the_Culture_is_great
No bio...
User ID: 3228
the_Culture_is_great
26d ago
As a Canadian reading this thread I find people's reluctance to remove shoes hilarious.
If you live in a place that gets frequent snow, and the associated grimey, salty slush as it melts, removing boots/shoes when coming inside is so obviously the correct action.
And then because everyone is used to removing shoes, in the warmer dryer seasons people still do, even though the benefits are more marginal.
The only real exceptions to the "shoes off" rule are things like more formal events, where people are wearing nicer footwear, taking pains to avoid getting them dirty at all, and where extra cleaning by the host is going to be required anyways.
Arrival was good, but it mostly missed the point of the short story, in that it shouldn't have included time travel.
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
Fully remote is worth a lot. I was able to switch via COVID and I never want to go back.
I've taken minor pay cuts for WLB + actual enjoyment of work, but never a major one (like -25%) one. Always felt worth it, and I made up for the cuts with additional job hopping and career growth. Missed out on one potentially giant payday though.
I think you know what the best path forward is - keep plugging away at your current job, but keep the hunt going on the side. If a new job sounds great, take it. Companies that are hiring are typically less likely to lay you off right away (though yes, it does happen).
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
Are you denying that homeowners who have there house values massively increase aren't richer?
Sure the fact that you need to live somewhere does make that wealth harder to access, but HELOCs, reverse mortages, downsizing, purchasing a new house with a mortgage (rather than outright), etc are all options that are now available to you and give immediate access to that huge source of wealth, with many options both for where to live and how to structure your debt/asset mix.
My own parents, who bought their houses decades ago, leveraged housing price increases as collateral to purchase multiple rental and vacation properties. Sure the world didn't generate more wealth from this, but the point is my parents got much much wealthier at the expense of those who still need to purchase/rent, as they are the ones driving housing prices.
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
I didn't mean to imply that "beyond human level" meant "machine god". But even going just slightly past average human level has potential for massive societal upheaval as it would very quickly devalue much or most human labour (even if some number of high performing humans can still outperform AI, many of us aren't fully using our cognitive capabilities in our day to day).
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
ThisIsSin's argument is that the bar of what AI needs to do is low - not what it can do.
The idea being that even if the AI can't surpass the best humans, it can learn from them in order to be better than the rest.
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
Even with all labor automated, there could still be scarcity due to lack of resources.
Fairly valuing and distributing the different kinds of resources could be via some kind of currency issued by and accepted by the AI overlords.
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
By "human level" I mean an AI that can perform tasks at the same quality as a human, such that you could replace a human employee with an AI employee.
I actually think consciousness might not be required for this level of AI. It's like how chess AIs are superhuman at chess without being conscious (probably).
I'm also not a theist. Any arguments about AI that really on theism are not going to be convincing to me.
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
Metaphysics and fundamental axioms preclude human level AI? Can you elaborate?
the_Culture_is_great
8mo ago
there isn't an obvious mechanism for it doing so
It's obvious if you assume the models will improve up to, and then past human level intelligence.
At that point every job that can be done from behind a computer becomes trivial to automate. The remaining jobs become trivial once AI control of robots improve as well.
Now we're not there yet, and maybe we won't ever get there, but it's pretty hard to be confident one way or the other.
I am currently in a relationship with someone who thinks like your girlfriend - doesn't drive, likes the city, cannot even consider moving to somewhere with slightly worse public transport (if you're familiar with Toronto at all, she described Etobicoke as the "middle of nowhere").
If I tried to move us out to even the suburbs - we're splitting up. It would end up in one of two ways: either I can't convince her, and it's over, or I do, and she resents me.
Luckily we're on the same page about this - I also don't want to leave the city core. And maybe public transport is the most salient issue, but there are so many differences between living in a major metro vs even a suburb/small metro that she will be able to keep coming up with excuses.
Because the excuses aren't the real reason - she wants to live in the city. Even if that means living in a grungy, small walkup. Even if the finances aren't that good. ...Even if her boyfriend is hours away.
You've got options:
- Status quo
- you know this isn't a real option, either the relationship moves forward or it dies
- Figure out how you can deal with the city, and move in together there
- you have to figure out how to deal with your PTSD around moving
- you have to figure out what you can afford to buy, together
- or you have to rent, and accept that there may be more moves
- you have to do this, without resentment.
- Break up.
In the past... I have chosen option 1. (2) or (3) are both terrifying, but definitely, definitely better.
the_Culture_is_great
10mo ago
Okay, so I'm treating the fact that slavery is bad as a given here, and that certain societies can have correct or incorrect views on it. If you disagree on this we're not going to get anywhere. I'm not really interested in arguing this point, I'm sure many many others have done it better than I could.
With the benefit of hindsight, the North was correct on slavery, and the south was incorrect. This justifies many of the North's actions, such as the refusal to enforce the FSA.
Individuals living during that time are mostly blameless for going with the mainstream view, but they were still incorrect.
Note my caveat of "practical". Political pressure, or sanctions, or wars could be be required to fully stamp it out, but cause more damage than the slavery itself. That doesn't mean islavery is okay! It just means it's too difficult to fix or that free societies are more selfish than they'd like to admit.
the_Culture_is_great
10mo ago
For the most part yes, you shouldn't renege on agreements "you" made (I'm not fully aware of the history here, but the people who made the agreement, and the people who refused to enforce it aren't completely the same people).
But also it was slavery. In today's day and age the moral question is settled - it's abhorrent, and free societies should do everything practical to stop it. Breaking the agreement is much less morally reprehensible than actually keeping slaves.
I think New York is seeing sense more and more now though - and bet they're switching to no shoes faster than Texas is (though I have few friends I'm the hotter areas of the US to confirm).
More options
Context Copy link