@firmamenti's banner p

firmamenti


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2023 January 01 23:24:51 UTC

				

User ID: 2032

firmamenti


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2023 January 01 23:24:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2032

I am geeky and nerdy. This level of asking a woman to be a prostitute for you is not geeky or nerdy, it's sexual harassment.

  • -27

Here is this post, but I asked chatGPT to simply make it longer.

In the future, it may be a good idea to filter all posts through an LLM so that they fulfill length requirements:

The recent passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein has indeed marked a significant moment in the political history of California, as it not only reflects upon the substantial tenure of a seasoned senator but also kickstarts the gears of electoral machinery to fill the now-vacant seat. This unfolding situation beckons a thorough examination amidst a myriad of discussions among political analysts, potential candidates, and the general electorate in California and beyond. Reflecting upon history provides a lens to understand the forthcoming political scenario. Unforeseen Senate vacancies have often led to midterm or special elections, the instances of Martha McSally's election in 2019 following John McCain's death, and Edward J. Markey's election in 2013 post John Kerry's resignation stand as testimonials to such historical precedence.

Delving into the legal framework, California law mandates the Governor to announce a special election within a fortnight of the vacancy, with the election to be held between 112 and 140 days post-announcement. This relatively brief yet crucial timeline sets the stage for an intense period of campaigning for potential successors and a whirlwind of information dissemination for the voters. The succinct period earmarked for campaigning necessitates potential candidates to hit the ground running, mobilizing support and articulating their policy stance to the electorate. This period also challenges the voters to sift through the information, analyze the policy propositions of the candidates, and make an informed decision on election day.

The political ambiance is already abuzz with speculation regarding potential candidates who might vie for the vacant seat. Names like California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, have been floated around in political circles, albeit it's still early days. The political ideologies and past performances of these potential candidates could significantly shape the narrative of the election, and subsequently, the ideological leaning of the elected successor. The spectrum of political ideology that these candidates represent could potentially sway the policy trajectory that California embarks upon in the forthcoming years.

A predominant part of the discourse centers around whether Feinstein's successor will embody a more progressive or a traditionally liberal stance. Although sometimes used interchangeably, the terms 'progressive' and 'liberal' encapsulate different political ideologies. Progressives often advocate for more radical reforms, pushing the boundaries of traditional policy frameworks to address systemic issues, while liberals tend to favor a more moderate, incremental approach towards policy reform. The dichotomy between progressive and liberal ideologies is not just a semantic one, but reflects a deeper ideological chasm that could significantly impact policy formulation and implementation.

Several political analysts have delved into this discussion, reflecting upon the growing ideological divide within the Democratic party, both at a state and national level. This debate is not confined to California but mirrors a broader national dialogue concerning the trajectory of the Democratic party. The discourse encapsulates various facets of policy debates, from healthcare reform to climate change mitigation strategies, and reflects a broader ideological struggle within the party. Quoting a political analyst from The Washington Post, "The forthcoming election in California is a microcosm of the broader ideological struggle within the Democratic party, reflecting the tension between a growing progressive faction and a more established liberal base."

The impending election is not just about filling a vacant seat; it's potentially a narrative on a shift in California's political ideology. It's about the candidates, their campaigns, the voter turnout, and how these elements coalesce to pen the next chapter of California's political narrative. The narratives that emerge from campaigns, the debates that ensue, and the eventual electoral outcome will collectively narrate the next chapter of California's political saga. Set against the backdrop of a dynamically evolving American political landscape, this election is a testament to the continuous, unfolding story of democracy. The ripple effects of this election could potentially reverberate beyond the borders of California, impacting the national political narrative and the policy discourse within the Democratic party.

In conclusion, the election to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein's vacant seat is not just an electoral event, but a significant political occasion that could potentially mark a shift in California's political ideology and have broader implications on the national political landscape. The discourse surrounding this election, the candidates that emerge, and the eventual electoral outcome will be keenly observed, analyzed, and discussed in the days and months to come, embodying the dynamic nature of the American political system and the continuous evolution of political ideology and policy discourse.

It may also be a good idea to then use a similar LLM to summarize the post. Here is a good summary/higher information density version of the above:

The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein prompts a special election in California, as per state law, to fill the vacant seat. Historically, such elections like Martha McSally's in 2019 and Edward J. Markey's in 2013 have followed Senate vacancies. Speculated candidates include California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti. A key discussion surrounds whether a progressive or a traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the Democratic party. The election outcome may signify a shift in California's political ideology, potentially impacting national political narratives and the Democratic party's policy trajectory.

And then a very good description. In my opinion this is the best example of what a high conceptual information density top post should look like, and while help facilitate the most useful discussion:

The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein triggers a special election in California, with speculated candidates like Alex Padilla and Eric Garcetti. The election sparks discussions on whether a progressive or traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the party, potentially impacting national political narratives.

—-

If anybody wants help decompressing their posts or repeating the same ideas a few times to fulfill length requirements, chatGPT is good, mistral was also just released and is supposedly really good too.

  • -14

I think it's just an age thing. Atheism forces you to remain ignorant of substantial parts of human experience. It would be difficult to hold that level of ignorance for a very long time, especially with the internet. I think it's just hard to enforce that level of blindness in the age of the internet.

There do seem to be a few people in my life that never grew out of their atheism phase, but they seem generally uncurious.

Maybe I'm just way off? My suspicion is that there are very, very few atheist rationalists. I don't think that the curiosity involved in rationalism would be able to also support being an atheist. The cognitive dissonance would be too strong.

To expand on this: a religious person asks the question "what if there is no god" and spends a life exploring it. An atheist asks that question when they're a teenager (usually), figures that they know the answer, and then refuses to explore further.

  • -14

This post is short, but kindof exemplifies what I’m talking about. Here is the total information contained in your post:

I disagree.

You could even have just replied

disagree

Or even

false

And no information would be lost. Your post contributes nothing to the discussion behind “I disagree”.

And yet I suspect that a one word reply of “false” would get moderator threats. Because you made your post longer than it needs to be it will stand.

  • -12

What about this is infuriating?

Also: this is an extremely low effort post. Please don’t post like this.

https://www.themotte.org/rules

actual prostitute who literally sells her body as a commodity apparently has no respect for it or and is whoring this out on the internet.

Wow this is really compelling stuff. A girl in the internet talking about her bobs and vagene? Sounds like she isn’t like the other grills!

You seem to entirely discount the existence of many older atheists who used to be religious.

I'm sorry but this "entirely discount" irritated me more than it probably should have. No I am not "entirely" anything. I'm pointing out a perceived inverse correlation between age and adherence to atheism, oh and wouldn't you know, since we all love polls here so much, that is reflected in polling: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/age-distribution/

Obviously these people exist. I still have all of their books, and used fawn over their youtube videos and post their takes on my various social media accounts. I still celebrate Christopher Hitchens birthday and mourn him on his death day, and still consider him one of the most influential people in my life outside of my own family.

It's kind of amusing seeing this kind of argument dunking on atheists as just angry teenagers who never grew up.

Especially given the types of responses I've gotten, I agree.

how can you claim to be a Catholic while simultaneously appreciating the Dao?

Have you considered that your model of religious people is simply wrong?

Maybe the Buddhist seems more (although I don’t think so), but the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Jew, and the Catholic certainly see more than the atheist.

I recently spent some time in Abu Dhabi, and visited The White Mosque there. Because of my willingness to explore or accept the validity of the divine, I see more there than an Atheist would.

I am Catholic, and won’t lie about my biases. To the general point about the necessary ignorance of Atheists, however, the specific religion is irrelevant. Somebody elsewhere made a comparison to a nationalist visiting a national monument and feeling differently than a globalist. I think that approaches the same point I’m making

Yeah I definitely believe I could be wrong. It seems like an extreme level of cognitive dissonance to me to constantly be posting about HBD and asking tough questions and wanting to kill sacred cows and all of that, but then just be absolutely unwilling to explore religion.

I’m saying that constantly referring to them as “the invaders” instead of The Russians is performative.

Ukraine is prey now and their “resistance” to Russia’s invasion is going to lose them their nation, not keep it.

As soon as Americans have had enough of Zelensky’s adventure, it’s going to be over and he’s going to be left with a generation of lost men, every western investment bank salivating at helping The Ukrainians rebuild, and a bunch of destroyed cities.

No you do not undertake my point, or are willfully misinterpreting it.

he has no appreciation for the ways that the eternal Dao reveals and unfolds itself in the construction of the Basilica, no understanding of how it serves as an expression of Krishna's glory, nor does he understand how it is a reflection of the sublime beauty of Melek Taûs.

Yes he does. Yes I do, and that is my point.

He’s doing that to be antagonistic. He said not to say “trains” (which I don’t agree is a Reddit thing but whatever), so I stopped, but he kept using that term.

I don’t think it’s an odd request. Im asking him not to be unnecessarily antagonistic.

Here’s another example of him misquoting me, then arguing with his own misquoting: https://www.themotte.org/post/499/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/102514?context=8#context

He’s doing this, presumable again, to be antagonistic.

(But this is way off topic sorry to anybody reading along. I does get annoying when people mischaracterize what you say)

Well, no. You're right that just saying "False" would get dinged for being low-effort, but he added quite a bit more than that.

He added quite a bit of unnecessary words to fluff the length of his post, which is my point.

You clearly do not like people talking about things that are of no interest to you, or using more words than you want to read. And well, you've got a really good and easy solution to that: don't read posts that don't interest you.

Then what is the purpose of this forum? What is the purpose of moderation at all? Is the idea of community standard interesting? Is the idea of discussing the way people here use words, and the way they could (likely are) using LLMs to fluff their posts up interesting?

"don't read posts that don't interest you"

Clearly this post does interest me. Clearly most things posted in the CWR interest me. You said the exact same thing to me when you got offended/defensive at my criticism of some girl posting ridiculous surveys the other week, suggesting that I'm disinterested in something because I am critical of it.

No, I am quite interested in the way that people signal things to one another. I think that is essentially core to the culture war, and since this entire thread and raison d'etre for this website is discussion of the culture war, I think it's completely reasonable to talk about the ways in which people wage it.

this is plainly, obviously false

Let's go line by line and see if there is any information in your post that goes beyond "I disagree":

Goodness no. Longer posts, please. The moderation guidelines for top level posts in the CW threads are fine the way they are, and if anything they should be tightened up a bit.

In summary: you disagree. Although "longer posts, please" does come close to going beyond "I disagree", it is in direct response to me saying I want shorter posts. Maybe instead of the total information in your post being "I disagree", it could be "I disagree. I would prefer longer posts."

I don't think I've ever read a post on TheMotte that I would describe as "long and low density". Pretty much every post here is either quite enjoyable to read, or it's on a topic I'm not interested in to begin with, in which case I just ignore it.

You are literally quoting something from my comment here, and then...saying that you disagree with it.

I don't think anyone here does that.

Again you are quoting me and simply saying that you disagree.

In none of this do you link to any examples of why you disagree or do you include any new information or ideas other than your disagreement.

Having been engaged for 2 of the four years they’ve been together, and intending to have kids but not doing it, and this is the exceptional example?

The “cease fire” people are the same people who were calling for a “no fly zone” over Ukraine.

I believe Israel has been seeking a ceasefire for about 20 years now. In fact, I’d say that their entire response here is because Palestine continues violating the various cease fires being implemented.

Books are useful for children, for developing reading skills if nothing else.

Okay this is fair. Maybe a library for children's books? (I'm thinking like...5 years old and younger?)

I can't imagine how jealous I'd be as a postgrad at some university if high schools were getting more H100s than me

This is kindof the world I want. Some cool resources are available to high schools to the point that it makes other's jealous. Noboyd on earth is jealous of a high school library. Change that and make the "library" something cool/something to be proud of!

There was a video that went around a few weeks ago (https://youtube.com/watch?v=RAlI0pbMQiM) where people were asked to rank each other's intelligence from most to least. The (presumably) straight cis het white male who worked in a low intelligence field (former military) and lived in Indiana or somesuch was ranked very low by the rest of the group, but when tested ranked 2nd.

My suspicion that LGBTQIA2S+ community members appear to have such high intelligence because they're not being constantly discouraged from achievement like straight cis het white males are.

You are basically seeing the effects of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat?useskin=vector

LGBTQIA2S+ people are told that they are smart and unique and creative and wonderful and destined to do great things in the world, and as a result of that they do.

Everybody else (I'm using straight cis het white fucking males as a bit of a catchall here, since nearly everybody else can fit themselves into LGBTQIA2S+ somewhere except them) is told that they are stupid, uncreative, evil colonizers who can't dance, can't make music, stole everything they ever created, cant't go to the moon, etc. I am a straight cis het white male. Who are the role models I am supposed to be allowed to have?

Making it a financial drain is all you need. Russia only has so many tanks, planes, etc. in storage that can be re-activated. While there are efforts to step up defense production, it's not easy and Russia is a thoroughly corrupt nation whose government hemorrhages money into the pockets of whoever holds it at every step.

Yes but as few tanks and guns and ammo as Russia has, Ukraine has even fewer, it's why they are entirely depending on Zelensky flying around the world in his green outfit and begging/shaming other countries into funding his war.

Look it's horseshit that Putin invaded. That sucks for the Ukrainian people that are suffering, but Zelensky is only prolonging the suffering. This is not a marvel movie where the good guys win. The guys with more artillery, more land, more calories for their troops, more money, and more ability to threaten the rest of the world win. In this case, that is Putin.

Putin is going to win, the only question at this point is how long it's going to take, and how many young Ukrainian men are going to die.

The only way that doesn't happen is if Zelensky succeeds in starting WW3. I hope that nobody is deranged enough to think that is a reasonable sacrifice for the rest of the world so that he doesn't have to go to the negotiating table.

You said not to use Reddit drama phrases, then continued doing so, presumably to be antagonistic. I asked you to stop.

This seems relatively straight forward to me.

What am I claiming I didn’t say? That seems like a bit of a silly thing to do, since the posts are all right here for anybody to read.

It doesn’t seem like you’re trying to argue in good faith here. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere.

You can yell at me more if you want or misquote me or mischaracterize what I said or even continue being unnecessarily antagonistic, but I won’t reply to you any more in this thread.

Have a nice day.

No this is definitely not a troll. I actually sortof hate the (blatantly inverted) myth that religious people can't be scientists, but I think it illustrates my point really well, so here goes:

You can have a devout Catholic particle physicist, astronomer, biologist, etc. These things are completely compatible with each other. Consider the breadth of experience that a devout Catholic astronomer has. They are able to tap into both the beauty of the universe, as well as integrate this into a broader (in my opinion richer) understanding about how humans and our morality fit into that universe. They get the "stars are cool" side of things, but they also get the divine "this is bigger than me" philosophical side of things.

To a devout Atheist, only part of this is available. You certainly get the "stars are cool" part, but you have to remain intentionally ignorant of the rest of the human experience.

Another example could be: I am a musician, and because of my understanding of music, I hear a drastically different thing when listening to it than somebody who isn't. Things which are "clever" in music just aren't apparent to a person who doesn't understand what is happening. Because I am willing to explore the idea that music is more than just patterned noise, my experience is richer. It's why the listening experience is richer for a musician than it is for a non-musician.

The same is true for cooking, painting, sculpting, etc. If you're a chef, you get to tap into a better understanding of what another chef is making for you and why it is interesting.

An atheist sees thousands of years of human history, art, and philosophy and (to stay in my metaphor) they just see the patterned noise that a non-musician hears when listening to music. It's pretty colors on a canvas, but that's kindof it.

A Catholic visiting Saint Peters Basilica sees something more than an atheist.

But the Catholic misses out on nothing.

The Atheist retort to this is, of course: but what if its all fake? Okay that's a fine question, but that starts driving into a question that I think causes the snake to sort of eat its own tail: what's real? Is the love I feel for my wife and children "real"? etc. etc. (this is a well trodden discussion that I don't think I need to remap)

This guy sounds like an absolute sperg, and actually discouraging this behavior is a sign of a functioning society.

"Hello, would you like to have sex with me?" is not an appropriate thing to say to a woman unless you are in a relationship with her. "Hello, would you like to have sex with me and then have me absolutely ignore you emotionally and treat you like free prostitute" doubly so.

Do not behave this way. "Friends with benefits" is not a thing for people who are asking reddit if they are autistic or not.

Can you pick one and describe them? Just some questions: how long have they had this arrangement, how long after they started dating did it start, are they married, do they have kids, etc.

The closest one I can think of is: has kids, married, but the husband openly resents the woman (who is substantially more attractive than he is, and obviously gets a lot more extra marital activity than he does).

The others were "polyamorous", but eventually got married, had kids, and are now monogamous.

The rest are as I describe: angry bitter facebook rants about people lying to them (and everybody knows exactly what they're talking about). Lots of eventually finding somebody they really like and entering a relationship with them.

Isnt Beff Jezos an obvious parody account? I don’t think he “founded e/acc” the way Forbes is saying here (maybe there a joke I’m missing). I thought the term was made as a joke by George Hotz when Lex Friedman asked him about effective altruism.

Edit: I was wrong. BBJ did coin the term.

I’m definitely in that sphere as far as I know. E/accs are like: we want more nuclear power, more rockets, better stuff through technology. AI is definitely a part of that, but in the sense that an e/acc person would point out the potential good things that AI could bring instead of worrying so much about the more theoretical (imo) bad things. There has been a huge push in the last few years to do hardware or “hard tech” startups, and a lot of the founders talk about “accelerationism” as a bit of a tongue in cheek rallying cry.

I had actually seen a lot more e/acc talk around space, energy, and manufacturing startups than around AI. I would expect and e/accist to be more comfortable in front of solidworks than in front pytorch, although now that I think about it GeoHot was talking about AI, and is doing an several AI companies right now.

I guess put me in for: this is a good term actually! BBJ was a parody account don’t let him poison the term, please! take my h200s from my cold dead hands though. (Just kidding I’m poor. Please talk slow Im autistic running this on an ancient 1060.)

Here’s the geohot clip I’m talking about: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DdZmZJHEVUc?si=g7z3yB_V_pvqc6-q