm not convinced the measures they suggest will actually improve things.

Sometimes it's been tempting to take the "just add a lane, bro" meme featuring an American freeway (often I10 in Houston) and re-render it showing an equally wide road with all these subdivided sections for things they would otherwise like:

  • Bidirectional 8 ft wide, ADA friendly sidewalk
  • 8 ft wide cycle lane on each side
  • lane width space for urban trees
  • dedicated bus lane
  • light rail/tram
  • inter-city rail
  • one actual car/truck lane in each direction

"Just add another dedicated lane, bro. This time it'll make them take mass transit or bikes." Although I personally would like more people to do that.

Is January 6th the only time that's worked?

Whether or not those conservatives should be required to pay taxes towards your seen-as-elective medical treatments is probably also a sticking point. That one comes up with abortion too, and has with birth control in the past --- I'm not sure if anyone beyond Hobby Lobby really cares quite as strongly there these days.

They stopped naming COVID variants after Greek letters right when they got to 'Xi'.

Gaza also bans abortion and IIRC limits birth control pretty heavily, in addition to promulgating pro-natal memes, even if they are "eventually outnumber the [redacted]."

People pushed luggage around on wheeled carts for decades before figuring out we should just put wheels on the damn suitcases.

Is this true, though? Wheels are only effective if they're large relative to the bumps on the surface you're using them on. Modern wheeled luggage (2 inch wheels) is only effective on smooth, swept concrete surfaces. And those are a quite modern invention (maybe we can blame the ADA here?), at least in quantity as far as I can tell. Having once lugged a wheeled suitcase a mile on cobbled European roads, a cart would have worked better. I wouldn't even try on an unpaved road.

the theory hides behind ... the science in order to try to gain legitimacy as a "grand-theory of why the world is the way it is"

Many such cases: this is a generic problem, IMO, with several branches of science, maybe even every branch with immediate political impact (also economics, epidemiology, climate science, [group] studies). I don't think you're wrong that this even happens to HBD folks who are probably diametrically opposed to plenty of those other examples.

I don't know of a generic strategy to counteract this human failing: my first recommendation would be to reject claims that "the science is settled": the scientific process is never truly settled. But if you go too far in the un-trusting direction, you'll start questioning the concept of childhood vaccinations or jet fuel melting steel beams.

I'd be cautious there that a middle option is technically possible: Obama ordered airstrikes on Syria against ISIL, and there have been American boots on the ground there since (unclear on exact deployment dates and current status), but they've remained in a limited capacity as such without being a full-blown invasion a la 2003. It's possible the exact wording of your prediction may matter quite a bit.

Why don’t universities simply put out fake studies with made up data that flatters the current administration’s priorities in order to get money? That’s just not how universities think.

Given the general direction of the replication crisis in the the social sciences, retracted questionable applications of statistics, and the number of high-profile plagiarism accusations against university leadership in the humanities, are you sure they don't? I don't think anyone is doing it out loud, but it's at least happening in practice through some combination of only studying problems that could have the flattering solution, or just hiding the report when you don't like its results.

I recognize this is a bit pithy, but "If only there were a genre of fiction regarding how humans interact with technology to consider the moral and ethical implications of current-year AI as applied to human civilization, specifically how it impacts creators and consumers in these sorts of cases." Sci-Fi a weird genre to have effectively adopted neo-Luddite tendencies.

I think there are probably some interesting ideas to explore. "The dialog for the ship's computer was generated entirely by ChatGPT, which is why it uses 'delve' and em-dashes (verbally!) and won't shut up. At some point the characters end up on a different, older vessel whose computer is hellishly inspired by Clippy: 'It looks like you're trying to land this thing!' at only peripherally appropriate times." Show how these tools are helpful -- or not helpful -- to the broader human condition. Does viable alignment even exist? Have a congenitally blind person talk to an AI about what color means to two different things with vastly different exposure to the concept.

public high schools in the US average around $19k in per student spending, no correlation between spending and outcomes.

Is that true across public schools? I've often wondered if the extra funding thrown at Title 1 schools that typically underperform actually makes the correlation negative, but I've never found an actual dataset.

But I say this as someone who remembers original Facebook where you just got a feed of stuff your friends posted, in chronological order, without the site itself trying to guess what you would find most engaging/catering to your worst impulses directly.

I remember this era as well (Facebook recently "shared a memory" old enough to vote). My dark-ish take is that very public efforts for "trust and safety" failed miserably because the median user looked at the drama that was strongly associated with "trust and safety" and decided that the site felt neither trusted nor safe for sharing going forward. Maybe it was inevitable, but it felt like a decent chunk of it was an own goal on the part of the social media companies.

I'm pretty sure that's a tankie slogan from those that see things like the concept of private property as too far right. Maybe also an element of out group/far group dynamics, or referencing Stalinist and Maoist purges of the inteligencia and such. I don't have any friends that attend such things (that I know of).

This would be an interesting case if some state decided it wasn't going to recognize marriage at all.

It missed its chance to be the one and only 10th Amendment precedent.

Young people live in a world where they constantly have doors slammed in their face.

Worse, "ghosting" has become ubiquitous in dating and employment, so doors aren't even being slammed. They just disappear without feedback.

I wonder if that's how presidents had to be in the past, and the rest of us reading the newspaper listening to radio watching on TV following social media real-time feeds just weren't as knowledgeable about those realities until recently.

to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex?

I think there's a politically-aligned difference here in what "validate" really means. Neutrally, it just implies "yes, there is [well-founded?] anxiety and fear." The way it's used in left-leaning (and even in just describing left-leaning) spaces, it comes with an implication that this is justified and insurmountable. I think there's a right-leaning take on this that can go the other way, though: "Yes, asking girls to dance is scary. Yes, they might turn you down. And Yes, you should do it anyway." There are so many parenting moments that are largely about overcoming fear and inspiring confidence ("Yes, you can walk to school alone"), and this is just another example of how we've come to coddle the median child in ways that are probably detrimental.

But it certainly isn't helping that the way the modal male hero is written has swung from Bond womanizing to platonic, chaste action heroes. Surely there's a happier medium in there somewhere.

The Federalists were absolutely right

The Federalists were against adding an explicit Bill of Rights, and only chose to do so as a compromise. The Anti-Federalists wanted to enumerate the rights, and I think have ultimately been proven right.

It does not appear to be truthful reporting. American officials took the unusual step of announcing on several occasions that America is not on board with the attack. The IDF is telling reporters that they are coordinating with America.

I think the only coherent reading of both claims is something like "Israel told the US ('coordinating with') they were going to do it, and US forces didn't take part in or recommended against ('not on board with') the actual action".