we may
we may
we may
Oh yeah. Echo chamber my favorite.
Or seeking self validation to cope with insecurity.
Metal Gear Solid 2 (released in 2001) predicted our current/future catch 22 scenario. If echo chambers are left in place everyone isolates themselves and surrounds themselves in their own half truths afraid of a larger forum.
But the proposed solution is for AI to run everything behind the scenes censoring the internet to manipulate information and by extension the world.
idk why this reminded me of that
I agree with you
Especially when it's a controversial opinion
I agree! Pffft
I don't even care if they agree with me as long as they can form a constructive argument against me and not go into hysterics just because my opinion differs from theirs.
I’m always happy to find a hopeless optimist on Lemmy…
I like turning off vote counts to keep me more honest. It makes me vote honestly because I myself like something, not just because others happen to like it a lot.
On the other hand, I can be smug about getting a lot of downvotes from who I can assume are mindless fools.
I just did a presentation in my university about lemmy and the fediverse, people loved it!
What did you talk about? Like give me an overview I'm curious.
The presentation went along like this:
at the end I mentioned what I considered to be the most important challenges and steps ahead for the fediverse, thinks like escalation, funding, onboarding and moderation it was fun, the class liked it, i think some were going to try mastdon, it's a start!
Correct opinion good, incorrect opinion bad.
This but without sarcasm
Honestly at this point I'm just glad I'm not getting autobanned because some moderator decided there was a way to interpret my words as advocating for genocide... God we need to get more of the Reddit Communities here so we can make that shitfest obsolete
I sincerely hope people aren't using upvotes or downvotes as a metric for this.
they are
The debates are kind of lit, too, though.
Would know what that is like... too many people are wrong all the time. :)
Ah, but a short glance at my comment history will reveal that that is not how i like to enjoy Lemmy…
Then I unjoy you.
Ah yes the anti echo chamber user: providing the viewpoint you disagree with whether you want to hear it or not.
downvotes are just upvotes with a little penis
Indeed
A rarity
Funny, I always seem to get downvoted, which I didn't on Reddit
A brief glance at your profile proves you a LIAR.
Try telling liberals that can't define liberal that they can't define liberal, they fucking hate it even while they prove you right.
I can do the opposite.
Observe!
Firefox sucks.
You're right, but other web browsers suck more.
I upvoted you for what that's worth
I can't believe people fell for this and downvoted you to oblivion lmao
Either they're playing along or they're born in the shallow end of the gene pool.
I downvoted the other guy ironically but you unironically. how does that sting feel
"To oblivion"
Currently at 11 downvotes.
Either way it makes it an interesting social experiment
Lets race
Linux sucks
And thus our own echo anti-chamber has been made
Well, my pc has its fans, so technically you're right.
I'll join in!
Linux is not the best operating system in history.
I think it's working
Yeah, there are probably arguably some OSes that had more revolutionary features but were swept under the rug due to having no software support
I love being right, but it's better when others think so too, lol
If you are right in the woods and no one is around to see it, were you really right?
Peacefully so.
"If you are right in the woods and no one is around to see it, were you really right?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.
Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world? – e.g., "does observation affect outcome?"
A similar question does not involve whether or not an unobserved event occurs predictably, like it occurs when it is observed. The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed.
However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn't change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is an impossible claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue that a truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where 'other' might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all. Of course, the fact that the tree is known to have changed state from 'upright' to 'fallen' implies that the event must be observed to ask the question at all – even if only by the supposed deaf onlooker. The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that:
This existence of an unobserved real is integral to Bhaskar's ontology, which contends (in opposition to the various strains of positivism which have dominated both natural and social science in the twentieth century) that 'real structures exist independently of and are often out of phase with the actual patterns of events'. In social science, this has made his approach popular amongst contemporary Marxists — notably Alex Callinicos – who postulate the existence of real social forces and structures which might not always be observable.
For example: In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.
In conclusion: When there is noone to hear if you are right or not, your righteousness is not yet confirmed, thus you being in a superposition state where you are both right and wrong. Unless someone comes and hears your words, will then your righteousness be judged and stated.
I love being funny, but it feels best if just one person hated it.