@zPvQINBQvfFR's banner p

zPvQINBQvfFR


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

				

User ID: 277

zPvQINBQvfFR


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 277

What's dumb? Wanting to enjoy a game's mechanics without being forced to compete in big sweaty boy league?

It provides a sense of pride when beating the game. The fact that some people cannot beat the game but you can, is a potential source of pride. If you enable everyone to beat the game, it is gone.

If you're deriving pride from beating the game on normal then how does the fact that everybody can beat the game on story mode take away from that?

Is all of mathematics shallow and trivial?

This post kind of comes off as a self-indulgent power fantasy. You'd need God-empress level of political power to enact those policies, so the whole thing is basically implicitly assuming that you're infinitely stronk, and then writing a long detailed list of all the ways you'd use your unlimited power to put the screws on people whose life choices are (in your view) incompatible with the greater good of society.

And if we hypothesize some alternative society in which those policies would be popular, then would you even need them in the first place? Hm, maybe they would still be useful to fix the pro-natal attitudes and fight against any potential value drift.

Anyway, while I don't expect you to explain how you're planning on becoming God-empress, I'm still curious how would you roll out those policies? Would there be some transition period so for example people who were already old and infertile when the policies came into effect wouldn't get screwed up without any chance to avoid it, or would their unavoidable impoverishment be a sacrifice you'd be willing to make to keep things simple and on track?

On Ozempic I am rather bearish. There are very few buttons in the body which can be pushed for gain without many side effects. It sort of violates a no-free-lunch theorem (which I do believe in) regarding pharmacology.

That seems too strong. A no-free-lunch theorem for pharmacology might make sense for things that we expect to have been already optimized by evolution. Maintaining a good weight in an environment of caloric abundance and whatever else is causing the obesity crisis (corn syrup? microplastics? the chemicals they put in the water to turn the frogs gay?) is probably not one of those things.

By my count it's only 6 simple steps and one is optional but nice to have.

Apparently when some Russians made a local chan-style imageboard, they went a bit too far with being inspired by the original name (at least change the number).

and every single slav I've talked with and seen in thread

Is this one of those board-dweller endonyms like fa/tg/uy or /k/ommando? What's the etymology?

But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.

One man's recognition that his interlocutor is secretly saying 'fuck everyone not like me' is another man's uncharitable mind reading.

I flatly don't buy that whether I hit a guy or not is just stochastically determined by parameters plus randomness, I believe that it's actually a product of me electing to do so or not.

There's no contradiction here. You are (some of) the parameters.

I knew I hadn’t had too much to drink - but had absolutely no idea what happened between that spiked drink and ending up in jail. To even list some possibilities is to discount the galactic extent of possibilities.

... You are going to tell us. Right?

Newcomb's problem is a thought experiment where a mysterious entity, who's known to be very good at predicting people's behavior, presents to you two boxes: one is transparent and contains a 1000$ and the other is opaque and might contain either nothing or one million dollars. You're given the choice of either taking only the opaque box (which is what I call one-boxing) or of taking both boxes. The entity tells you that it decided whether to put the money in the opaque box by predicting which option you will choose. If it predicted that you'll take both boxes, the opaque box is empty. If it predicted that you'll only take the opaque box, it put the million inside. What do?

If that was too muddled of an explanation, then have a Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

Or alternatively, have a link to the explanation by everybody's favorite bombastic rationality guru: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA2c2XpNpE5x/newcomb-s-problem-and-regret-of-rationality

So being a virtuous Calvinist is like one-boxing in the Newcomb's problem?

the EROEI is not high enough to do so

Nuclear should have an excellent EROEI. The problems with profitability come from organizational dysfunction.

vorelated

Kinky.

I'm pretty sure he knows that's not how Christian marriage is supposed to work, but also that formal rules are often ignored in practice for various reasons. Is his father's failure in that he didn't raise him to be a turbo-autist who can't distinguish between rules-as-written and rules-as-practiced?

Should we?

As a form of enforcement of a culture's values is a target approach relative to the person's individual failure to meet it not efficient. I know experiencing the opposite where everyone in a group is punished for the actions of one person is brutal.

I think "don't shit on the weak for fun and self-aggrandizement" is a cultural value of the Western civilization, so people violating it should be counter-bullied by Society.

Just because people call something "creative", doesn't mean it actually is.

If we restrict ourselves to the domain of cognitive tasks (ignoring the complexities introduced by physical labor), then I think the speed at which different tasks get automated by AI is a decent empirical index of how much creativity a task requires.

That's the AI effect transformed from a sociological observation into an axiom of some, as of yet unformulated, theory of true intelligence.

2013's middling dystopic sci-fi, Elysium

Oh, that movie was so disappointing. It's by the guy who did District 9, so I was expecting something eye-rollingly heavy handed in its messaging, but at least fun to watch with an interesting premise, and instead got... this. Politics truly is the mind-killer!

I wonder if Canada fares better. I kind of doubt it. It seems like the Chinese and maybe the French are the only ones left who can handle these types of projects.

Aren't Koreans pretty good too?

A bit of a difference between "mind that has been paused and will resume in X hours" and "no mind at all".

Likewise, if you know many military men you know that the name McNamara is a dirty word. There's a reason that his is one of the only red headstones in Arlington.

Wouldn't that suggest that people who think IQ measures something real and useful in real life might have a point? Guy comes up with idea of lowering the threshold on a mental aptitude test to fill a manpower shortage, and now his name is considered cursed for generations. This sure seems consistent with mental aptitude tests mattering in real life.

So what would be an example of a situation in which you'd start non-metaphorically holding up people with Gun and expect it to help?

So it's not actually a simple recipe, because a recipe is something that should give you expected result as long as you follow the steps, and the steps themselves should be simple, mechanical, and not contain any unexplained complexity.

If this is still supposed to be about the unlikeliness of abiogenesis, then this analogy would only make sense if you believed that the conditions necessary for the arising of life happened only once in the entire history of the universe. Then it really would be a miracle.

But it's more like there are a bajillion people about to be executed, each with their own thousand-strong firing squad and we know that at least one of them survived. With so many tries, one of them could have gotten super lucky. (And of course, we don't really know how many marksmen you need to postulate to match the probability of abiogenesis happening in some small volume of the primordial soup at a particular point).

(If it's about the wonder of the fact that our universe can support life at all, then I'm fine with answering "I dunno" while insisting that there's no justification for jumping from "I dunno" to "therefore, God.")