zPvQINBQvfFR
No bio...
User ID: 277
zPvQINBQvfFR
9mo ago
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!
zPvQINBQvfFR
4mo ago
the EROEI is not high enough to do so
Nuclear should have an excellent EROEI. The problems with profitability come from organizational dysfunction.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Which is consistent. Just like being anti-murder and still believing in a right to lethal self defense. Or having a strong preference for civilization not to end in nuclear hellfire, and yet maintaining a stockpile of warheads and a willingness to press the button, for the sake of MAD.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
What would you try to use, to show how important the issue was in 2022?
The first step would be to figure out what happened and what's the status of the issue right now. What happens in 2122 when a dude wants to be a dudette or vice versa? What if a dude wants to bang other dudes while remaining a dude? Is everybody ok with this? Do they get arrested by the cyberpunk inquisition? Perhaps this never happens because those tendencies have been genetically engineered out of the population.
Your hypothetical doesn't explain this, but I think it would be important to know when planning out a culture war history lesson. (Or maybe deciding to shut up about the subject altogether, if it turns out that the cyberpunk inquisition is real.)
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Once I turn off the ad-blocker, am I also morally obligated to click on ads from time to time? After all, if I don't, I'm tanking the click-through rate and depriving the website author of his well-deserved reward.
And once I do that, am I also obligated to actually buy the advertised stuff? If I don't, I'm tanking the conversion rate and depriving the website author of his well-deserved reward. Am I then a misanthrope if I don't consoom more?
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
I for one would like to welcome our new stoic Asian overlords.
This ham-handed effort to impose a leftist belief onto Title IX exceeds your authority as President. impose a leftist belief onto Title IX
I wonder if this is an example of the common criticism of conservatism in that yesterday's radicalism becomes today's normalcy and eventually becomes a new cherished tradition to be defended.
I think I remember seeing a lot of discourse a couple of years ago about how Title IX is this awful leftist thing that's the justification of universities' kangaroo court administrative proceedings against male students accused of sexual assault.
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
1mo ago
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?
zPvQINBQvfFR
2mo ago
So being a virtuous Calvinist is like one-boxing in the Newcomb's problem?
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Does it matter? Isn't a big part of the reason men care about status is that it's a pathway to many abilities some may find unnatural getting laid? "You can have a convincing waifu that loves you unconditionally, but some people will think you're even more of a loser than they do now" doesn't seem that horrible.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2d ago
Ah yes, people with different preferences that aren't aligned with your politics are all malfunctioning mutants. Of course.
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
1yr ago
no gene for “wanting to ejaculate inside a woman and wait nine months to create a child”
Sure but there are genes for personality traits that, in the current social and cultural environment, make you more inclined to make babies. And who knows, maybe they are the basis for future adaptations that will eventually evolve into direct utilitarian urge to maximize one's inclusive genetic fitness.
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
10mo ago
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.
zPvQINBQvfFR
10mo ago
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?
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
1yr ago
Have you ever described, in more detail, your horrified vision of the future under an ascendant US-led singleton with AGI? Because I'm curious.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
For example, those college orientations where they say, "look to your left and to your right. One/two of you won't pass." Those always angered me because I figured a certification should be a test and not a competition.
That doesn't imply a competition. You can have grading with consistent predetermined standards and still confidently say that ~X% of the incoming student pool will fail just like they did in the previous years.
zPvQINBQvfFR
5hr 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
1mo ago
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?
zPvQINBQvfFR
2mo ago
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
zPvQINBQvfFR
7hr ago
Finally, the ability to enjoy steak tartare without guilt or worrying about tapeworms.
One man's recognition that his interlocutor is secretly saying 'fuck everyone not like me' is another man's uncharitable mind reading.
More options
Context Copy link