"Not paid enough" and "doesn't have good working conditions" are in the same category and both can be improved. They could allow talking (especially if they pay by the bushel so talking wasting time won't hurt them), they just didn't.
Also, people think of family businesses too favorably. Family businesses are often inefficient, and their owners vary much more in pettiness than big businesses.
And Iran is not at war with China, so China can do this.
If Iran wants Israel to stop, they can negotiate peace.
Jiro
6d ago
I can count on one hand the number of minutes per month I'm delayed by a cyclist. On the other hand, every time the Penguins or Pirates play a weekday home game I'm treated to at least ten minutes of extra sitting in traffic so a bunch of suburbanites can treat themselves to a night of overpriced disappointment.
You need to figure out the amount of delay per cyclist and per driver, not the total amount of delay. The total amount is skewed by the much larger number of cars.
I would bet that if all those people went to the ball game on bicycles, your delays would not get any shorter.
Jiro
7d ago
If you say "it's okay for the AI to do as poorly as a poorly performing human", you'll end up concluding that even an Eliza program can do better than a drunk human who can barely type out words on a keyboard. And if you say "the AI only needs to exceed a top human at a few tasks", then a C64, which can run a simple calculator or chess program, would count as a general AI.
People are not cherrypicking. What they are doing is like the Turing test itself, but testing for intelligence instead of for "is like a human". People asking questions in a Turing test can't tell you in advance which questions would prove the target is a computer, but they have implicit knowledge that lets them dynamically change their questions to whatever is appropriate. Likewise, we don't know in advance exactly what things ChatGPT would have to do to prove it's a general intelligence, but we can use our implicit knowledge to dynamically impose new requirements based on how it succeeds at the previous requirements.
Saying "well, it can write, but can it code" is ultimately no different from saying "well, it can tell me its favorite food, but can it tell me something about recipes, and its favorite book, and what it did on Halloween". We don't complain that when someone does a Turing test and suddenly asks the computer what it did on Halloween, that he's cherrypicking criteria because he didn't write down that question ahead of time.
Jiro
9d ago
this would be too convenient since "genetics matter" is a known non-progressive moral precept.
That's all right, I'm not a progressive.
The other difference between this and defining "woman" is that people who disguise themselves as other races are not really an issue, and the equivalent for women is. If a lot of white people claimed to be black and tried to look black, the definition would no longer work.
Jiro
9d ago
If Argentina can cause inflation by mistake, and Japan wants inflation, why can't they copy Argentina?
how do you explain to the autist the difference between black people and white people?
-
if they look unambiguously black
-
if they look ambiguously black and at least one parent is black (recursively)
If the autist is not able to tell if someone looks unambiguously black, there is nothing you can do.
This fails if someone is wearing a good disguise. But that's a general problem with determining anything by sight. This problem also applies in obvious ways to the trans issue.
Jiro
11d ago
"Scientism" is itself a sneer, and insofar as it means anything, is usually a false accusation claiming that people worship science or use science when they should be using feelings instead. Of course since its actual meaning is vague, anyone who uses it can deny meaning what they are using it to to mean and there's no way to prove them wrong.
Jiro
12d ago
the dominant religion of Scientism
There are a couple of phrases which make me discount pretty much anything people are using them to say. This is one of them.
Jiro
16d ago
"Bullshit jobs" strikes me as a massive motte and bailey.
There definitely are bullshit jobs. But a very common case of a "bullshit" job is one where the employee does work that's actually essential to a company or to societyy, but doesn't directly produce tangible things, so it feels like his job is useless.
Jiro
17d ago
Somehow, it's only senior management who doesn't realize the impact.
If 1/3 of your coworkers are worried, you'll notice.
If 1/3 of senior management is worried, that's not a majority, and management won't say anything.
Jiro
21d ago
Because this is tit for tat and not caring about Trump happened after the Democrats defected on Clinton.
Jiro
21d ago
At some point you need to look at the object level. The problem with "I want to kill Jews" compared to "I want to kill Hitler" is not the advocacy of violence, it's that Jews are not a deserving target, while Hitler is.
Something that should usually work, however, would be two steps: First, we're talking about personal or mob violence. Having your government declare war on Germany and sending soldiers in really isn't the issue. Second, if someone actually thinks violence is needed, they should be willing to kill, not just to punch--this avoids people who advocate violence performatively or want to commit violence only on weaker people without any risks. If they pass these tests and still want to kill the Jews or Republicans, see above: they're evil, but you do need to look at the object level to see why.
Jiro
23d ago
Ending Nazi Germany was political violence. I think this is too strict a criterion.
Jiro
24d ago
People are certainly able to articulate standards of good that God doesn't meet. They seem to contradict his nature perfectly fine.
Jiro
24d ago
A poll of Jews living in or near Nazi Germany would, I suspect, give higher figures. And that's more analogous here.
Jiro
25d ago
I'm sure a lot of people would have said the same thing about Nazi Germany as about Jericho. This mostly tells you how bad Nazi Germany is, not the Jews.
Jiro
25d ago
A million deaths is a million deaths, even if it's Space Year 52,026 and the population is numbered in trillions.
No,it isn't in any reasonable sense. The larger the population, the less significant something needs to be to cause a million deaths.
If the population is large enough, the common cold will cause a million deaths.
9/11 had ~3000 casualties and mourning them is still A Thing.
9/11 is bad because 1) it is a single incident and 2) was done by humans who have intelligence and react to policies and incentives. Without those things, it's nothing.
Jiro
25d ago
That's not what you're implying by "God is not accountable to others". ""God is not accountable to others" means that people shouldn't criticize God for not being consistent with conventional values of being good and such. If God has a nature which is different from those values, God is following his nature, but he can still be held accountable.
Jiro
25d ago
I would suggest that conservatives object to crossdressing for reasons that are similar to why they object to trans and different from why they object to Playboy bunnies. (Although there may be an additional objection that's similar.)
They're just men who think it's fun to cosplay as women.
But that raises the question "why women". There's a reason that drag shows are a thing and dressing up as doctors or firefighters are just minor elements in other performances. There's clearly an element there that isn't present for cosplay in general, and it can at least be reasonably interpreted as desire to be women, regardless of whether they deny it.
Comparing the number of people who died is misleading. The proper response is to retract it, not to make it technically accurate but still misleading.
Jiro
26d ago
My proposed gnarglebargles don't pretend that it's a coincidence that transition makes them outwardly resemble the other sex in some ways.
If they are doing it for reasons related to wanting attributes of the other sex, and admit it, then they are trying to be a woman after all, they are just trying to be one partially, and they aren't labelling it as "I want to be a woman". But the original objection applies: conservatives will know they are saying "I want to have these traits, and these traits are associated with being female, and that's not a coincidence", correctly read that as "I am partially trying to be a woman", and object on those grounds.
They would just give up on the semantic debate, and admit that their lifestyle still leaves them closer to very committed crossdressers than to the sex they emulate.
The same people who object to people trying to change sex also object to crossdressing, for similar reasons, so this doesn't materially change the scenario.
Jiro
26d ago
I'm not sure I would agree that God has principles. He has a nature,
Then rephrase it. People can come up with conclusions about whether God's acts are consistent with his supposed nature. In that sense, yes, they can hold God accountable, even if they aren't able to punish God.
But they add to how much the votes of people around them count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenwel_v._Abbott
More options
Context Copy link