FourPacketsOfPeanuts @ FourPacketsOfPeanuts @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

992

Joined

2 yr. ago

They mean 'fascist'. Fascists are not automatically anti-semitic.

When a population give a party control of the senate, congress and the presidency that's the public disabling a lot of checks and balances..

they've successfully bamboozled the public into believing that a Monster or a Red Bull or whatever is "worth" 4-6x more per ounce than a normal soda

Christ is this actually true? I've never had them...

God people are stupid

they know what they're doing. it's to generate noise to confuse search terms about executive order effects in such a way that's easy for maga to deflect ("well they took it down by accident, you're triggered")

My bro, she knows

Id like to see a sort of Inglorious Basterds meets Quantum Leap meets Munich where a team go back in time and foil Dunblaine (UK).. Sandy Hook.. Uvalde.. Not even school shootings per se.. I'd like to see a team rush in and save kids at Aberfan with seconds to spare. Crushes my heart every time..

There isn't a solution. People don't want to pay for something that costs huge resources. So their attention becoming the product that's sold is inevitable. They also want to doomscroll slop; it's mindless and mildly entertaining. The same way tabloid newspapers were massively popular before the internet and gossip mags exist despite being utter horseshite. It's what people want. Truly fighting it would requires huge benevolent resources, a group willing to finance a manipulative and compelling experience and then not exploit it for ad dollars, push educational things instead or something. Facebook, twitter etc are enshitified but they still cost huge amounts to run. And for all their faults at least they're a single point where illegal material can be tackled. There isn't a proper corollary for this in decentralised solutions once things scale up. It's better that free, decentralised services stay small so they can stay under the radar of bots and bad actors. When things do get bigger then gated communities probably are the way to go. Perhaps until there's a social media not-for-profit that's trusted to manage identity, that people don't mind contributing costs to. But that's a huge undertaking. One day hopefully...

It could be a stroke keyboard typo for "twat" (assuming they missing hitting the initial T)

I meant, at the time, it was a British colony

When you find someone else hot and you're not jacking to porn it's a miracle any man lasts more than a minute. With a bit of experience you can pace yourself and last longer. It would take deliberate thought to last, say, 20 mins. Many men couldn't do direct stimulation for that long. So it's probably worth talking about how to pace things, switch things up, have quickies and then other times longer times.

I agree with an this. But the other things to consider are that automation should make it easier to break into an industry. I worked for an upstart insurance company using automation to serve half a million customers with 6 core staff. With automation it's becoming easier for a few bright people to set up a competing service, not harder. At some point (and obvs it will probably be a bumpy ride) but at some point more competitive services should be available to both consumers and the government. That should make gov spending go further. Maybe that's miles away from the American mindset, but in UK / Europe people are looking for the point where automation allows certain basic services to be provided from the government for free (or at least covered by existing taxes). Which should lead to some standard of living improvements even if in other areas ghoulish megacorps still hoover up the power.

The natural state of human society is fear and oppression, it's been that way for millennia (and further). Rather than Russia being the exception, it's more a wonder, a miracle, that the West ever managed to cultivate democracy, liberalism and reduction in corruption in the first place. Not that it's perfect, far from it, and in fact it's backsliding at the moment, but holding power to account, making it follow the law, is a thoroughly European thing as far as history goes. A tradition that Russia only just skirts the edges of.

well who pissed on your chips?

Do you actually feel conviction behind the claims and arguments, or is it more performative?

Yes. I think what happens in many difficult topics is people know how they feel but have never really thought through the detail. And because of that they backfill with black and white thinking that I think is bad for several reasons.

I) often even though I agree on the central issue, the black and white thinking contains overreactions that I disagree with that in themselves cause other problems. So I see value in developing an emotional black and white view into a nuanced dark grey / off-white view.

ii) black and white thinking leaves us ill equipped to understand others or find compromises

iii) although we all do it, relying on strong emotional convictions is fine for day to day life but leaves us out of practice articulating exactly why we think things should be a certain way and therefore vulnerable to articulate bad actors

I would never take a contrary view just to be annoying. And I generally only do it on moral issues, not matters of strong consensus that would veer into conspiracy. (E.g. practising reciting the evidence for why we understand the Holocaust is real is a useful historical skill but not the kind of thing I'm talking about)

In my experience it doesn't matter how accessible the language becomes, most people find the precision required to make machines behave in a desirable way is exhausting or alien to them.

This isn't any kind of failing though. I've come to see how organising modern businesses (with processes, regulations, standard etc) is a kind of "programming". And there are many who are good at that (designing human processes to automate goals) where I completely flounder, even with the help of the 'right' training, books, coaching etc

I enjoy 'free' debate where I can be the devil's advocate for unpopular opinions. Talk like this is more or less banned on Reddit. Lemmy is a much freer. I think the are sensible boundaries on certain topics where debate must not turn into advocacy. This takes nuance and good sense though. Completely dead on Reddit, still alive here. So carry on..

and never asked for, like "AI".

I think, unfortunately, quite a lot of people have poor taste and don't mind obvious AI slop, even enjoy it.

There are certain materials such as CSAM that people are not totally immune to. Most people will always find it repugnant, a minority will always be drawn to it. But there is a portion in the middle who do not ever think of it only because they are not exposed to it. Unrestrained sharing of it normalises it and the behaviours that come with it. There are some parallels with addictive drugs. Constraints on free speech are akin to banning cigarette advertising or making heroin illegal. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to manage themselves well enough that anyone can take whatever they want. In reality, we democratically decide society is just healthier for everyone if certain things have constraints.

Thanks. Yes, I'm managing to absorb it now.

Though the hardest part is getting an intuition about why the "algorithm 1" "algorithm 2" thinking happens at all when they's a group of 100 people and everyone can see at least 99 blue eyed people. I get the induction, but why does anyone think 'well algorithm 1 people would leave first night' when there obviously can't be anyone in this group. The only immediate question on everyone's mind is "are there 99 blue eyed people (what I see) or 100 (me included)?"

Brilliant, thanks :)