faceh
5mo ago
My guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms,_Inc.
Wonder if the outcomes of such a case might be different given that there was a small change in leadership over in Washington.
faceh
5mo ago
My basic search is showing that panama lacks any Combat capable aircraft.
So IF it were actually going to be a fight, I dunno that they'd be able to pop their head out long enough to do much sabotage.
But more to the point, that's about the only piece of leverage they have to avoid a fight, so I suspect they might sign a deal rather than play that card.
This thread is full of people saying that tattoos aren't attractive.
Not quite.
Its more that they're correlated with low social status in the larger scheme. This doesn't mean they isn't a local maxima where they make someone more attractive than they would otherwise be, even if it also makes them vastly less attractive to a certain segment of the population.
In fact, I've said it straight up that the 'cheat code' to getting more women interested in you is get tattoos, get subversive piercings and buy a motorcycle. This can lead to other negative effects, but the tradeoffs may be worth it! At least in the short term.
There's a dearth of people who hold positions of true wealth power who have tattoos, though. Thus, they remain a reliable class signifier.
When something is largely a lower-class phenomenon, just like enjoying MMA or light beer, the fact that a few upper class folks indulge doesn't really prove otherwise.
yet every cop and every Navy SEAL and every BJJ champ and every boxer I know has at least one tattoo visible in short sleeves.
Yes, which might explain why people who AREN'T tough want to mimic a signal that makes them seem tough, whether they are or are not. That's common enough in nature.
And if they do so, that degrades the strength of the signal. And makes counter-signalling more viable. If all the cops, SEALs and BJJ guys have tattoos, what might you surmise about the ones that have resisted the trend and don't have any?
I dunno, it reads like a social trend like any other. I lived through the era of tramp stamps, and those faded from popularity. I've seen dozens of fashion trends come and go. The only trick with tattoos is they're more costly to alter or remove.
Also, add in that there is research indicating they can lead to health issues.
faceh
3d ago
Epstein‘s MO was to lie about his girls’ ages to collect blackmail material, theres no reason to believe these people are like actual pedophiles
I mean, sure. But you'd really hope that such people would want reassurances that the woman was there willingly and weren't coerced, drugged, or blackmailed into it themselves. I think most 'normal' people would be sketched out, even if they don't immediately go to the cops.
That he was able to get away with it for quite a while hints that people were willingly turning a blind eye. Not the same as being complicit, but it still reads like a moral failure.
And of course we can go AKSHULLY there's no pedophilia involved whatsoever b/c all the girls were post-pubescent and in their teens. I am sure some people think there's documented proof of like, children being raped or something.
Though of course the more conspiratorial element is that the really nasty stuff occurred on the jet or on the private island.
Do I think there was literal child sacrifice or something going on? No.
But my priors on someone who is involved in pimping underage women out being involved in even more depraved activities are... reasonably high.
It is genuinely harder for me to believe that almost all global elites diligently avoid taboo and socially abhorrent/illegal behaviors. Especially with the more recent dominoes falling WRT to P. Diddy and that whole circle. That said, I don't think they're going around consuming human flesh or bathing in virgin blood, I doubt the very worst of the theories are at all accurate.
What can I say, ensuring there are consequences for elites misbehavior is one of my pet issues.
faceh
16d ago
Its not the not-committing per se, its the exploitation of her naivete and trust, as clearly put on display in Willy's case.
If he really is a serial philanderer, eventually he'd hit someone who had a male with some investment in her wellbeing who could course correct him.
faceh
1mo ago
More critically, serious enforcement is dependent on self-reporting.
Yep. And this will increasingly be the case.
Generate a few dozen plausibly human-drawn images, release them on a plausible timeline that a human artist could achieve, and there's little anyone could do but speculate.
Maybe there's some solution that involves uploading the raw files from the WIP to a blockchain or something.
Not disagreeing, and indeed I don't think any legal processes have been invoked here.
But how much should women's feelings be accommodated in these sorts of informal social conflicts? As much as we don't want explicit written rules there's a void left when the rules are allowed to be written ad hoc as technology advances.
The situation's "severity" seems to me that if he and his organization had stood his ground, said "look I'm deleting everything and I'll take a social media hiatus, but nobody has been hurt and the team is more important" they'd probably have come through alright.
but I'm not sure one's body is the best concept to illustrate it.
That's just the most convenient way to demonstrate since people usually have their body present when you're discussing things with them.
Indeed there are many people whether imprisoned, disabled or otherwise incapacitated that don't really own their own body in a meaningful sense.
I mean, I see the point. But if there's any 'person' left in the brain, unless they're the poor sucker from Johnny Got His Gun, the brain is still in control of 'something.'
And the only way people can take that control is by directly and physically interfering. Which is to say, by exercising control of their bodies and using that to incarcerate you, restrain you, or damage you.
The strongest refutation of 'self-ownership' I can think of that actually exists are the cases of conjoined twins. We've got entangled nervous systems where maybe neither person really 'controls' the parts they share. But its still way more convenient for them to agree to coexist.
Otherwise, unless there's some entity out there that can unilaterally override your brain's functions and direct how your body is used regardless of your own will and wishes (hence: a hivemind species), it seems to me there's no way to overcome the conclusion "I own myself" because any actions taken to refute it would inherently prove it true.
faceh
3mo ago
Offer access to your country's natural resources, like was proposed with Ukraine?
Make direct investments into American manufacturing like Taiwan?
I expect that the deals reached by each country will look different, with the outcomes being the result of some creative horse-trading.
Now, I'm also concerned that this will result in an overly complex patchwork of trade deals and potentially contradictory obligations between various countries, when the simplest outcome would just be everyone drops tariffs to some agreed-upon maximum and signs on to a treaty to keep them there.
But this is not some historically unprecedented diplomatic endeavor.
faceh
3mo ago
Actually sound advice in any event.
You want to be the closer, not the warm-up before they get really sloshed.
faceh
4mo ago
I'm also assuming that it will be very hard to pull the best talent away from their existing companies.
If they're true believers in the ultimate power of AI, then you probably can't offer them ANY amount of monetary compensation to get them to jump ship, since they know that being on the team that wins will pay off far more.
faceh
5mo ago
Tend to agree, but I'm just asking for the production of an agent that actually matches the hype.
I suspect there is still a use for specialized software that is cheaper to run for a given task than having the LLM burn through $100 of compute for basic functions, but at that point the AI should be able to write and refine the code for such software anyway.
faceh
5mo ago
Those two sentences don't really follow.
The terms of service saying "don't do this" doesn't actually stop you from doing it.
And likewise, the terms of service can be changed so really this is "how do you convince them to partner up."
faceh
5mo ago
Yeah. I should have specified that the strong correlation is found among the young, not the older groups.
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/teenagers-problematic-smartphone-use-are-twice-likely-have-anxiety
Note this study where anxiety disorders among adolescents are generally decreasing over decades in the 'developing' world (smartphones less common!) and INCREASING in developed countries:
faceh
7mo ago
I've noticed a lot of the wisdom from when I got started has completely vanished.
Yep. As I recall it, the "HODL" meme came into existence as simple advice to keep people from panic selling AND from jumping from onto non-bitcoin coins (shitcoins, mostly) and thus from avoiding the biggest risks to your Sat stack, your own emotional decision-making.
Your premises are that only individuals are responsible for their own actions, and those actions can be neatly separated and contained to solely that person.
Yes.
And in order to be coherent you'd have to believe this too.
Otherwise, why do we hold the CEO responsible for his actions, rather than acknowledge that he is only acting amongst a massive network of incentives and players responding to endless numbers of variables.
Or we can tie everyone into the web of consequences and spread the blame around.
Your other premise is that a man's wife is no more related to him than a man's neighbor, a premise that is as obviously incorrect as it is misleading.
Close. You're playing a bit loose with the term 'related' in this case.
Genetically speaking the neither the wife nor the neighbor are probably very closely 'related' to him.
Romantically speaking the wife is clearly closer.
Geographically speaking the neighbor isn't much further.
Its just not clear to me why the nature of the wife's relationship to him somehow endows her with blame, or what-have-you, while the neighbor is excluded from blame?
faceh
8mo ago
Because they don't have the advantage of an ongoing pandemic to motivate against in-person voting and creating cover for a sizeable increase in absentee ballots.
I think there's just going to be fewer ballots out there to that are ripe for harvest, ultimately.
faceh
8mo ago
I mean, if a woman is strong enough to fight back and escape a man, that's either an abnormally strong woman or an abnormally weak man.
So I should perhaps phrased it as those who effectively fought back versus merely offered impotent token resistance.
faceh
8mo ago
I've not seen any recent technology advances in cars that I'm willing to pay a premium for.
Me neither, but occasionally I drive a modern car as a rental and there's a lot of safety and convenience features that have arisen in just the past, call it 8 years alone.
This hasn't always been so. There are still many use cases (mostly offline specialized stuff) that is seldom updated. It was feature complete when it shipped.
But this model seems dominant now, and consumers generally don't seem to be en masse demanding one-time purchases (although for video games this is still a thing).
And from the standpoint of "everything is internet connected and thus a possible security risk" I can see the basic logic of paying to keep vulnerabilities patched, at least!
faceh
8mo ago
I'm more asking if friend A has to move to a different city for a job opportunity, friend B has to move across the country for his family, and Friend C is stuck in the same place for [reasons], is it better for them to have a virtual environment to hang out, even if it is an imperfect simulation, or should they all forgo other opportunities to maintain close distance with each other?
faceh
8mo ago
Indeed.
But that sort of person is seemingly becoming more common these days, and it would surely make sense for them to have subscriptions/rentals for everything since that gives them maximum mobility and minimal friction?
faceh
8mo ago
This ultimately seems like a generalized argument against centralized authority, however.
There's a version I can conceive of with enough competition between various entities that it is less likely that a person gets frozen out of everything at once due to violating the policy of one of them. And likewise the competition prevents any one company from engaging in full monopoly pricing to suck all the consumer surplus out of the system.
There needs to be a balance and I personally think we're already too close to the latter, better to arrest this trend than accelerate it.
What would you say the optimal balance looks like, and is that sustainable as an equilibrium? Or barring that, what metrics would you examine to determine where the balance lies, and why are those metrics important?
I ask because it can be a bit hard to measure "individual sovereignty" on a scale or "convenience" as an objective phenomenon. How much 'inconvenience' should we accept to avoid giving away too much autonomy?
faceh
8mo ago
There's a cohort that largely already owns nothing, they don't seem very happy.
I'd suggest that's downstream of them being poor, not necessarily their lack of ownership rights (which is, in this case, ALSO downstream of being poor).
If you're the sort to buy a good 10 year old used car and drive it until it dies or is un-economical to repair in 12+ years, you've already optimized this as much as possible. Unless you only have a car and don't need a car, people living in cities who rarely drive etc.
Or you live in a time where tech advances quite rapidly and so a ten year old car is qualitatively different and arguably inferior to the new versions, so you're missing some tangible benefits from not being up to date.
Kind rolls into the software as a service thing too. If you buy a piece of software outright but don't pay for patches and updates, eventually it might stop working, have security vulnerabilities, or otherwise become less useful as it is outdated. vs. subscribing to a piece of software, guaranteeing ongoing development and updates in response to security threats or new tech.
If you find it worthwhile to subscribe to a piece of software to keep it up to date and functional, why not do the same for hardware? The computer you're running the software on, for instance. Or, how big of a leap is it to subscribing to a service that does this for vehicles? They get you an upgrade whenever there's an improvement in safety tech or fuel efficiency, for example.
What situations does it make absolute economic sense to hold onto an older piece of tech, even if it is 'obsolete' or 'outdated,' for the sake of owning it outright?
Yeah, but you're using a second currency to denominate the value of the asset. Not the currency it was actually purchased in.
More options
Context Copy link