@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

is that Ukraine disproves the classic supposition among many military and geopolitical strategists that a society with a very low birth rate would be unlikely to be motivated to fight a total war with very high casualties due to the comparatively high investment in individual children (eg. if you have only one child, him dying is a bigger deal than being an Afghan with 7 kids and 2 of them dying).

I have a slight suspicion that post-war Ukraine may see a bump in birth rates in the same way the US did after WWII. I don't know that I would be qualified to speculate on the causes if that were to happen, though.

Griner could trivially avoid interaction with the hostile foreign government by not going to their territory and breaking their laws.

I haven't been following this case terribly closely, but is it completely clear that she did break the law? The Russian state doesn't (currently or even historically) have a particular reputation for honesty. As such, I have do wonder (without evidence) that the case may have been staged to garner a political prisoner as a potential future bargaining chip. Or that she actually did bring in the contraband, but was subjected to additional scrutiny in the hopes of finding a charge. But I'll concede that it's perfectly possible the charges are actually above board.

having homosexual sex became an identity rather than just something you did

I believe this still exists: the CDC uses the term "men who have sex with men" rather than "gay", "homosexual", or "bisexual" because there are communities of men who identify as "straight" that occasionally engage in same-sex activities. Consider "down-low".

But you're correct, it's not frequently discussed despite an otherwise large pantheon of sexual identities.

To what degree has the role of colonizer been taken over by the multinational corporation?

I see where you're going with this, and it does seem different than imperialism circa 1900, but it might be worth considering that some of the first major joint-stock companies were the (British) East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, well known for governing areas that are now independent nations (India, Pakistan, and Indonesia). Although I don't think modern corporations are engaging in quite that level of governance.

When the west was making its successful inroads into the Arab world they didn’t make much fuss about the fact that many of these countries were theocratic kingdoms with literal slavery.

The 19th century French invasions of Algeria was justified (partially) on the basis of ending the Barbary slave trade by force. It was also referenced in Napolean's adventures in Egypt and Syria. I think "literally slavery" is something the West is (too) often willing to overlook, but not universally so.

Aside from the culture changes, this seems to make new comments show "?", but after voting it shows "NaN", which I think is because someone is doing "?"+1 in Javascript. Honestly, it's kinda cute ("Not A Number" votes!) and I am tempted to suggest leaving it.

Not sure what this is referring to.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as "mad cow", which also appears as a very rare and fatal prion disease, vCJD in humans. This is believed to be caused by feeding cattle products to cows, which has been largely phased out since the peak of the disease in the early '90s.

For this reason, people who spent time in Europe in the '80s and '90s were, until recently, disallowed from giving blood.

I went to look it up, and it seems the American Red Cross changed their guidance just a few weeks ago. The change in FDA recommendation seems to have been proposed in January 2020, and presumably was glossed over given other major health news at the time.

Want to increase birth rates? Try gender equality.

I find this point interesting, because I distinctly remember a zeitgeist a few decades back in which "gender equality" was being pushed specifically because it would reduce birth rates to ward off Malthusian catastrophe. This was specifically in the lens of low Western birthrates being preferable to higher ones in largely Third-World nations. Admittedly, "the zeitgeist" is hard to cite, so perhaps I didn't really understand the full situation at the time.

I'm not particularly convinced that either direction is unilaterally correct: it's quite possible that the results are contextual based on a number of other variables, but it does provide an example of how "more feminism and gender equality" seems to be pushed (primarily by the Left) as a cure for all societal ills. That last part I think is a drastic oversimplification, but probably also a bit of a weakman of the actual arguments.

Every time I've heard this discussed, the consensus seems to be that the King might be able to dissolve parliament once on a technicality, but would fairly quickly find himself stripped of that power, perhaps of the Crown itself, and possibly the dissolution of the office. Several post-colonial states have successfully done this, most recently Barbados last year.

But as someone not a subject to aforementioned crown, I can't trivially vouch for that expectation's accuracy.

"we're only predicting what would happen if the elections were held today, we're not actually projecting a winner in the future!"

I find this quote somewhat interesting because even though it's nominally election day today, many votes were cast early or absentee already. I voted last week. No information coming out over the weekend could have changed my ballot. I wonder if the current generation of models account for this at all.

There is literally no excuse for the idiocy that we see in US every election.

How many unique questions are on Polish ballots? IIRC British ballots have only one question typically, but my American one had about 60 odd questions from various overlapping jurisdictions. There are almost certainly more unique suites of ballot questions than voting locations in my county.

But the wide variation in election quality speaks to differing standards and equipment across states and even between adjacent counties.

If they are harvesting, I can't lie to them and tell them I will vote.

I'm obviously not aware of the specifics of your jurisdiction, but could you not claim that your ballot was already postmarked and in the mail or an official drop box? At least for the mail, proof-of-receipt wouldn't be expected to show up immediately.

That said, I'm generally against ballot harvesting except maybe households making a single trip to the neighborhood post box. In addition to the already-mentioned concerns, partisan harvesting operations present lots of chain-of-custody concerns and the possibility of a badgering and/or "accidentally" losing ballots.

particularly among black pro lifers, many suspect abortion is designed to eradicate undesirables, with a special emphasis on black undesirables.

I've definitely also heard these arguments among (non-Black) pro-lifers, especially Catholics.

religion is the binding agent of a non-kin or super-kin tribe

I think the problem with this definition is that it defines garden variety civic nationalism as a religion. In theory, I could agree with that, but if we define my actions as a citizen (voting, jury duty, taxes to pay for social and defense spending) as a binding agent with my fellow Americans -- which I unironically believe, then the entire idea of separation of church and state is nonsensical to members of the Church of American Democracy.

Honestly I do somewhat agree with you, but I think it doesn't resolve the ambiguity of where "church" ends and "state" begins. I certainly don't see an obvious line of delineation despite wanting one to better define policy.

should I have any faith that the Effective Altruism movement has any handle on existential risk or any capability to determine what actions will increase or decrease said risk?

My personal guidance has long been that faith in individuals (and small groups) is almost always misplaced. Faith in principles can do pretty well, but IRL humans are quite fallible and rarely live up to our expectations. There is no living person whose word I would treat as sacrosanct without a willingness to do my own research.

IMO nobody has satisfactorily explained why AI risk outweighs, say, the existential risk of an extinction event by anthropogenic (nuclear war or catastrophic ecological disaster) or other (asteroid, supervolcano, nearby supernova). I don't think we have good handles on the relative magnitudes of risk on these. At some point you're really just acting on your priors.

"Save" might be a bit of an excessive claim, but circa 1991 the local balance of power certainly suggested that Iraq could have made attempts to annex all or part of other adjacent states. Before the Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army and relatively modern equipment. That the war would end in a curbstomp in hours was not a foregone conclusion beforehand.

he targeted the sexually promiscuous nightclub

Gay bars seem to be a popular scene for shootings like this, but I'm somewhat curious as someone who mostly stays home after dark what fraction of nightclubs qualify as "LGBTQ spaces".

I'm also peripherally aware that shootings happen at regular bars/clubs fairly regularly but usually don't make the national news because they match personal or gang feuds rather than assumed-to-be-political violence.

If you are looking at an American-centric Western view on the two host nations, I think the US team's absence (because they barely failed to qualify) had a profound impact on how most Americans who are not die-hard fans perceived the event (if at all).

As someone relatively moderate in a blue county in a red open-primary state, my choice of primary each year is dictated primarily by whether I want a maximal voice in electing local or state winners for the November ballot.

Do new car headlights really cost 200$?

From what I understand, yes or more for many vehicles. Because we've shifted from standardized incandescent/halogen bulbs in fixed unique-per-model reflectors (previously full round or square reflector assemblies) to fashionable unique-per-model LED headlights that are a single replaceable unit. When my the bulbs in my older basic car burn out, I buy new ones at the store for a few bucks and replace them in a few minutes. The OEMs say (and might be right) that the LED assemblies can be expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle, but it's far more expensive to replace the whole thing if it breaks or you get in a collision.

There is probably a good comparison to how phones no longer ship replaceable batteries (or memory on laptops) because the tight integration allows better performance and lower part counts (cheaper), at the cost of making line replaceable units larger and more costly.

But that is confounded by people just socializing less all around

I am not sure exactly what form I expect it to take, but I think "terminally online" is going to trend toward becoming lower-status in the next decade. The Internet and social networks benefited heavily from the fact that users were initially highly educated -- if sometimes socially awkward -- and generally high-status, but Eternal September (I'm not old enough to recall the 1993 event, but I can remember when Facebook was invite-only) has been an ongoing trend in online communities. At some point soon (probably already) in the lifecycle, avid internet use will start having more negative connotations -- see "touch grass", but more generalized -- and some swinging the opposite direction can be expected.

There will certainly still be a place for the humans thus displaced, it just won't be in any of the fields where skill is the determining factor and the AIs are higher skilled.

As an amusing thought experiment, consider trying to explain modern economics to someone from a society just coming upon the division of labor:

"You mean to tell me that only 1% of your population has to work to feed everyone? That sounds great! Imagine how much everyone must enjoy all of that free time!"

Needless to say, that isn't how it actually went, and I expect AI to be similar: we'll find something else in which to spend our time and raise our expected standards of living to match.

I'd agree those are the questions, but I'm not certain the answer to the second question is yes. There seems to be space for different outcomes there. While there are fewer horses in the US today than a century ago (a quick search suggests around half as many), I suspect the modal American horse lives a better life than its working counterpart of a century ago, largely because it's much more likely to exist as a pampered pet or show animal.

In some ways "yes, and humans retreat to doing only the things we enjoyed all along" seems like one of the best possible outcomes. I see art (see trends toward "handmade" and "bespoke"), governance (does GPT-3 demonstrate executive function?), and high-level resource allocation (what should we build/research?) as fundamentally human tasks. In the largely blank slate of oft-disagreed-upon human endeavor (admittedly, AI risk seems to focus on other possible endeavors), I don't forsee people voluntarily ceding control of what we decide to build and how it's paid for, at least with the existing technology: people like bikeshedding too darn much.

Like if someone makes a comment implying the police are racist or something,

Honestly, it's not too hard to acknowledge that this does happen more often than it would in an ideal world (never, presumably). I don't think I know anyone who thinks police racism is a good thing. Maybe someone wants to argue that Bayes makes it worthwhile, but I don't find that terribly compelling.

That humans are fallible is unsurprising, but how to design systems that work despite human failings is the core of civil political discourse. The extreme points of repressive jackboots and Mad Max anarchy are both pretty obviously undesirable to most: How do we choose balance personal freedom and public safety? Who watches the watchmen? These seem like less charged directions you can steer such a conversation.