domain:inv.nadeko.net
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
7hr ago
"what do college kids like? oh yeah sex'n'drugs'n'rock&roll"
No-college kids like that too.
Muninn
"Dick Laurent is dead."
7hr ago
I'd say that the TV series was limited by what was possible at the time, more than anything else. More specifically, I don't know how much better the source material could have been treated for a modestly budgeted SyFy series. I think that Netflix or Prime could potentially do a much better job with it these days but, of course, they'd be just as likely to screw it all up for Reasons if they tried, alas.
I'll be interested to hear what you think of the series if/when you return to it. FWIW, while I know that Butcher himself has said something to the effect that the first four books are completely skippable, it was the third book that set the hook for me as a reader. Where the first two felt to me like they were more mid-level urban fantasy fare that weren't necessarily too serious, shit got real in Grave Peril, and IMO it hasn't stopped since. While there are plenty of folks that have been upset by this twist or that turn in the overall series, I'm not one of them. There have been many deeply touching moments in the series for me, more than any other that I've yet read, and some of them are made that much better by being brought to fruition over the span of several or even many books. Even the seemingly-slightest rhetorical flourishes can be pregnant with foreshadowing, and I personally think that Butcher has just gotten better and better as a writer as he's cranked them out, with Ghost Story being my personal favorite.
I just post LLM findings to social media and then delete the post if anyone fact checks it /s
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
7hr ago
Right now, they can't make enough of Governor Walz being pro-reproductive rights and so forth.
Makes sense. It's their best issue.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
7hr ago
For they are fiends in human shape, monsters of depravity.
That's the norm across the West. In most of Europe abortion is non-controversial even in conservative and far-right parties.
pro-life not wanted in the Democratic Party.
Yep. The reaction is akin to how the GOP would react to "pro-Sharia-law Republicans."
JarJarJedi
7hr ago
Started on Dresden Files. I watched the one-season series and liked it, so decided to try out the books. So far Storm Front wasn't bad, and Fool Moon is fine too. I wonder why they couldn't make a decent longer-running TV show out of it - the story and the setup is very cinematographic. Since there's a lot of book in the series I will probably return to it from time to time for a while.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
8hr ago
HPMOR. I'm just past the troll fight.
I have never planned to do this (since I haven't read the original books), but somehow, I ended up on its webpage and decided to give it a try.
It's... not what I expected. I kinda expected a "Harry Potter pokes holes in or abuses the laws of magic while being an insufferable little shit about it" and there were chapters like that, but that's not what the book is about. It's not "sequences for the fans of HP", even though there are chapters like that. The quality is kinda uneven, too. The whole SPHEW arc felt like filler, for example, especially after the Azkaban arc that preceded it.
What's surprising is how much of a capital P progressive EY is, up there with Paine, Marx, Pinker, etc in his conviction. It's not this surprising when you think about it, it's the Motte that has been warped by its interest in the culture war too much.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
Possibly was my rec, glad you liked it! Wasn’t able to figure it out but he did respond to a few comments particularly in the last few normal chapters IIRC, so it might be deducible. He said 2 years? So I assume Israel or South Korea
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
8hr ago
I think that George Orwell was quite sympathetic to the idea of negative freedom actually, in spite of his socialist leanings.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
8hr ago
Mao Zedong was extremely agentic, but I wouldn't call him free. These are fairly distinct concepts.
You'd have more of a point if you said "self-actualization" but I'd argue that's far closer to the historical meaning of freedom than unrestrained whim.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8hr ago
The first two are solid adventure fantasy. Starting in 3 and really picking up in 4, it delves into this horrible amateur philosophy that just guts the life out of the entire world and concept.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8hr ago
The connections to Walz are incredibly tenuous, that he was reappointed six years ago to a large bipartisan workforce advisory board (one of 130 total state boards, advisory councils, task forces, etc) with this including volunteer small business owner representatives from around the state where most of the nominations came from basically just rubber stamping local council choices.
That is super weak, but FWIW, I'm also seeing claims that his wife was an intern for Walz at one point.
JarJarJedi
8hr ago
If a little child tells you, "When I grow up, I will kill you", when are you allowed to kill him in self-defense?
There are a lot of caselaw considering the question of imminent danger.
The case here though is more like the kid grew up, tried to kill you many times, with guns, toxins and explosives, and this time showed up at your door with some friends, all wielding firearms and shouting "we will finish the job this time!".
self_made_human
C'est la vie
8hr ago
An easy trick is to get another model to review/critique it. If both models disagree, get them to debate each other till a consensus is reached.
These days, outright hallucinations are quite rare, but it's still worth doing due diligence for anything mission-critical.
As George suggested, you can also ask for verbatim quotes or citations, though you'll need to manually check them.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
8hr ago
I feel like completely inventing claims out of thin air like this kinda defeats the purpose of this forum and is specifically against the rules. What possesses you to do that?
My question has absolutely no bearing on how widespread this phenomenon is, I'm just asking if it counts. Since you know, it's fairly well known issue that requires some clarification.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
8hr ago
I would imagine it depends on the kind of thing you want to verify. In the old days (meaning last year) I would often simply ask, after an answer had been produced: "Really?" and the LLM would double check itself and at times respond with really annoying phrases like "You caught me!" and proceed to explain why what it had just reported to me as accurate was, in fact, inaccurate. Again, it depends on what it's doing for you, and how it's been calibrated by you to do that (though calibration is not perfect. I've long inserted that it should not fabricate or embroider, and at times it still does.)
The easiest thing to do is just ask it. "Can you produce the pages and precise quotes of xyz?" Depending on the response, continue questioning it until you're where you want to be.
Others will very likely be able to suggest a more efficient strategy.
wayfarer
8hr ago
You will never be taken seriously again, because to do so would be unfair to the literally countless other women who must compete
that is absurd, someone can rebuilt their life from worse things than that (not that it is easy)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
I don’t see why our era is different other than a fairly stable system in which power could and did change hands often enough to make all voices feel heard more or less
That’s… a pretty big change actually. And fairly fundamental. It’s why at least to SOME extent Dems were justified in being a little freaked out by the noises Trump was making about elections. Because trust that your opponent will be forced to give you another chance to win is foundational to democracy as currently practiced.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
I genuinely think the source for this strife is that people are self sorting too much. People naturally tend to moderate when exposed to other perspectives. It’s just the exposure is too skewed towards social media and online/TV personalities and too little towards everyday fellow humans. Also why travel as a source for eliminating prejudice has reversed - too little actual genuine interpersonal contact. People will never learn how to talk about politics without rage unless they attempt it (and occasionally fail). It’s not much different than other social skills in that way.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
I think the word you’re looking for is not freedom but “agency”!
Walz was quick off the mark with "this is a politically motivated assassination", presumably on the basis that if Democrat politicians were attacked, it must be those dastardly Republicans to blame. Well, turns out that (it's looking like) the guy is one of your own, Tim. So now what is the political motivation, and how is your party to be held accountable?
The connections to Walz are incredibly tenuous, that he was reappointed six years ago to a large bipartisan workforce advisory board (one of 130 total state boards, advisory councils, task forces, etc) with this including volunteer small business owner representatives from around the state where most of the nominations came from basically just rubber stamping local council choices.
It's a ridiculously weak connection, but that's not really the point now is it? The bigger point is the implications people try to make like you put here
So now what is the political motivation, and how is your party to be held accountable?
The bigger logic employed here is "bad guy tenuously connected to your side did something wrong? That's proof you're evil!" and this logic means a person using this logic simply can't accept that anyone bad ever exists on their end of the political spectrum or they'd have to contend with the same implications.
And it reminds me of this point from SSC about the Ashley Todd case https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/04/ethnic-tension-and-meaningless-arguments/
I think insofar as this affected the election – and everyone seems to have agreed that it might have – it hit President Obama with a burst of bad karma. Obama something something psychopath with a knife. Regardless of the exact content of those something somethings, is that the kind of guy you want to vote for?
Then when it was discovered to be a hoax, it was McCain something something race-baiting hoaxer. Now he’s got the bad karma!
This sort of conflation between a cause and its supporters really only makes sense in the emotivist model of arguing. I mean, this shouldn’t even get dignified with the name ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem fallacy is “McCain had sex with a goat, therefore whatever he says about taxes is invalid.” At least it’s still the same guy. This is something the philosophy textbooks can’t bring themselves to believe really exists, even as a fallacy.
But if there’s a General Factor Of McCain, then anything bad remotely connected to the guy – goat sex, lying campaigners, whatever – reflects on everything else about him.
And let's be honest, the large majority of the time this logic gets used it's as an isolated demand for rigor.
The other side is accountable for all their bad actions, whereas my side just has a few bad apples. I'm going to assume you're Republican aligned based off previous comments and context so let's ask that question.
Should we be holding Republicans responsible for the recent stories of people trying to kill protestors yesterday?
I think no and I've been consistent with my beliefs. I said it about Charlottesville, Gamergate, BLM, the "stochastic terrorism" accusations against LibsofTiktok, Palestine activists, Israeli activists, January 6th protestors, protestors in France during the pension strikes, etc etc that blaming groups for the actions of a few individuals is just poor reasoning.
So will you be consistent with your argument and agree Republicans should be held accountable for cases like these car attacks or the attempted assassination of Pelosi, the attempted kidnapping of Whitmer, the murder of a cop during Jan 6th, etc?
Now I'm not going to assume bad faith of you, but I will say that I find most people, right and left wingers alike tend to agree with my position that they aren't responsible for a few crazies once they're asked about their side.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
I think it always makes more sense to describe freedom in specific contexts rather than try to define some kind of net, global, non-associated “freedom”. Freedom to breathe clean air without payment or restriction is a different freedom to, say, pollute the skies. These freedoms are often in conflict and it’s not clear that you can describe a ‘net freedom’ as if it were something numerical.
To choose a more grounded example, burning trash is a classic local conflict with no clear ‘more free’ option. One neighbor says it’s freedom to choose how to dispose of their own property on their own property. Another neighbor says it’s freedom to have clean air. Another says freedom is being able to throw loud parties whenever, but yet another says excessive noise infringes on their own freedom to do certain activities that might require quiet.
The solution is practical compromise, not arguing over which appeal to freedom is stronger.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
8hr ago
I think this is bad advice. First, because that is not generally agreed upon (the fourth book is excellent in my view), but second because if you read three doorstopper fantasy novels you're not going to stop there. Pretty much anyone who enjoys them enough to get that far is going to keep going to see how they like the books they were advised against. Third, it would be extremely frustrating to get only 30% of a story. Better to not read the books at all if they really do go downhill to such an extent.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8hr ago
Who is “they”? Best I can tell it was mostly the parents and school trying legal tricks (presumably to protect their reputation or something)? And the stated purpose feels at least facially plausible even if made in bad faith (that releasing shooter thoughts only makes them more famous and validates their approach as their writings are guaranteed notoriety) even if you disagree (as I do) and think there’s more to lose by a perception of secrecy. I mean, despite thinking this, it’s also true that media attention spawns copycats. I’ve never seen the copyright angle used but it also seems legally plausible.
By agency I mean the capacity to make new choices free of undue influence or restrictions. I realize the modern definition has shifted slightly and some people now use “agentic” as a synonym to someone who regularly takes novel action, but I mean it more in the Webster sense:
I would add, [especially over one’s self]
Maybe “volition” is the best word but sadly low usage
More options
Context Copy link