ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
I think that would be a clear case of malicious regulation
I might end up having to do a walk of shame around here, and self-flaggelate about how I mistreated Elon, but I think that SpaceX is going to be seen as an example of "move fast and break things" being applied where it doesn't belong.
I guess "lack of regulation" isn't the right term, because there's been some bizarre political decisions in the process.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
I don't know if I agree.
I might end up eating my words, but there's a decent chance that after a series of underwhelming Starship launches, New Glenn ends up going straight to Mars on first attempt. They both operate in the same regulatory environment, so if that happens I'd say it's down to how each company is run.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Now Space X
Careful. You might be using it as an example of the disasters lack of regulation will bring, before you know it.
By all means, bite.
I meant something more abstract (but still not necessarily complete). As a kind of meta-moderate between you and Nybbler, I'm interested in the general question between some and no regulation. By heart, I am exactly the kind of "move fast an break things" type you criticized, but some amount of breaking things, and seeing things broken by others, has taught me that there are places where "think before you do" is a better approach, and once good approaches are discovered, it might even be a good idea to codify them. On the other hand, I think there does need to be room for good old-fashioned anarchy in a society, for reasons ranging from (as other pointed out) innovation, through having a lower bound on the quality of goods and services delivered by major producers, and all the way just to plain having a life worth living. My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.
But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death.
Look, I think that whole conversation got off on the wrong foot, and if you guys want it to go anywhere, you need a reset. I understand your frustration with lazy "regulation bad" arguments, and I understand his frustration with underhanded slippery-slope denialism. What I'm guessing is that neither of you is as bad as the other thinks.
I have never done this. Stop lying about what I've done.
I can concede a misunderstanding, but then I'm confused why are you criticizing them for bad arguments, if that's not an implicit demand to bring better ones (as the ones outlined in your examples)
I never said that they claimed that it was instantaneous. Stop lying about what I've said.
A quote from you:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
So it seems you are, again, accusing others of what you do yourself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.
Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it
As interesting as that conversation is, I don't see how it's relevant to my arguments.
One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework (...)
But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing.
And they're 100% correct to do so. Again, you opened with sneers, no framework of your own, and only vague hints at your own position. Much like you misrepresented your opponents views, while demanding they get yours exactly right, you seem to be demanding a higher standard then you're setting for yourself. I don't think it's a "mess the other guys are doing", you are a significant part of it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
Let's look at the tape
I'm confused, when you give link like this, aren't they supposed to prove your point, rather than disprove it? I don't see any claims of instantenous absolute killing of innovation. I could understand if you're being figurative here, but since you insist that your opponents get your position absolutely right when responding, I don't understand why you think it's fair for you to portray their claims in such a way.
The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims
And so do you. Normally when someone tries to have this sort of conversation in a productive manner, they tend to put forward some kind of framework for analyzing specific situations, so others can run it through various scenarios. I take you are in favor of some regulation, but not too much. How much is too much? Can we know in advance? Is there something we can do to prevent it from going too far? What can be done if it does? If you bothered answering any if these questions in advance, rather than strawmanning your opponents, and then complaining about being strawmanned, the conversation would be a lot more productive, probably.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
What are you confused about?
Your specific position. You've come in sneering at your perceived opponents, and when they respond you object that they got your position wrong. For example:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
No they haven't. Why do others have to get your position 100% right, while you're allowed to caricature theirs freely?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
I'm following this conversation from the sidelines, and you're sure not making it easy to understand what you're actually saying, or what's it you're interested in debating, beyond generic sneering.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Chill the hell out, man. This place isn't your private toilet.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Are you talking about legality, or are you talking about lack of enforcement? Because, although it was a while back, I distinctly remember stuff like a SWAT raid on a raw-milk co-op.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I have heard of it happening now and again, or in an emergency, but it is absolutely not a regular thing
Weird, was pretty common when I was a kid.
it was definitely not illegal to watch each other's kids
Yeah, it's also not illegal to invite someone over to dinner, that doesn't mean you can sell your food.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
One of the few areas where this is not true is child rearing and i s part of why daycare is so expensive and why people sometimes quit work to care for children.
There is no way that daycare costs aren't artificially inflated. If you're already taking care of a kid full-time, you can throw in a couple more, and barely see the difference (it's the whole reason it's even possible for daycare to work). The reason your SATHM neighbor can't offer daycare as a service is that she's not allowed to, not that it wouldn't be cost effective.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Ok, then if you're in any shape to continue the experiment, insult someone directly and compare the results to insulting their mother (you probably should pick a different dude though). You really think they'd beat you up more?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Some are men who pursued useless degrees and now work as aids.
Now that's an interesting career choice! How much does it pay?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I'm not overselling the relevance of critical theory to the western academic tradition as a whole, the critical theorists really do have hundreds of thousands of citations
I don't see how one follows from the other. You can, in fact, have hundreds of thousands of citations, while generating next to no awareness about your ideas in the mainstream, and being an esoteric subversive cult.
is not weird for him to be interested in critical theory.
Yeah, we're not talking about that. Most people here are interested in critical theory to some degree on another.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I think you're overselling the relevance of Critical Theory,it's nowhere near mainstream adoption, and half the time it's followers ale playing some weird "hide the ball" game and deny it's very exustnce.
But either way, I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Yeah... I wonder where all this will go. I once knew a psychiatrist who said they deliberately change up the lingo once the plebs starts catching on to it, but I think this become futile in the Internet age. And it's not just the language that creates problems, we were working on the assumption that none of the therapy stuff can have any drawbacks, but I'm pretty sure it can take you to an extreme that's not healthy. Bottling up emotions probably isn't good, but I don't think excessive introspection is either. Having a specialist that will help you deal with the more serious problems might be good in some cases, but it encourages to deal with negative things only in a therapeutic context, and segmenting them off from friends and family, making these relationships more shallow.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
This seems like a very strange thing to say.
Why are they the only ones who get to be "pragmatic"? Other people can "pragmatically" realize they have gals beyond the limited version they're proposing now, and "pragmatically" move to deny them their goals, and prevent any coalition from forming, even if theoretically they wouldn't be opposed to the limited version on principle.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
There's a Europe-wide initiative to ban meat in large cities in public institutions. Forgot what it's called.
You're not talking about one of these WEF-adjacent things (C-40 Cities, etc)? They tend to be aspirational. A lot of cities signed on, but it'll take a while before they get implemented.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
I see where you're coming from, but I'd say nazism was an ideology, not an ethnicity. The comparison then would be to feminism, not to women.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
Oh lol. I haven't noticed it before, but it turns out privacydevel pushed a shell script handling it already (twitter_oauth.sh), so I think I'll be removing the Python one.
What pro-union socialist heads of industry can you name?
Oh give me a break. You could be a literal Stalinist, if you're against MeToo / BLM / TransWomenAreWomen / the lastest Current Thing, approximately no one on the left is going to accept you as a leftwinger. There was a time when economic issues were what defined the left, but that time is long over.
I'm in the curious position of not particularly caring about the Russians running botnets on your vacuum cleaner, but hating IoT with a passion, and being prepared to murder anyone that tries to sell me a toaster that connects to the Internet. What do?
More options
Context Copy link