magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Which is why making such a claim about "most of the non-US West" when they really mean only UK and Ireland a ridiculous but sadly common thing here.
I mentioned Australia in that post. I know Canada has them as well, and I think NZ does too. I admittedly don't know that much about the Continent, but no, I didn't "really mean only UK and Ireland".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Yup, we had an author get jailed in NSW a few months back.
(Enforcement is very spotty, as you'd expect.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
First time I've seen the term, but I think it's pretty clear if you know the context.
Specifically, that the three Abrahamic religions have different days of the week as the Sabbath. Jews consider Saturday the Sabbath. Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. Muslims consider Friday the Sabbath.
Hence, asking him to work on Sunday implicitly (if imprecisely) tests whether he's a practicing Christian, because Christians are not supposed to work on Sundays.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
This is probably to allow Anthropic to have operations in the non-US West, most of which legally considers "a fictional story about underage characters boinking" to be "a video of a real-life statutory rape".
@erwgv3g34 In Oz, 700-year-old lolis are also treated as CP.
(These laws are dumb and I break them, but Anthropic probably can't get away with that.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
I genuinely wish people in these groups had a more traditional sense of morality, a better understanding of boundaries, and generally just cared about Chesterton's fence and second order effects.
There is no Chesterton's Fence here. Kids were exposed to nudity and sex in the EEA and for the vast majority of recorded history, because that's what happens when you can't afford a sex room and a kids room (or, further back, a sex cave and a kids cave). High ages of consent are also basically unknown before the 1800s. You're not espousing traditional morality when you want to keep the kids away from sex; you're espousing Victorian morality.
(Admittedly, orgies are a lot less common in history, though not completely unknown.)
I'd... maybe suggest checking your history and prehistory before accusing people of disrespecting tradition and Chesterton's Fence.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
I think we understand each other, then.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Did you perhaps edit very shortly after posting? I recall seeing "100% bulverism" and responding to that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
@Amadan did explain his reason for thinking @ArjinFerman was lying (that if he was unsure what Amadan meant he would have asked).
That reason was just bad, as it excluded the option of "AF was confident in his interpretation, so he didn't ask".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
You do this because you are not interested in truth seeking or understanding, but "getting" people you dislike (me, in this case).
Hopefully you don't think that of me, so...
I interpreted the post AF linked as saying "everyone on theMotte prejudged this incident according to their hatred of women, hoodlums and/or brown people, and no evidence will have any effect". The only element of that that's actually kinder than what AF read it to mean was that you didn't appear to be applying this to non-Mottizens, but clearly AF himself is one so I understand his annoyance.
Like, okay, if that's not what you meant, fine - and AF himself, in this chain, has not actually called you a liar or insisted that you did mean the thing you're denying, just noted twice that he legitimately thought your comment to mean what he originally stated. The only people who've called others liars in this chain are you and @TowardsPanna, and I think you're both wrong.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
The fact that men report being cheated on less and also report cheating less makes me wonder if the "have you been cheated on" question is actually mostly measuring having been cheated on. Seems plausible it could primarily be measuring "what is your standard of proof for concluding you've been cheated on" and "how good are you at detecting when you've been cheated on".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
· Edited 10d ago
Update: I asked the Victorian Greens if they still support that paragraph, and they said yes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
It’s good that public figures are calling for calm. That is the most important part of their jobs.
It is a part, but I wouldn't call it "the most important part". Admittedly, in Northern Ireland specifically it is a larger part than usual, but I'd call running the country more important than calling for calm (I think I'd prefer a politician who ran the country and never called for calm to one which called for calm and never ran the country, although admittedly a politician that calls for mob violence is a different kettle of fish).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
If you expect an AI fizzle, sure, the rest follows.
(TBC, I want an AI fizzle, at least for neural nets, but I suspect that we will need to ban it to make it fizzle. And I am a prepper, just not particularly for AI - non-AI GCRs are definitely a thing.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
If you accept what should be very obvious - that it's much more likely that AI ends up creating the conditions for a catastrophic scenario that does not instantly kill you than one that destroys the world or at least you personally
I don't think "instantly kill you" is a prerequisite for "destroys the world". Sure, a hostile AI that goes full Skynet is unlikely to get everyone in the first pass with bioweapons, but if the AI is not destroyed or crippled beyond repair in that chaos then you're just the last light to go out; the cleanup robots will break open your bunker months or years later and there's fuck-all you can do about it. Skynet isn't like a plague or an asteroid impact, because it doesn't naturally end - indeed, if it wins, it gets worse over time as the robots build more robots.
I think a key point here is that most of the scenarios you're thinking of where there's a standard catastrophe are subsets of "AI fizzle", where AI does not hit a perfect 10. If AI is a 10, then either it's [OPPOSED TO LIFE] (and you're dead), it's aligned to someone who'll take all your stuff away/kill you (what use is wealth you cannot retain?), or it's aligned to someone who'll give you utopia (and possibly even resurrect the recently-dead).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
Never heard or heard of it before to my knowledge.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
· Edited 12d ago
I mean, even if you think there are only those three, there's the possibility that you investing might change the relative proportions of them; there's no point preparing for AI doom, but there's a lot of point in trying to avert it.
I think the second and third scenarios are basically screened off in the near future. Neural net alignment is probably impossible, and it seems unlikely that AI will naturally plateau at "highly profitable but not table-flipping".
Here are the scenarios I see:
- World destroyed by AI. As noted, the only thing relevant about this scenario is trying to avoid it.
- Neural nets banned or heavily restricted, all neural-net companies have 80% of their market cap go to money heaven overnight. Alignable AI may be developed at some point 30-100 years in the future, but not necessarily by the companies we have now, and even then investing in companies that are trying to cause Interesting Times risks being stiffed by those with more direct control of the singularity event (what are you going to do, sue them?).
Obviously, this means that from my POV investing in these companies might as well be throwing the money in a fire (barring Greater Fool, and even then you're risking scenario 1).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
· Edited 14d ago
It is possible to be unfairly assaulted by cops and not be charged for bruising the cops' knuckles, or indeed charged at all. It is also possible to be reasonably beaten down by cops and be charged for bruising the cops' knuckles (though I'd argue that the charge would not be especially reasonable).
Being hit by cops is a physical action in the conflict, and its fairness is a moral judgement. Being charged for dubious reasons is a legal action after the conflict. There is no relation between these things. Both, either or neither could be true for all I know, but half of the reason you're catching so much flak is that you keep arguing against the photo demonstrating the latter when your original claim was that the photo provides no evidence for the former (and a photo of someone being hit by police is significant Bayesian evidence of him being hit unfairly, since if real it rules out that he was not hit at all, whereas it is nigh-completely irrelevant to the question of what charges were or were not brought).
The other half is that you keep saying that he "double-checked" your use of ChatGPT and are using that as evidence. What he was demonstrating there was that ChatGPT contradicted itself (it told you that the claim was false, but later told him that it doesn't know whether it's true or not) and thus its opinion should be accorded zero weight (the explanation for the contradiction, incidentally, is that chatbots are shameless liars and sycophants).
...In case @stoatherd's second explanation is correct, and you are very confused about the meaning of some of these words: the verb "charge" has multiple meanings. The meaning of "charged" assumed in the context of "charged for bruising the officer's knuckles" is meaning 6 ("someone formally accused him of a crime"), not meaning 12 ("someone ran at him with the intent of attacking him in close combat").
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
The standard of evidence for many motte users that cops unfairly assaulted a protestor on Jan 6th is apparently "this guy on X said so".
And the only external evidence provided was a post on X, which also provided no evidence whatsoever that a protested was charged for bruising the officers knuckles.
These are different claims, and the former is the one you were originally called out for.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
17d ago
The one thing I'll say in the police's defence is that the policewoman saying "Oh no, but we have to check, don't we?" might not have believed what she was saying. It's plausible she was just saying that to the Sikhs so that they didn't interfere while she was trying to examine him for wounds - the old "in dangerous situations, police will flat-out lie to you if they think that's what will get you to do what they want" playbook. I have certain misgivings about said playbook, since it causes its own problems with people who know about it and thus can't trust the police in such situations, but "certain misgivings from universalisability" sure as hell beats "literal racial stereotyping" so I feel it needs to be pointed out.
This doesn't excuse anything else, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
17d ago
Labour MPs defend race-based policing
The video here is not someone defending race-based policing. It's someone from the opposition (not sure if Tory or Reform) attacking the government (i.e. Labour) for race-based policing and asking them to stop it. The reply could well have defended it, but it's not included in that video.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21d ago
I will also add that I have an eidetic memory, so lists like this are inflated compared to what normal people are capable of.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21d ago
Dolmant, the Cammorian pastor, the girl from Elfstones of Shannara, a decent chunk of the priests in Babylon 5 (though not so much the Minbari religious caste), Bareil, the Imperial Cult, the Tribunal Temple, and Miriam Godwinson, at least, do priestly stuff on-screen.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21d ago
I don't think any of those gentlemen have said that there aren't hot sixty-year-old women (East Asians are notorious for this) or that sixty-year-old men always look attractive. They just said that the former can't have kids and the latter can. (If some of them have said the wrong statement, well, they're wrong.)
In case I'm one of the people you're counting as "some of the gentlemen", I would remind you that what I said was that the chances of making four kids with a woman who's already past 30 when you meet her start to get dicey.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22d ago
I thought about mentioning the dates, but I've not actually consumed much post-2010 Western media.
In case you're not making a joke, "the EEA" in the context of evo-psych and human biology refers to "the environment of evolutionary adaptedness", i.e. the conditions humans lived with in prehistory and which our bodies and brains are selected to best cope with. For instance, humans don't like concrete jungles, probably because the most similar thing to a concrete jungle in the EEA was an area recently destroyed by volcanism and such areas were generally devoid of food and water.
The "sex cave and kids cave" part was referring to the EEA. The "sex room and kids room" part was referring to "the vast majority of recorded history", because peasants were poor compared to us.
More options
Context Copy link