domain:nature.com
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14m ago
I wouldn't call the 3-foundationers SJers; I'd call them "90s liberals" or something (and there were 6-foundationers earlier than the 90s, just not in large numbers). But yes, that's my working bulverism of SJ as well.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
Thank you. The thought of investing into planet-destroying fossil fuels put me off my feed a little, so I didn't reply at the time. I think you're right that a lot of killer apps based on AI will be coming.
It's interesting what's happening with BTC right now. A lot of ETFs have been started for it, and the halving happened, but the price is going down. Might reach 52k because there's no real support before that point, according to a technical analysis (lol) video I skimmed.
ace
1hr ago
You can never make the human face appear hyper-realistic enough to exceed the value of a good painting or illustration.
Never is an awful long time, dude. Have you seen what generative AI can do today? In 5 years, I bet it's seamless in a tech demo. In 20, I bet it's in games that run on plebian-tier graphics cards (if the human race makes it that far).
Have you seen BG3? I'm playing though it now. It's not remotely hyper realistic, but the body language, facial expressions, and fully voiced characters make a better experience than it would be without those things.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
Wouldn't mind a paywalled or otherwise well curated forum where people share their insights and research.
HalloweenSnarry
2hr ago
What are these foundations? Why are there three versus six? I'm not familiar with this terminology.
NunoSempere
2hr ago
The last one is: I agree that sometimes predictions influence what happens. A few cases people have studied is alarmist Ebola predictions making Ebola spread less because people invested more early on, and optimistic predictions about Hillary Clinton leading to lower turnout.
You can solve these problems in various ways. For the Ebola one, instead of giving one probability, you could give a probability for every "level of effort" to prevent it early on. For the Hillary Clinton one, you could find the fixed point, the probability which takes into account that it lowers turnout a little bit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_point_(mathematics)).
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
2hr ago
I think there’s probably a good amount of political manipulation just like there are accounts that give high reviews to products or to review bomb rivals.
Pushing political views online on any site has a whole host of advantages.
1). It’s cheap. If I can get a package deal for 50-100 bots for less than $500, then this is going to be much cheaper than trying to use traditional advertising in the same platform, to say nothing of traditional TV, radio, or print advertising. This means that a single person can get thousands of views and upvotes on a topic with little investment. If I wanted to promote Jill Stein (who’s running for Pres. with the Green Party) spending $500 to get 10,000 views is pretty cheap.
2). It at least looks organic. People generally scroll past advertisements or ignore them. Ad blockers are common. Very very few people see an ad and pay attention to it. But if they see a post on their social media, they might read it and the comments below and thus the owner of the accounts has some opportunity to make their case.
3). You can quite easily tailor your message to specific people and interests. If I wanted to convince Biden voters to vote Stein, I go to progressive subs. I don’t have to get into conservative and pro Trump areas at all.
HalloweenSnarry
2hr ago
Perhaps this relates to the "axial revolution," where people began to conceive of history as something that progresses instead of repeating in cycles? Maybe also ideas of reincarnation and the afterlife, from Ancient Greece to Ancient India.
HalloweenSnarry
3hr ago
How do you know that a Korea ruled by the North would be a non-basketcase country, as opposed to just being actual-North-Korea-but-bigger?
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3hr ago
Catholics don't believe that scripture is infallible? Infallibility is a strong statement to make, and admitting that men wrote it is kind of conceding a lot of ground. I guess I don't know what you're supposed to base your belief on here, if men wrote it and it may not be accurate to what God actually wanted us to know.
I guess I would say my understanding is that scripture is a mixture of fallible bits and infallible bits. There are undeniable moments in the Bible where the human author is shown to be imperfect - I can't recall the exact verse, but there's a part in one of Paul's letters where he says that he forgot something or other. Clearly, God doesn't seem like he would be in the business of telling Paul "yeah say you forgot this bit". But the Catholic belief is that those things are fine because they aren't the essence of the message (which is infallible, cause that is the part God inspired).
How would inspired word look any different from some random jackwagon writing whatever he wants?
Great question, because yeah once you open that door you now need to distinguish which parts are inspired by God, and which parts are not. Unfortunately the answer in my case is that I am just not well-versed in this stuff enough to know. I would bet that at least part of the answer is going to be rooted in what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition - basically, the idea is that not all of the teachings of the early church were written down as a modern audience would expect, but at least some were handed down orally. Those teachings are considered to be authoritative as well, and the Catholic justification for how we know which books of the Bible are canonical is basically "God gave men the grace to discern it and pass that down as part of Sacred Tradition". Given that the answer for which books are canonical is believed to be rooted in tradition, I imagine that so too is the answer to your question. But ultimately I don't know - sorry about that, because it is a totally fair question.
To that end, is there anything solidifying your belief in day-to-day life?
A couple of things. One thing (and basically the reason I came back to the faith after I left it in my 20s) is basically that my dad attests to having seen two genuine, cannot-mistake-it miraculous (or at least supernatural) events (I can give you more detail if you like, but I generally figure that "my dad said so" is not something which would convince anyone who doesn't know him, lol). Obviously I have a high degree of confidence that he wouldn't lie to me, and I have a high degree of confidence as well that he didn't just hallucinate the things he reports. So while that doesn't exactly prove that my faith is correct, that gives me a pretty strong nudge towards the faith my dad has (i.e. Christianity) being correct.
The second thing is the way in which I met my wife. It probably sounds trite, but it's true. I was single up until I was 30 - I couldn't even get a date, much less a girlfriend. I was pretty unhappy but couldn't really make any headway, and I would've bet you every last penny I owned that I was going to die alone. Eventually, I had a friend who had good success with online dating and I made an OKCupid profile basically just to earn the right to be bitter and mad at the world (kind of like how people will vote so they "have the right to complain about the result"). I wound up meeting my wife, who unknown to me also made a profile in more or less sheer desperation after she had been in a couple of bad relationships. Before she met me she was also going to give up on dating (for a long time if not forever), because it had just been so negative for her. To me... I just can't really believe that is coincidence. I know it's possible! But ultimately I really do think that the most likely explanation is that God brought us together at the right time when we both really needed each other. So that also solidifies my day to day belief.
I asked a couple Christians if there is justice in this life, or if it's only reserved for the afterlife, and both of them seemed pretty stumped by what I thought was a simple question.
I believe that sometimes we get justice in this life, but that ultimately justice is only guaranteed in the afterlife.
To me, it seems pretty obvious that life is randomly cruel to everyone, Christian or not, a world of chaos, untamed and wild except for where men have tamed it. If someone created it, they're either not paying attention to it, as if they wound up a wind up doll and walked away from the table, or they never cared much about it in the first place, an apathetic god that lets the chips fall as they may. You probably disagree with that, and if you do, I'd like to hear it.
Yeah, I definitely feel the frustration of how messed up this world is and how it really seems like it's ripe for God to step in and correct things. Surely people deserve that from him, right? I have had the same thoughts myself more than once. Ultimately, the problem of evil is just really hard and I don't know that there's a perfect answer. But if I had to say what I think, it's probably something like this.
God is not exactly alien to us (like a Lovecraftian elder god or something), but he's not entirely comprehensible to us either. That means that having faith in God means I need to accept that sometimes, the way he chooses to handle things is going to seem really messed up in the short term but will pay off in the long term. Unfortunately, I think that sometimes "long term" here means "in the afterlife", which is really hard for us humans. But I do believe that God loves us, and that everything is ordered towards our ultimate good. I've had my own experience where I had something happen to me that I thought was catastrophic, but ultimately made me better, and I think of that whenever I think of all the horrible things God allows to happen in our world. I know that's cold comfort to those who suffer. I wish I had a better answer. But that's what I believe at least, and what I try to cling to whenever I find myself questioning "what the hell, God? Why would you allow this?"
I have so many random theological questions (does the suffering of animals mean anything?), but maybe some other day. Or some other thread.
For sure man. Feel free to ask, I'll at least do my best to answer. And I try to be honest when the answer is "I don't know", which it will probably be more often than not. ;) But I am always down to try to answer the questions.
fishtwanger
3hr ago
In essence: SJers were never liberals (they're clearly six-foundation rather than three-foundation),
To poke slightly at this one aspect: perhaps the movement started in the 90s and early 00s with adult 3-foundationers, but because of institutional capture, a generation of 6-foundationer children grew up influenced by this ideology (instead of the more natural-to-them 6-foundation traditional conservatism), and they fleshed it out into a full 6-foundation system of its own.
fishtwanger
3hr ago
Do they not in Korea? If not, why not?
I can't say about Korea, but in China there's a whole Thing about buying houses, and who pays, and who owns it in the marriage, and who gets it in the divorce. It's like someone took America, realized that we're all sappy romantic meme-infected morons, and solved for the equilibrium. Which turns out to be a ruthless financial battle of the sexes.
If Korea has gone further down the Neo-Confucian gender-role rabbit-hole than China, combined with the same Western personal freedom as long as you don't marry, no wonder it's such a nightmare.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
4hr ago
I don't think this is necessarily true.
I do not believe for a single second that anyone in the history of the entire world has ever said "I have a great, on-topic and timely post to share with this reddit community, but my account is too new. I'm going to purchase an account with a pre-existing history so I can share this incredible post with a community that I have no pre-existing engagement with."
Spotting accounts like this harvesting karma is like spotting people who are in the middle of getting their robbery tools ready - the only purpose for what they're doing is so that someone else later on can break the rules while making them so money.
Reddit has a lot of silly or dumb rules... that's part of why this site decided to separate in the first place!
No? The Motte tried to actually avoid breaking the rules of Reddit, and we split because we knew that not actually breaking the rules wasn't going to be a defence against the eye of Sauron making sure that there weren't any visible communities of people talking about how lightning strikes seem to appear before the thunder - or at least that's how I recall it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4hr ago
When people say "close the border" they typically mean closing it to all traffic
Where are you getting that idea from?
Ben___Garrison
4hr ago
When people say "close the border" they typically mean closing it to all traffic entirely which would be utterly silly. There's tons of trade that goes between the border, and plenty of American nationals come and go all the time.
I agree the asylum stuff is BS, but again, this bill does crack down on much of that. I'm fine with a few statistically irrelevant dissidents coming through if they're seeking to evade persecution from a genuinely authoritarian government torturing them, but I'm not fine with people fraudulently claiming they're a refugee for essentially no reason, which is what a lot of the economic migrants are doing now.
Even if you think all asylum should be ended, surely no asylum > a little asylum > a lot of asylum. So I don't know why you'd oppose the bill.
ulyssessword
4hr ago
...on a word-by-word level it’s pretty clear.
I didn't even finish the first sentence before finding "...his thought is more than ever enabling us to see in a new way the horrors of..."
What are your standards for unclear writing??
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
I wonder if it might be worth nuancing 'pro-Intifada', 'pro-Hamas', and so on?
It seems to me that many of these protests are, yes, genuinely opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, and supportive of 'decolonisation' interpreted to mean 'Israel should not exist and all Israeli Jews should leave and find homes in other countries, and if they refuse, they are legitimately the targets of lethal violence'. But the rhetoric and justification given for this is so radically different to the rhetoric and justification of either Hamas or any on-the-ground Palestinian resistance movements that I think the gulf is worthy of recognition. For the American campus protester, what Hamas or Palestinians actually want is close to irrelevant - their politics are not so much pro-Intifada or pro-Hamas they are anti-coloniser. Israel is a 'coloniser', which makes them the bad guys, which makes the opposite of Israel the good guys.
If nothing else, the campus protest ideology is not the ideology of the Hamas charter, or even the revised one. I don't think the protesters are reading that charter and unironically agreeing with it. (Though I grant that the revised, 2017 version seems calculated to appeal more to liberal Westerners.) Almost none of them are Muslims, for a start. It's something different, and must have its own origins and influences.
jeroboam
5hr ago
I am also curious and PM'd the user. I am 90% sure he's talking about Bogleheads because we live in a boring world, but hopeful for something better.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
5hr ago
Ctrl+0 will get you back to the 100% zoom setting.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5hr ago
Similarly, leftists were in favor of free speech and questioning authority when it was beneficial to them, but now that their institutional capture is more entrenched, they don't need those things anymore.
But something about this explanation rubs me the wrong way. It paints a purely structural view of the formation of ideologies, and ignores the role of the individual completely; you will hold the views that you must based on your relational position to other political actors while taking into account your rational self interest, and that's that.
The nuanced version of this is less concerned with individuals changing their minds and more concerned with generational succession and coalitional realignment.
In essence: SJers were never liberals (they're clearly six-foundation rather than three-foundation), but while they were weak their immediate goals coincided with liberals' and they needed liberals' help to achieve them, so the coalitional rhetoric catered to liberals. Now that SJers are more numerous and powerful, and have already picked the low-hanging fruit, they have run out of common goals with liberals, and don't need the liberals to maintain a shot at power, so they kicked the liberals out of the coalition so that they could pursue their more illiberal goals. Meanwhile, the Moral Majority is no longer a majority and now needs the liberals, and also their most immediate goal of reversing SJ excesses is shared with liberals, so they've started including liberal things in their rhetoric.
What is the cognitive difference between someone who uses a living experienced figure of speech, versus a dead metaphor only understood through conversation? Examples: run a tight ship, get on board.
When sailing was commonplace in English culture, these phrases would convey salient and significant experiences: the idea of strict rank inherent to seafaring, the idea of one singular authority deciding life and death with no one else around for hundreds of miles, civilized cooperative order versus chaos (ship versus rough seas), the prospect of status enhancement from obedient conduct; and the “board” of the ship meant near-claustrophobic proximity, rank-and-file, before tasks were dispersed. None of this meaning is transmitted in the expression today, only the connotation of when the phrase was previously heard by you. So, if you heard “run a tight ship” today, you would probably just imagine a manager who likes to be hands-on… and that’s it.
Some questions:
Am I just wrong here? I don’t think so. Consider the new zoomer expression “delete your account”. This expression conveys meaning which would be lost on someone living in 1860. It implies an immediate, swift, final action which totally eliminates a type of socializing (a type alien to the 19th century). We can easily imagine “delete your account” becoming an offline expression in the future, but then it would only connote basic shaming.
Are metaphors, in some sense, vastly more important for cognition than we think? How do we understand a word without metaphor? A word like “sufficient” seems to connote less than a phrase, just a small intellectual feeling without image, emotion, sound, texture — a hunch.
Should we kill off dead metaphors, and somehow replace them with living metaphors?
Should we give children a breadth of metaphorical experiences in the Montessori sense for cognitive gain?
More options
Context Copy link