domain:youtube.com
PokerPirate
1d ago
Your classification of honorable/dishonorable is totally foreign to me. Out of all the animals you list, I would have classified dolphins as the most "honorable". Is there really a major culture/ethnicity that thinks eating dolphins is okay but eating octopus is bad? It's hard for me to imagine.
I'm 6'2" and was 155 for a long time. I look skeletal in those pictures. I don't look much better in later photographs where I was 170. That's a 20-22 BMI.
BMI is a flawed metric to begin with, but especially so for tall people. And the medical establishment knows that, too, because it's pretty obvious. If you take any random population and plot their weight vs. their height, you won't get a height^2 parabola as your best fit. It's much closer to height^2.5. Which is entirely unsurprising to me, I never understood why anyone would assume that width/depth of the human body correlate strictly linear with height...
But classic BMI has momentum now, people know it and understand it. Most of them don't carry a lot of muscle, and aren't significantly more than a standard deviations from the mean in height. So I guess it's fine.
Still, using the waist-to-height ratio instead is probably an easy fix, and gives more reliable results, even for tall and/or muscular people.
No_one
1d ago
There's a limit per day, you can hit it. Also the speed is quite slow. Really not good for chatting.
No_one
1d ago
(though I have yet to find a good way to medicate its big brother R1)
WDYM, florid schizowriting. I've seen R1 do it, but not reliably.
No_one
1d ago
Uncensored..what are you talking about? How is it a 'first' ?
People have been gooning to Deepseek since it was released.
https://old.reddit.com/r/JanitorAI_Official/comments/1ij1d3w/how_to_hopefully_use_deepseek/
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
1d ago
OliveTapenade
1d ago
I don't think many people would disagree with the idea that it would be great to have all sorts of power, but I'm not sure I see that as addressing the issue raised? The question isn't so much about raw ability as it is about the sorts of life-contexts that make those lives morally worthwhile.
As empowered posthumans we probably could entertain ourselves endlessly with exotic video games, but then, today people are entirely capable of entertaining themselves endlessly with video games. Posthumanity adds nothing to the moral question. Is it a good life if you dedicate your life to video games? On what terms could such a life be considered good? Does it make a difference whether we're talking about gaming as competition (i.e. devoting your life to pro gaming, to excellence in a particular competitive endeavour), gaming as entertainment (i.e. something like a streamer, the gamer as professional entertainer for an audience), or just gaming for pure private enjoyment? I think the moral questions one asks there are the same regardless of whether we're talking about you or I today or whether we're talking about superpowerful virtual demi-gods.
Among those few other intelligent species, there are honorable animals and dishonourable ones. Honorable animals are both intelligent and have moral worth. Dolphins are dishonorable. Orangutans are honourable. Chimpanzees are dishonorable. Elephants are honorable. Humans are mostly honorable, especially for omnivores.
Among the meat animals, octopuses are morally neutral, although they are regular cannibals, and I have no qualms with eating an animal that eats its own kind. That said, I consider octopus the least justifiable regularly consumed meat to eat. Likewise, pigs (including wild boar) are often honorable, but are also cannibals at high frequency, and if even they eat each other all the time, then so can I.
Most other meat (and other) animals are not intelligent, and so lack the same moral valence in either direction.
Those number are just bonkers, and makes reasonable people want to just write off environmentalists (if true).
I was personally just making up high numbers, but over the long term (meaning I make no prediction about if it will be 5 years from now or 500), I do believe these things to be true.
But despite the failure of environmentalists to implement their preferred policies, capitalism has brought down carbon emissions in the US quite a bit. So this part is just them screaming that reality is wrong. And actually, its easy to use the market to monetize reducing carbon usage. You put a carbon tax at a per ton basis and then you cut taxes elsewhere to make sure that the carbon tax doesn't cripple the economy. Notably when such a proposal was made in Washington State, environmentalists were part of the coalition that killed the proposal. The fact that they have this specific bundle of beliefs appears problematic for your thesis. The central planning thesis is actually strengthened here.
That's easy to square. Capitalism created the pollution, particularly during the industrial revolution when pollution was largely ignored, then government (not capitalism) intervened to force companies to change. Having government push companies to reduce pollution is their preferred policy and was enacted, if not to the extent that they want.
Reading your link, it sounds to me like they believed that if they killed this bill they could get a new, more aggressive version pushed. Progressives letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is nothing new.
Valid to an extent. But, what if this is just another irrational part of their bundle of beliefs. That being that being an environmentalist and anti-capitalist is also highly correlated with being...anti-white/western? Perhaps all these beliefs are in conflict for achieving each seperate stated goal, except as to the part where all the policies trend toward...more central planning.
The reason I'm a Democrat but not a progressive is because I think that progressives are somewhat good at identifying problems (if oversensitive) but bad at solving them. It's the same personality trait that lead to becoming an environmentalist that lead to every other cause du jour.
I don't think brainstorming solutions to problems is bad, I just think they tend to weight real-life problems high and problems with their hypothetical alternatives low. They aren't central planning for the sake of central planning, they're central planning because it is the most obvious instrument that could potentially do all the things they feel must be done.
Lots? There are a bunch of large subreddits dedicated to these beliefs like /r/fuckcars, and the mods of those are typically powermods that also control super large subs like /r/politics and /r/askreddit.
True, I was not thinking of fuckcars. I think I'd only really heard the name once. A quick scan seems to me that their primary issue with cars is the number of people who die in car accidents. I disagree, but that does sound like a motivation that cars are harmful rather than a motivation that because they don't like cars that nobody should have them. Though to be fair I am also seeing some who do hate cars, mostly due to hating parking lots.
2rafa
1d ago
Wild animal suffering is one of the most discussed topics in ethics, it’s not like it’s a dead zone for academic philosophy.
Hieronymus
1d ago
Of course, if America has an ideology, it is the ideology of the American dream. The idea that an immigrant who arrives with little more than the clothes they are wearing can through hard work thrive in the land of capitalism and freedom.
It’s hard for me to see this as other than a placebo ideology – an ideology against any common ideas, a standard against standards. It has no unifying power except that of money. Upward mobility for immigrants is a great thing. But it is not the only thing, and it shouldn’t replace the American heritage.
I remember a clip of a TV interview with a black Alabaman and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans during the George Floyd protests. He was counter-protesting demands that Confederate monuments and symbols be torn down. He had been adopted by a white family; their heritage became his heritage, and he was defending it. He’d become a true member of a family into which he was not born. But it’s not as though he had somehow ceased to be black. I think about this often as an analogy for immigration.
Some nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century immigrants went further in this direction than I could ever ask – for example, refusing to pass on their birth tongues once they’d learned enough English to raise their children in it; I don’t think I could or would have done the same in their shoes. Or consider the spirited embrace of Columbus Day in some Italian-American communities, because it emphasizes the intersection of the Italian and American heritages.
We could do worse than to prioritize those immigrants willing to respect the culture and heritage of the society they are joining.
anon_
1d ago
Bob Jones is gonna come in extremely handy in the current administration v university dustup.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
And if we embrace that conclusion, does that tell us anything about what we think about morality for human beings? You may, if you wish, insert some science-fictional speculation here about whether it would be good for humans to be pampered by more powerful beings, perhaps artificial intelligence, in the way that we have the capacity to pamper rescued animals. Is our own case different from that of the animals?
I think it would be great to have nigh limitless wealth and power. If I want adventure, excitement and risk, there would be all kinds of ways to enjoy myself with elaborate, exotic video games. I think that an aesthetic critique of a post-singularitarian future has crept into people's conceptions, people imagining a kind of skinnyfat, sedentary, drooling heroin addict with tubes in his arm and a VR-headset fused to his skull in a perpetual high. Or a glorified pet micromanaged by Windows pop-ups.
That need not be the case. If it goes well (a very big if), it could be the exact opposite. Perfect, posthuman fitness. Motion and energy beyond anything anyone has ever experienced, variety of experiences beyond our conception. Pure organic joy. Reality remade physically as if it were mere code. De facto deities with ever-shrinking limitations.
The difference between a Tasmanian devil and a human is that the latter is worth more and provides. Humans contribute to humanity whereas most animals do not. There's no obligation to defang lions for the sake of deer because deer aren't doing anything for us. I think that real morality is about reciprocity and potential reciprocity rather than suffering.
TowardsPanna
1d ago
On another occasion I was assigned to a GP who was an Indian woman. I went in for one physical and it was one of the most demeaning experiences of my life. Refused to make contact, would barely look at me. She ignored my concerns and fixated on a single skin thing that she immediately referred to an associated specialist for a 10 minute outpatient procedure that billed my insurance as a "surgery". I'm sure she is very good at gaming the system to make number go up, but I'm never booking another appointment with someone who considers me an untouchable, and if I could press a button to have her denaturalized and deported I'd hit it twice.
Are you Indian? Or did she just take you for a lower class person from another race and hate you for it?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
ATGMs have countermeasures, you can have active defences or redesign armour to resist them better. Drones have countermeasures, you can cover the tank in add-on armour like we see in Ukraine. Or redesign the tank to be more well-rounded in its armour rather than so frontally-focused. You can add ECM, some microwave widget, have defensive drones.
But you can't redesign heavy shock cavalry in the same way. You can add more armour but the horse biology and blade technology hasn't advanced significantly for ages.
During the Franco-Prussian war cavalry charges did occasionally work but at great cost. Since there were no further advances in cavalry but great advancements in rifles, artillery and machine-guns (and accompanying tactics, indirect fire and entrenchment) then traditional shock cavalry was foreseeably obsolete.
Likewise, if drones turn into autonomous AI death swarms with tandem warheads, doubled range and halved price while tanks remain fundamentally in the 1980s, then it would be all over for heavy armour. But that won't necessarily happen since we know the tank has all these opportunities to adapt that cavalry lack.
CanofWorms
1d ago
Have you looked into real estate? Rental properties can offer a better return than the stock market and are a good way to diversify.
Giving you an answer you dislike or disagree with is not the same thing as not giving you an answer.
I argued, and I have continued to argue in this thread, that agentic behavior and general applicability are core components of what it is to be "intelligent". Yes a a pocket calculator is orders of magnitude better at arithmetic than any human and stockfish is better at chess, that doesn't make either of them "intelligences" does it?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
they could easily disable a camera in their cell
What if you conceal it in a mirror or somewhere non-obvious? Neither Epstein nor the average prisoner is a secret agent with bugfinding tools.
Another option is to put the camera in the hall outside positioned so it can see inside the cell.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1d ago
Yeah, the distinction there is pretty subtle, and I can't think of a case in which it's ever actually mattered. Maybe we'll see that in the lawsuits over White House press pool access: is there a relevant act of Congress establishing that at all? But it generally seems to be considered to apply to the government as a whole.
gattsuru
1d ago
With the caveat Rasmussen and N=1000.
OliveTapenade
1d ago
I have come to find most vegans, including my past self, as annoying as you: there is a lack of real reflection as to what the goals of the movement are, and if the individual actions that vegans advocate are actually effective at accomplishing those goals. Total cessation of animal suffering is as impossible as it would be totalitarian (some vegans advocate for GMOing away all predators).
I'm going to take this as an invitation to go off on a tangent, I think.
I have run into reflections on the idea of using genetic engineering to eliminate predation in the past. Predation plausibly causes suffering, at least for prey animals. If you could modify all carnivores to become herbivores, should you do it?
There's an interesting tension I see sometimes around what the goal of environmental conservation should be. In many cases we seem to instinctively idealise 'the wild' or natural conditions. The goal of conservation is to minimise human impact on the environment and return animals to something as much like their natural environment as possible. But as with vegans, or some EA types, we sometimes see a different idea - that the most ethical goal is rather to minimise suffering, including animal suffering.
These two goals seem in tension. The wild includes quite a lot of suffering. Which goal should win out?
I was recently watching a documentary about a wildlife rescue in Tasmania. The hosts visited a man who runs a sanctuary that rescues, raises, and breeds injured or endangered animals. He releases some of those animals back into the wild, while some stay in the sanctuary for all their lives. It occurs to me to wonder what some of those animals would have preferred. It seems plausible that, if a Tasmanian devil could talk, it might prefer to stay in the sanctuary, where it has safe and clean places to sleep, has food provided at regular intervals for minimal effort on its part, and even has breeding opportunities orchestrated for it. If it makes sense to talk about a Tasmanian devil's quality of life, this devil's quality of life seemed to go down as a result of being released into the wild. So, having built animal-utopia, should we push animals out of it? Why?
Well, we might cite lots of instrumental reasons, like wanting these animals as part of the wild ecosystem long-term, or even practical ones, like not having the resources to look after all animals all the time and wanting instead to rotate animals through care on the basis of need. However, in practice I think we have some sort of teleological belief. It is right for Tasmanian devils to hunt on their own and make their lives independently in the wild. It is, for lack of a better term, their nature. It is thus in many circumstances morally better that a creature be exposed to risk and suffering than that it not be.
And if we embrace that conclusion, does that tell us anything about what we think about morality for human beings? You may, if you wish, insert some science-fictional speculation here about whether it would be good for humans to be pampered by more powerful beings, perhaps artificial intelligence, in the way that we have the capacity to pamper rescued animals. Is our own case different from that of the animals?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
The text of the First Amendment specifically binds Congress:
Since it's a statute at issue, Congress is implicated; Congress can not delegate the power to throw out people for speech to the Secretary of State if they do not possess that power in the first place. But yes, unlike the Fourth (or the Second, LOL), "the right of the people" isn't implicated and e.g. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez doesn't apply directly.
Limitations on issued (or renewed) visas for foreign nationals on the basis of their speech seems rather borderline.
Indeed, which why this case will probably end up at SCOTUS.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1d ago
I think animals have moral worth and emotional experiences that are "cognate" to those humans experience, and am still not a vegan or even a vegetarian. In part this is because I think that some nontrivial percentile of experiences that farmed animals have are actually better (by their value function) than those of wild animals, and we have the capability in principle to make it so for all farmed animals in expectation. For this reason, I do choose to pay a premium for animal products from superior farming conditions where it is feasible to do so.
As a related thought experiment, if I imagine aliens encountered pre-industrial humanity and "domesticated" it in a Truman show sort of setup where humans could live healthy, fulfilled and danger-free lives until age 60 and then would be culled for meat, I don't think the "culled for meat" part is the one that would morally offend me about the setup, and the parts that would offend me are more applicable to our imminent glorious AI future than they are the case of our livestock.
Oh damn, it looks like a month ago chutes stopped being unlimited due to abuse. The deepseek api is already very cheap (and yeah, faster) so I switched to it for insane rp, I should have guessed it couldn't last and checked.
More options
Context Copy link