domain:web.law.duke.edu
These days, outright hallucinations are quite rare, but it's still worth doing due diligence for anything mission-critical.
I asked chatgpt what the 4 core exercises of the LIFTMOR routine were and it didn't get a single one correct. It's a simple question to google so I am not sure how it got it so wrong. When I changed the question to specify the LIFTMOR routine to help counteract osteoporosis, it got it right. Google doesn't require the additional context.
During the trade war with Canada the Canadians threatened to turn off its electricity supply to America. Trump and MAGA used that as a reason why America couldn't rely on foreign countries for electricity:
They really cannot grasp the correlation between their behavior and outcomes and think that's a good argument.
Yes, the cost is potentially great. That's the primary limiting factor, for which we should all be grateful. And we should dread any context that alters that balance.
It's a reference to a supposed Russian proverb "the Jew will always tell you what happened to him, but he'll never tell you why."
Iran and Russia got hit because they engaged in acts of war against other countries. It doesn't occur to "they" that you can avoid having to worry about such things if you don't pick fights with foreign countries.
It's basically the mindset of the prison gang guy who's big and tough and strong and always thinking about how he will defend himself from attack, who sees of himself as a hard-headed realist, and is 10x more likely to die a violent death than the average schlubby insurance agent who never thinks about self-defense at all. MAGA is an entire political movement based around this mentality, which wants to drag the entire country down with it.
Part of, sure. But im pretty sure they weren’t choosing fashions or foods or other products because they were associated with abolition. Modern politics isn’t politics as they would have understood it. It’s more of a lifestyle brand in our culture. And in a lot of ways I think I would compare our way of thinking about our political party affiliation much like someone pre-enlightenment might have thought about religious denominations. Today nobody really gives a fuck what denomination of Christianity you follow. And outside of highly religious regions of the country, nobody’s even that upset by the idea that you’re not Christian at all. Most people believe or don’t but it’s not the thing that drives their thinking. Go back to the reformation, and it mattered quite a bit both to you and everyone around you what type of Christianity you practiced. Be a Catholic in John Calvin’s part of France isn’t good for your lifespan. Be Protestant in a Catholic region and it’s likewise not a good thing. And most people were not only willing to die rather than renounce their version of Christianity, but likewise willing to see others punished for not being the right kind of Christian. Minus the killing (at least thus far) this is how most people approach politics. Our system is the only good and true, and the reason you aren’t a good red/blue is that you are evil or deluded. And each part of the political spectrum has its preferred lifestyle. MAGA types like to style themselves after working class interests. Blue tribes tend to like more arty things. But why should this go along with politics?
I disagree. Like I said, I thought book 4 was excellent (I would say it's my second favorite behind Words of Radiance). Which is why I'm saying there isn't really agreement on this point, so it would be more accurate to advise new readers "I don't really care for the books after this point, but many people still like them, so you may or may not find it enjoyable".
Who's they and what's why in this context? I don't get it.
Somebody over in the old country asked for rationalist podcast recommendations. I had a nice list ready to go, but Reddit keeps deleting my comment as spam no matter what I do. So for lack of a better option I'll just post it here:
- The Methods of Rationality Podcast
- Rationally Speaking
- The 80,000 Hours Podcast
- "#25 – Robin Hanson on why we have to lie to ourselves about why we do what we do"
- "#32 – Bryan Caplan on whether the Case Against Education holds up, totalitarianism, & open borders"
- "#126 – Bryan Caplan on whether lazy parenting is OK, what really helps workers, and betting on beliefs"
- "#172 – Bryan Caplan on why you should stop reading the news"
- The Bayesian Conspiracy
- Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot
- Dwarkesh Podcast
[1] https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/rationallyspeakingpodcast/rs135-9.mp3
I won't claim this dynamic never happens, that would be silly, but you're not really engaging with the idea if you think it can only be invoked in this sense.
Burke, whom it would seems farcical to call a tyrant, summed up the issue pretty tightly in my opinion:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites [...] It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Ideally, the responsibility is not imposed. In practice, people pollute the commons and infringe upon others' freedoms.
This is why we have laws and governments. All laws and governments are restrictions on liberty.
Why?
Right, this is the other problem. Imagine if Rhode Island unilaterally declared it was giving residency (but not citizenship!) to everyone in India and instantly gained a supermajority in the electoral college.
This is obviously crazy and it doesn't seem like a good idea to say "well no this is fine as long as you fly millions of Indians to Rhode Island."
A serious risk of using murderous force.
An imposed responsibility vitiates freedom.
Freedom comes with responsibility.
Yeah like 15 years ago for a brief stint. They're all very weak connections, and I think an obvious way to see this if you tried to draw a connection elsewhere.
Like would "Local store once hired roommate" be a convincing connection to attach Vance to the owner of the local store? Probably not.
Or if Walmart had employed him, would we be worried about the district manager? Probably not.
And yet we could just as easily draw all those connections. Hundreds or thousands of people all suspect, from former coworkers to employees for his security firm to other people on that workforce board or even just the people at the church he attended.
This too seems like an isolated demand for rigor, incredibly weak connections that include a shit ton of people who aren't being implicated despite many having even closer ties.
You're just parroting the progressive line that more choices equal more freedom.
I feel the yearn for 90s hackerdom also. Assuming you’ve also read Snowcrash, what about Neuromancer? Gibson really builds that dystopian cyberpunk world so well.
I mean you still have no border control at the state border. If I live in California it’s not like there’s a border checkpoint at Texas. So whatever the most liberal policy is would end up being tge reality for everyone. One million immigrants in California don’t have to state there.
I think that the attention span thing is real, and quite troubling.
Just yesterday I wrote a short 250 word reply about camera raw development process and someone else complained that it was too wordy. And I'm the guy with the ADHD diagnosis there...
The key flaw in his plan was his inability to anonymously exit the heavily videotaped area that is Manhattan.
Eh, if he'd ditched the compromising stuff (like the gun) at some point he probably could have brazened it out.
No, they do not. One only says "freedom comes with reponsibility" when one wants to vitiate the freedom claimed. It's saying you have freedom, "but". (And nothing before the "but" matters)
That's just ad hominem. Who gives a shit if it's a tyrant's excuse?
The tyrant is a tyrant because he's taking away your liberty, in this case by claiming it is not liberty at all, but "license" (which is liberty that he doesn't like).
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 judge, and the police, and the lawyers who came up with the idea of the "Covenant Children's Trust" to hold the copyright. The "nothing to see here" routine has worn all the way through.
How?
More options
Context Copy link