zPvQINBQvfFR
No bio...
User ID: 277
zPvQINBQvfFR
5mo ago
vorelated
Kinky.
zPvQINBQvfFR
9mo ago
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.
zPvQINBQvfFR
10mo ago
A bit of a difference between "mind that has been paused and will resume in X hours" and "no mind at all".
zPvQINBQvfFR
1mo ago
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?
zPvQINBQvfFR
1mo ago
What's dumb? Wanting to enjoy a game's mechanics without being forced to compete in big sweaty boy league?
zPvQINBQvfFR
2d ago
Not really. I wasn't aware that Title IX was that old and thought it was something created shortly before the whole college sexual assault drama started.
It's possible that it still illustrates the principle, though not as sharply as it would if Title IX was a more newfangled thing, but I don't know how the American political discourse in the 70s looked like.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
"Lol no," said the man after criticizing people who approach the subject with the sophistication of 12 year olds.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
More negatively, on the internet I've noticed an increasing tendency, here as well, to hate when anyone else is having fun or enjoying themselves.
No, it's when people are "having fun" or "enjoying themselves" by being dicks to other people. Civilized people don't like that and never did. It's not a new tendency.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Some clinical trials on it are about to end soonish, so hopefully we'll know if it werks.
There's this one with end date specified as December 1st this year:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04210986?cond=fisetin&draw=2&rank=10
And the Mayo Clinic one, that's supposed to finish half a year from now:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03675724?cond=fisetin&draw=2&rank=4
I wonder how long it will take from the scheduled study completion time to actual publication of results.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Did you mean "white people and black people more likely"?
zPvQINBQvfFR
12hr ago
Animals don't turn sunlight and rain into meat. You need to feed them plants. Which you have to grow first. Possibly on vertical farms run by hippy vegans.
Some animals can graze but I think this could sustain only than a small fraction of current meat production (after a quick googling, I saw the figures of 10% of beef production and 30% of sheep and goat meat production being sustained by grazing).
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
too much time looking at their smartphones
I see, seeker, that you are yet to learn the ancient art of taking your phone out of your pocket to check the time and then putting it back in again.
zPvQINBQvfFR
9mo ago
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?
zPvQINBQvfFR
10mo ago
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.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1mo ago
Is all of mathematics shallow and trivial?
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
This assumes that intelligent agents have goals that are more fundamental than value, which is the opposite of how every other intelligent or quasi intelligent system behaves.
Intelligent agent's ultimate goals are what it considers "value". I'm not sure what you mean, but at first glance it kind of looks like the just world fallacy -- there is such a thing as value, existing independently of anybody's beliefs (that part is just moral realism, many such cases) AND it's impossible to succeed at your goals if you don't follow the objectively existing system of value.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Do you want to study the underlying theory, or are you primarily interested in learning how to actually use Coq to prove stuff? If it's the latter, maybe have a look at https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Example 1: self_made_human, as extreme as his views are, doesn't want to "plug himself into the experience machine".
Example 2: ok, the guy said that he's fine with being a lotus eater, so I guess you found one person.
Example 3: not finding the idea of using your imagination repugnant and by extension not finding it repugnant to experience a simulation under your control doesn't mean that you want to "plug yourself into the experience machine."
The phrase "plugging yourself into the experience machine" sounds ominous and evokes the image of the dreadful wirehead, drooling in his pod, stuck in the loop of perpetual simulated cooming until the heat death of the universe. Applying it to everybody who's not utterly repelled by the idea of virtual reality or mind uploading is dishonest equivocation and it looks like a failure of understanding the people you're condemning.
Noice. I took your stuff and added some extra rules to squeeze things vertically (maybe I went too far... eh), debiggen the voting arrows, and make the bar of buttons under a post flush with the left margin of the comment.
Edit: it looks kind of crap when there are multiple collapsed comments with non-default profile pics as those slightly overlap. You can remove them by adding:
.profile-pic-25 {
display: none;
}
Looks better in the 4chan theme which doesn't have those bars on the left:
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
They simply handwave away the possibility of any form of being/existence that is not squarely within the purview of one specific tool: science.
What exactly do you mean by "science"? Is it the bunch of institutions and traditions known as "science"? In this case there are obviously things beyond its purview and you won't find many (any?) people who'd deny it here. This could explain the lack of mockery you find so puzzling.
Or do you use "science" more generally to mean pursuit of understanding through the examination of experience and use of reason to build models with explanatory and predictive power? In this case, what would atheists need to do so you'd get off their back about handwaving the possibility? Do they need to write long soulful posts about how they can never know the eldritch truth beyond the limits of their experience? The problem is that seems super irrelevant and a waste of time. Why would you expect people who don't see any reason to believe in your religion to pay tribute to it?
Sure, maybe a guy who had an ecstatic vision of Jesus and the angels really got into contact with the incomprehensible Divine and he knows the good stuff, but what does this have to do with me? If I got directly blasted with the holy light, I'd likely join him as a fellow devout co-religionist. But I haven't, so best I can do is conclude that people can be very strongly affected by trippy hallucinations.
Your hypothetical God created a universe in which salvation is conditioned on faith in him, following some precepts, performing rituals, whatever. Then he put people in this world made it look really mechanistic and explainable by reason from the inside, creating strong incentives for using reason as a primary tool of understanding what's going on. He didn't elaborate and left. Very chad of him, but what am I supposed to do about any of this?
Maybe instead of trying to restart obsolete flamewars on Internet forums, you could use the direct line to God you seem to have access to, and humbly ask Him to be less cruel to those less fortunate than you, those who are trapped in this vast soulless machine? Tell him to grant us eyes and deliver us from our beastly idiocy.
zPvQINBQvfFR
11mo ago
I suspect many people are classifying the thing you're doing as concern trolling (not sure if I'm using this devilish phrase right, but I think it fits). Repeatedly and insistently noticing that ackshually, the lady might also not behaved perfectly and therefore anybody who insists on strongly condemning the kids is suspect of being an idiot who thinks blame is a zero-sum game doesn't add much to the discussion, other than you being able to put on airs of a wise elder stroking his long gray beard while the vulgar are baying.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1mo ago
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.
zPvQINBQvfFR
11mo ago
You accidentally.
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?
More options
Context Copy link