domain:aerosociety.com
I believe they should review different professional ethic systems to understand how they differ in what they emphasize.
Before we continue this discussion, I believe you should read all 7 Harry Potter books. I also believe you should read the Bible and the Torah. I believe you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. I believe you should have an AI translate all 7 Harry Potter books into Swahili and read them again. Learn Swahili first if you have to, time is apparently no object. I believe you should read every word ever written by Thomas Aquinas. I believe you should re-read them, but this time reinterpret them as the works of Thomas Aquinas's black trans lesbian housekeeper, plagiarized without credit.
I think you're operating under a misconception. You seem to think I disagree with the concept of reading things. I do not. My point of contention with you is that you are not making any actual arguments in favor of your position. Telling people to read more books is not an argument.
It's not that I don't know enough about ethics, or that I haven't considered the possibility that other people might believe different things than me. My point is very simple: If you're here to make an argument, then make it. If you're not here to make an argument then you should at least stop trying to give people homework.
The presumption that the only reason anyone might disagree with you is that they haven't done enough research is not charming.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
· Edited 1hr ago
people walking around in public must show the contents of their pockets, handbags, briefcases, etc. if a cop orders them to (with or without any degree of articulable suspicion). The cops still need to follow the US rules before they can touch or seize anything from a person, or perform any more invasive search, or enter a private area like a home. Would that be "tyranny"?
Mmm, there are edge cases, depending on definitions, where I'd say "yes". The key point is "if the police can negate your ability to live life without you having committed a crime, that's sufficient* to set up a full police state". The most obvious edge case that hits this criterion is "policeman does this search over and over for 3 hours every time you set foot outside your house".
*Not necessary, though, as "everyone is guilty of crimes and the police can fully use this" also qualifies. This is why "three felonies a day" + "no privacy" = "police state".
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2hr ago
Good question. But it's at least part of the formal curriculum for AP US History, so the answer is hopefully nonzero even if some have forgotten since.
There is some advantage to knowing what (shared) curriculum can be pointed to. Even here, we have a somewhat understood corpus of "things I can refer to and expect readers to understand", but there is always some context dependence.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2hr ago
Even today, bright right-leaning politicians come out of left-wing institutions. Vance graduated from Yale Law in 2013, and multiple Republican-appointed SCOTUS and other justices have come out of Harvard.
I think the academics would consider a "based" take (I'm assuming you mean yeschad.jpg to colonization) to be a very facile response to an actually hard topic. A better response might be to examine the incoherence of the progressive views on the subject: "Can well-meaning maybe-benevolent (government) intervention improve lives? The Spanish missionaries in the New World certainly thought they were doing so, and there are some 'based' examples of them ending human sacrifice, for example."
Dean
Flairless
2hr ago
If you think human sacrifice is good, then you should say so outright and explain why you believe that.
And this exchange gets sillier and sillier.
If you think that ethics classes are not "total non-sense taught by dimwit professors" as the above poster claims, then you should say so outright and explain why you believe that.
I did. (And did not.)
I have made no position on ethics classes taught by dimwit professors. The only educator I have recommended to Pasha is Pasha himself, and I decline to accuse Pasha of being a dimwit. I will even offer a concurrence that bad teachers- dimwit or otherwise- can ruin valid material. Take this as a concession if you'd like.
What I did do was suggest for Pasha himself take an opportunity on their own to study a specific sub-set of ethics, professional ethics, with the supporting justification-
What they emphasize changes as you go from fields where harming anyone is proof of something going wrong and ethics is about avoiding it, to fields where people will be harmed regardless and ethics is about balancing it, to fields where harming people is the point and ethics is about managing it. The later can be all the more interesting for how they have to handle the simpler moral rejections that can suffice for the former.
I.e., I believe they should review different professional ethic systems to understand how they differ in what they emphasize. Specifically between fields where one profession accepts human harms that another profession would reject. At the very least, it can be interesting to understand how they do so.
I even restated and clarified it in the post you are responding to, in case it was not clear enough-
The value of studying different forms of professional ethics isn't to change your own mind on ethics. The value is understanding what others want, or expect, the ethics of a professional to be. This has relevant insights when it comes to dealing with specific professions in isolation, when multiple professions with different professional ethics engage each other, or even how the same profession's ethics across different cultures.
I.e., the value of understanding how different ethic systems work, besides that it can be interesting, is that it is useful when professional-ethical systems interact in various ways. This can apply when you are dealing with a professional consensus, potential professional conflicts, or cross-cultural divergences where a consensus might be.
If noting there are implications of potentially clashing ethical systems seems vague and nonsensical to you, this is an excellent indication of why further study on the subject would be beneficial. If you do not trust a professor to be able to help you with it, that would be an excellent reason to educate yourself instead.
But please don't gesture vaguely in the direction of doing further research to nay-say the value judgements of those who have stronger opinions than you.
The only way a suggestion for Pasha teaching himself about ethics violates the value judgement of dimwit professors teaching ethics is if Pasha is a dimwit professor. Again, I decline.
I suspect Pasha may think the subject matter of ethics is itself is [pick your pejorative]. Regardless of the strength of his opinion, I believe it is useful, and recommend he examine it in certain ways to learn the utility for himself, in a way that respects his dismissal of formal instructors of the subject.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
Both. I think the following things can be true- trucking is (understandably) highly regulated and it will take a long time to get major changes like self driving trucks into the mainstream, truckers are above-average drivers and so self-driving software will need to improve massively to replace them, driving a semi truck is a different problem from driving a car and needs beefier software, and liability reasons don’t affect the calculus much because the trucking industry is structured around making insurance companies pay for accidents anyways.
If you add it all up, I think this points to ‘robot Uber’ before it points to ‘self driving trucks’. After all, Uber drivers do not go to school and get a special license and take regular drug tests. These are also regular cars in a far less regulated field.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
While homeschooling had wide variances, I genuinely wonder how many public school educated kids could hold a coherent conversation about the Spanish American war.
guajalote
2hr ago
This is how engineering, science, and law are already tested at all decent universities. It's only the humanities that don't grade this way.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2hr ago
Yeah, that comic seems like a solid enough statement of the problem that it is going to join the ranks of "documents I point at to explain a problem".
Are either DUI or statutory rape regulatory offenses, or am I misreading the executive order and it's actually targeted at all strict liability crimes?
gakles
2hr ago
Your point about knowledge of tools being an effort multiplier is so true. I can't count the times when I've spent hours pluggin away at some geometry for a 5 minute tutorial to show a tool just an icon away that does what I wanted perfectly. I got the autodesk license through my high school's "Intro to animation" class which was pretty unserious, the teacher showed us some general animation techniques (rotoscope, some photoshop stuff) and then second semester pretty much just turned us loose on Maya. Consequently my technique is pretty awful and the edge/vertexes of any of my models would surely make someone who models to make assets scream in terror. I'm much, much closer to the "3 hours" than the "3 years" in this video's thumbnail https://youtube.com/watch?v=XEaoHoH4qf0.
My magnum opus was a Swedish lvkv 9040 which i partially rigged. Here's a link to a short animation I made: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11s1bSzpLSJnz7_a6pG_C7_OgAUAdfrS5/view?usp=share_link If you have a way to view/use .mb files I'll link it here so you can investigate my horrid practices: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X64xO_ntBB5mi5vNSQ3WmhXdEhXSwMVp/view?usp=share_link
The only other thing I can find right now is a short video I made using a mig-25 model I made where I messed around trying to make flares. The flares don't look very flare-like but I'm happy it at least sorta looks like smoke. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sn9iKo5-A0kdspeqOepa5ydOXmXk4FF_/view?usp=share_link
I also made an XM7 (the gun) model and in combination with a barebones human rig I made some (in my opinion) pretty decent POV animations, things like running, reloading, and aiming/shooting. It's also the only model I tried to texture, although that was pretty barebones (rubber grip, gunmetal, tan plastic). I can't find them on my laptop, but maybe they've been preserved somewhere on my desktop. I'll check when I get home next week. Anything you want to show off?
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
The disabilities weren’t real, and everyone knew it. It’s pure gpa minmaxing.
AvocadoPanic
2hr ago
This is a not uncommon lament in current year.
This professor makes largely the same claims. https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/the-average-college-student-today
I've had a similar discussion with a professor at a local community college who sees it everyday.
There's some comfort in knowing to some degree this has been a forever problem On the Miseries of Teachers 1533, Philip Melanchthon.
The distinction I've seen more often was more like:
Timmy: this card is cool because it's a big, often expensive, flashy effect (7/7 angel)
Johnny: this card is cool because it can synergize with 5 other cards in an obscure way (that one wizard with "if you would lose from having no cards to draw, you win")
Spike: this card is cool because it's a plus tempo drop that raises my win percentage (that one meta 3/3 flying vehicle thopter)
The appreciation for fluff was offloaded to one of the secondary classifications (Vorthos? Or was that the one who cared about card artwork?)
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
2hr ago
It might do exactly that, yes. Language learning becomes a niche specialist skill, maybe Finns now in elementary school will wonder how the younger generations don't even know any English the same way Millennials wonder how the Zoomers can't even use computers properly.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
Time on the Cross has details of this.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Timmy: all fluff, love of the setting. This dragon cards is cool because it's a big dragon that breathes lightning. They are fantasizing about the setting of the game, not the game itself, and as a consequence are usually not very good at the game itself. They want to daydream.
Johnny: Balance of fluff and crunch, and love of the game. This dragon is cool because it enables an infinite loop using these three other cards. They are fantasizing about the game, about the mechanics and their interactions. They want to play.
Spike: All Crunch, with the goal of winning at any cost. This dragon is cool because it gives me an extra win every ten games. They are fantasizing about winning, the crunch is interesting to them only as it helps increase their win percentage, and the fluff is irrelevant. They want to win.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
Slaves are not a productivity boost (they usually perform worse than free labor)
Time on the Cross details how slaves in the "gang system" perform much better than free labor on plantations.
If you think human sacrifice is good, then you should say so outright and explain why you believe that. If you think that ethics classes are not "total non-sense taught by dimwit professors" as the above poster claims, then you should say so outright and explain why you believe that.
But please don't gesture vaguely in the direction of doing further research to nay-say the value judgements of those who have stronger opinions than you.
There is no amount of research that will convince me that human sacrifice is good. It's not because I'm stubborn or closed-minded, it's because I have a coherent moral worldview. Reading about it may be interesting but it will never change my mind.
If the best argument in favor of university-level ethics classes you can muster up is that I should do more research so that I can discover for myself an argument in favor of their existence, then that suggests that they are truly without any value whatsoever. It's a rare and pitiable thing to see a position so devoid of merit that even its defenders can't bear to speak in its defense. If nothing else the Aztecs were at least capable of making arguments to justify their actions.
Owlify
2hr ago
I have read (but not sure of its veracity) that people who owned slaves had a carrot and stick approach rather than a punishment only approach for motivating people. It's also why sometimes there was a price set that could earn you your freedom if you managed to pay it. It allowed people to tell their slaves to go off and labor on their own and earn money, of which they would take a cut, so that the slaves would do the maximally productive task.
yofuckreddit
2hr ago
Knowing what little we do about your side hustle, I think you're fine.
Paying for API access can be valuable if you have a lot of data you want to curate/generate. Imagine you are selling 10k items and want to take the specs + reviews to make better descriptions or something.
That's it though, you won't get much better quality from another model or benefit out of building your own rig. Yet.
Pigeon
coo coo
2hr ago
I tend to think of it this way -- a Timmy is drawn to cool stuff represented by the playing of the game (whether it be through roleplaying, through big fat numbers, the social aspect of the game, etc.), while a Johnny is drawn to cool interactions created by the game mechanics, up to and including bizarre 5 card combos relying on arcane rules minutiae that doesn't work out 9/10 of the time but that one time it works it looks really impressive...
A Timmy would be happy winning conventionally but in a "cool" way (think more "would look cool on a movie screen" rather than "would impress other players"), while a Johnny is more interested in doing unconventional stuff.
On the other hand Spikes just want to win at all costs within the rules of the game -- and if the most effective deck is utterly braindead and uninteresting otherwise, so be it.
In an RPG you could maybe translate it thus:
- Timmies would try to spec their character to feel the most badass
- Johnnies would be more interested in weird builds or challenge runs
- Spikes would minmax the shit out of the game (though TBH I think in a solo context even Spike-y people tend to loosen up a bit)
ControlsFreak
3hr ago
I have a vague recollection of a podcast. My Google fu isn't good enough. I think it was Conversations With Tyler. I think the guest was someone of means and a track record of disruption (Patrick Collison/Peter Thiel tier). The question came up about disrupting academia. In my continued jumble of vague recollections, the response was some form of, "We looked into it, but the academic cartel is too strong." They have piles upon piles of government subsidies. They have complete control of accreditation. I've seen, for example, a state uni system where the components also leverage control over the other components (one wanted to offer a new grad degree program, and the others cried to the state gov't to force an impossible requirement on them to "prove that there is a need", a la Certificate of Need requirements in the medical industry). If you were news-conscious around a decade ago, you saw the knives out for "for-profit universities". I'm sure there are all sorts of tactics-level games being played and tricks being employed.
They also suffer from a two-sided market. It's not enough to only convince employers; you have to convince prospective students, too. Thrown in here are difficult questions about the relative value of signaling in education. Various folks have various estimates (some quite high) for the amount of value in a degree simply being that the institution chose you and put their stamp on you, because they were able to choose from the best. If there is a significant amount of that, then the students might not actually care all that much whether you're really offering a better education; you just need to offer a better signal. If you're trying to recruit a top-crust student, you have to realize that all of the legacy institutions are already offering them a full ride (maybe even perks hidden as lifestyle amenities) and a time-proven signal. You have to compete with that... somehow. You have to do both these things... simultaneously convince prospective students and employers, because if you don't do both simultaneously, the group that was falsely convinced will quickly realize that they were duped and stop (either top students realize that you haven't convinced employers already and will stop enrolling or top employers realize that you haven't convinced students already and will stop hiring).
@zeke5123a has a plausible idea of just paying students. But again, you're looking for top students; they're already effectively getting paid by the legacy unis. So, you're going to have to front significant cash. Since you can't subsidize this with the donations of wealthy aristocratic alumni, high tuition from a lesser tier student (since this will immediately devalue your budding brand), and piles of government assistance is likely not forthcoming, you will have to burn significant piles of cash for probably a significant number of years before you can start to turn the tide back to even breaking even.
If you're thinking that you could maybe you could stem the bleed by doing the typical thing of having your faculty also chase research grant money, you now have a three-sided market. How many academics out there can stomach the grant-chasing life, succeed at it, and also buy in to give the high levels of effort you're going to require to have super high educational standards? When you find one, they're going to be expensive, because they do just half that work for plenty of money and near infinite job security at a legacy.
Where along the way do you make sure you don't slip into the same mode of operation as the legacies, since you sure seem to be playing their same game now, just without the entrenched endowments? What's your mechanism to ensure that?
I wouldn't be surprised if whoever I vaguely recall on a podcast already went through this exercise. I wouldn't be surprised if they already tried to make an estimate of how much top students are already being effectively paid by legacies. I wouldn't be surprised if, with some reasonable assumptions on how long it would take to build the brand in both directions so that you could start to stop the bleeding, they just computed that it would just be an unreasonable pile of money.
The Thiel Fellowship seems to be an attempt that embraces a reasonably strong prior on the signaling theory, which allowed them to at least just give up on the educating part of the huge pile of money. $100k over two years, and starting with 20-30 students. That's with the Thiel Brand discount and no overt plan for how to turn it from a $2-3M/yr charity project into a revenue-neutral competitor to academia with any sort of scale.
This is not to say that they cannot be disrupted, but the challenge is pretty steep.
Dean
Flairless
3hr ago
Ah, I vaguely remember that!
If you're keeping notes / a running version, it'd be interesting to see an update at the end of this year or so and see you reflect on what changed in the political slang discourse.
astrolabia
3hr ago
You've almost exactly described elite STEM PhD programs!
It would also be a problem because of scale. Back in the day when they had a lot of oral exams they didn't also have 100 person 101 weed out lectures either, and while you can certainly have the in class exams be the entire grade with those you certainly are not doing oral exams. Without large classes its not just that 90% would fail its also that the would either have to hire a lot more professors or cut class sizes (not to mention path dependent legacy issues such as having built a bunch of large lecture halls and fewer 20 person class rooms.
More options
Context Copy link