justcool393
you are loved <3
No bio...
User ID: 1784
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
While the existence of depopulation goals is so well documented that it’s not a conspiracy theory anymore
you've got to explain rather than just asserting its true.
on its face, this doesn't seem to make much sense to me: upper class would likely be quite averse to a shrinking population (this is why they are also broadly in favor of immigration). a shrinking population base can more easily demand higher wages on the basis that there are few able to perform their job. this is why you see such people like Elon Musk decrying the so-called "population crisis," with a smaller population basis, it can be harder to exert control in some scenarios (specifically for skilled labor).
you have two not necessarily competing "solutions" to this, Republicans will tend to call for banning of abortion and Democrats will tend to call for a very uh... liberal immigration.
i'd also argue that the type of low-skill worker is where depopulation would be least prevalent, why pay a living wage when you can pay illegal immigrants much less (and this wage gap has been documented1) for the same amount of work as a legal immigrant or a native-born.
1: See page 10 of the link. It seems to be relatively difficult to find strict numbers on like average wages, but it's likely I didn't look hard enough. Regardless, programs like E-Verify here in the United States tend to keep illegal immigrants out of most skilled labor, the hearsay seems reliable enough (I guess as much as it can be).
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
absolutely not. blue is the obvious one because if anyone errs, they die if everyone picks red and they pick blue, but someone erring with picking red doesn't cause a negative effect in blueworld.
the Lizardman Constant of people (+ some others who have genuine mental issues or are very young) don't die if everyone picks blue
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
What cost would that be?
negative reactions to surviving where someone else didn't are common. this is not a hard concept to understand nor grasp.
by the power of snuggles and friendship, magic will happen and we will gain the ability to fly if I do that!")
in this scenario, i think you have to realize that 50%+1 picking blue does save everyone, including those who misread the question or whatever.
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
depends on the type of incompetence and to what scale. i think a general statement like that is hard to prove and probably doesn't have merit.
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
Liberals aren't leftists. Generally liberals and conservatives are both very in favor of markets.
at 100% cooperation between all parties, there is no difference between blue and red. chug them both if you want and wash it down with a chaser.
I think it is a given that some people will either:
- misread the question and choose the option they don't intend to
- be transiently suicidal and would be helped by not encouraging someone towards suicide
- have unironic mental retardation (in the clinical sense) or be mentally disturbed in some other way (schizophrenia, etc)
- be incredibly young and do not understand the effects of either option
- have someone they know and care about that fits in the above 4 groups
- have someone they know and care about that might fit into the last option
if any of these are the case, it is almost certain for there not be 100% coordination to pick one or the other. it is not only probable, but imo extremely likely for someone to pick blue based on the last 2 or more uncommonly the first 4. therefore, untold numbers will die if red wins. you don't need to be unintelligent for the first to occur (even highly intelligent people make mistakes). therefore, we want to reduce the number who die. and the only way to do that is to get 50%+1 to pick blue.
it is much more attainable for 50%+1 to do something than for 100% to do something. and so, we should be focusing all of our effort on getting 50%+1 to do something by encouraging everyone to do something, because 50%+1 blue or 65% blue or 84.25% blue or 100% blue has the same outcome as 100% red, but the inverse is not true.
are you sure all of the people you care about will pick red? would you bet their life on it?
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
but it's still significantly more than 0%
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
"If that choice makes me Evil, then you are Stupid".
It is generally considered more bad to be evil than stupid or incapable. There are a lot of things people do that are incredibly risky in order to save a life or in fact not be burdened with having, by their own inaction, ended one. People will take incredible amounts of risk to save young children or people who are doing something potentially dangerous, in fact a lot of times endangering their own lives. People also die in this way.
Why? Because generally people aren't sociopaths and have some sense of morals beyond "stupid ppl and people who are incapable of X thing should go die." People will and do demonstrably put themselves at risk to save themselves or to save multiple people. That is something to be applauded.
It does not make one stupid to prioritize human life.
In any case, the logical and moral option are the same one, which is blue. It's moral because saving and helping those are who are less able and capable is something that should, in my opinion, be valued. A red world is inherently an incredibly low trust world by it's very nature (all of the people who would perform self-sacrifice have been killed off!) and honestly sounds really terrible.
Regardless. It only takes 50% of the blues to go blue, while it takes 100% of reds to go reds with the same outcome. I've seen people who post here who misread the question and pick the one they weren't intending to pick, and I don't think they're inherently stupid or whatnot, and I generally don't believe in even killing people who make a simple mistake to be a good thing.
justcool393
you are loved <3
5mo ago
Altman has demonstrated extreme willingness to help great number of people, this isn't about numbers on screen but about demonstrated goodwill.
yes, loopt was very successful. he also did great work at reddit helping to drive it into the ground as well. worldcoin isn't a totally creepy and terrible thing. very great CV there.
but more to the point: he's a investor, goodwill does not at any point enter the picture and it'd be remiss to think otherwise. that's the only thing they care about, ultimately. it seems clear to me that Sam probably hoped to sell out OpenAI and fortunately their structure made it so it didn't work.
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-child-pushing-menu-button-260nw-1319473658.jpg
for one
...or anyone who accidentally presses the supposedly "bad one"
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
We already do tend to do so every single day
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
for movies that purport to be based on true stories, maybe lack of realism should be?
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
Some countries like China and India went to quite extreme lengths to lower their population growth.
sure i'll give you China and India, but outside of that I still find the argument that this is happening on a mass scale outside of these 2 exceptions to be lacking and without merit
That's the beauty of it: if you successfully decrease the natives' fertility, you can then use it as an excuse to increase immigration. By the second generation the immigrants from the fertile countries you're importing will turn into the same sort of hedonist-nihilist low fertility bots westerners have already become.
as ironically nihilistic as this comment is, it seems again a extremely poor choice. why not just do both? you can get unchecked immigration with a rising population, although it's admittedly not very stable at high rates of both, and also lock people into bitter political rivalries
Except Elon Musk is now a "far-right extremist"
being far right or whatever political philosophy you say he is does not exempt him from his primary motivation: wealth accumulation. his concern is a poor theatre. he is one of the richest men in the world, he is going to advocate policies that are going to be in his interest, while putting on a poorly done kayfabe of concern for humanity or whatever.
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
does reading a post mean viewing the timeline , refreshing it, or clicking a tweet and reading it individually? it is possible to read posts in many ways.
from what I understand, the answer seems to be yes. also all the replies appear to be included.
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
so I've seen rumors around, and keep in mind these are just rumors, from HN and others that Twitter has been accidentally DDoSing themselves.
in the Twitter UI as of a few days ago (and earlier while looking for more information on a related thing I accidentally confirmed this), it'd start making hundreds of requests per minute to Twitter's servers. now looking through it, I found this
This is hilarious. It appears that Twitter is DDOSing itself.
The Twitter home feed's been down for most of this morning. Even though nothing loads, the Twitter website never stops trying and trying.
In the first video, notice the error message that I'm being rate limited. Then notice the jiggling scrollbar on the right.
The second video shows why it's jiggling. Twitter is firing off about 10 requests a second to itself to try and fetch content that never arrives because Elon's latest genius innovation is to block people from being able to read Twitter without logging in.
[...]
https://sfba.social/@sysop408/110639435788921057
obviously my source is pretty biased, but the self-request spam seems to at least be happening to some extent.
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
I mean if we're going to add a layer of "what do we think would happen for realsies" I imagine the blue % would go way up when you account for the risk. sure you might not pick red, but can you say your friends will for certain? and can you say the same that your friends won't go through this same process? what about your family?
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
i'm having a hard time reproducing this bug but i also may just be misunderstanding what you mean here so just necroing here to try to see and if i can get a better description
in order to reproduce this bug, where should i create the comment given this example thread
A (+1 | -0)
B (+1 | -0)
C (+1 | -0)
D (+1 | -0)
and what steps should I take after I've made the comment?
you've been spamming this sorta content all over this very thread and it's gotten incredibly annoying. you've been pretending that no one in their right mind would talk about how it relates to morality (note: links to multiple comments here) when this is a pretty clear angle that people would talk about it from.
i cannot buy that you had no idea people would talk about the morality of decisions. reference to morality is there from the bloody title of the post and discussing the moral turpitude of a choice or another is an incredibly obvious discussion point when we're talking about a problem like this. this is also the culture war thread ffs, discussion of morality of a certain thing is a pretty obvious jumping off point even if the darn title didn't mention it.
people've responded to your points and you keep ignoring them and insisting an incredibly uncharitable form of the argument. name calling by calling people virtue signalers, sarcastically making the strawman that people who disagree with you are calling you fascist with the implicit assumption that these are The Outgroup™, and just general uncharitablity and being a complete jerk.
which while there are strong opinions that some of the people you disagree with probably hold, your refusal to engage at any level but the most in-group signaling way is incredibly boring, unproductive, way more heat than light, and annoying. if you don't care so much as you say, just don't participate, or make a comment detailing your problem with the poll rather than pretending to be shocked shocked that people would have a long form discussion on something that has multiple different angles in the culture war thread of all places.
Another day, another entrant into the OpenAI drama. Emmett Shear is the new interim CEO of OpenAI.
I don't know why it was surprising to people that Sam wouldn't come back. The company was meant to be subservient to the nonprofit's goals and I'm not sure why the attempted coup from Sam's side (you know the whole effectively false reporting that Sam Altman was to become the new CEO) was apparently "shocking" that it failed.
The OpenAI board has hired Emmett Shear as CEO. He is the former CEO of Twitch.
My understanding is that Sam is in shock.
https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/1726468006786859101
What's kinda sad about all of this is how much people were yearning for Sam Altman to be the CEO as if he isn't probably one of the worst possible candidates. Like maybe this is just a bunch of technolibertarians on Twitter or HN or something who think that the ultimate goal of humanity is how many numbers on a screen you can earn, but the amazing amount of unearned reverence towards a VC to lead the company.
In any case, here's to hoping that Laundry Buddy won't win out in the rat race for AGI, lest we live in a world optimized for maximum laundry detergent. Maybe we'll avoid that future now with Sam's departure.
Anyway, I'll leave this to munch on which I found from the HN thread.
Motte: e/acc is just techno-optimism, everyone who is against e/acc must be against building a better future and hate technology
Bailey: e/acc is about building a techno-god, we oppose any attempt to safeguard humanity by regulating AI in any form around and around and around"
I mean, there is rdrama.net for low effort culture warring I suppose...
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
it's xkcd 356 for rats. as @hbtz pointed out on another medium
its a pretty good question! its a idiot economist, commons problem, and altruism problem triple whammy
its also prolly a spiritual problem cuz mottecels prolly dont rate the psychological cost of living as a red pill picker as opposed to a blue pill picker
While I am not a fan of stereotypical Redditors, I also fail to see why being convinced that a man 2000 years ago rose from the dead despite a near-total lack of evidence that this happened other than the writings of a few people who probably never knew him in real life is supposed to make one better than a stereotypical Redditor.
because people were:
- a dick about it.
- incredibly cringey.
okay so one of the things that you saw on reddit a lot was this complete disdain for anything Christian. probably because they were teenagers or whatever, but the people getting upset over people saying "bless you" or "merry Christmas" or their mom wanting to pray at Christmas dinner or whatever were absolutely flooring. it seemed like a caricature. the amount of people saying how they owned the fundies or whatever, whether true or not1 was absolutely flooring. you also had the professional quote makers acting with a complete lack of self awareness. or the faces of atheism people. or the people who would argue about it endlessly in YouTube video responses (remember when those were a thing?) and culture war forums.
people essentially made their identity about not believing in God and getting really really mad at anyone that found comfort or peace within religion. it kinda dominated the internet. and when people would discuss how not everyone are like these knuckleheads, it'd erupt into a well... holy war with everyone else being wrong on the internet in their view.
i imagine a lot of them were teenagers who were rebelling against their parents for making them go to church on Sunday or whatever. and no doubt, people do have legitimate grievances, but internet flamewarring and circlejerking didn't really do anything.
1: i would be remiss to not point out the MsScribe story where a woman spent years faking harassment from Christian internet stalkers for internet clout.
justcool393
you are loved <3
5mo ago
i don't really see the point, i think it'd likely just be as abused as upvote. it'd just be that "quality post" would be the new upvote and "not quality" would be the new downvote where "agree" is just a weaker form that would be uncommonly used.
i think it would be neat to see some indicator of controversiality though.
I really do find it hilarious that people think Twitter is that much different with Musk at the helm as far as Trust & Safety goes. It's basically more of the same, but Musk found a great way to appeal to right-wingers by talking about "free speech" and stuff. Twitter was already the most free speech media, nothing in T&S really changed much except for Trump being unbanned.
More options
Context Copy link