Nevoic @ Nevoic @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

It was really last episode that blew me away not this one (though this wasn't good either). I normally don't look up writers but I had to see if there was a change between season 1 and 2 because of how different it was. I would not have watched Loki if season 1 was written like this.

I don't even know how to describe it because I'm not usually critical of writing, but the characters seemed so one dimensional. This new hatred Sylvie has for Loki made no sense, and it seemed simultaneously super passionate and surface level. She flipped her tune in one sentence in that McDonalds scene, I had to rewatch it once or twice because I was so thrown off guard by her shift I had to see if I missed something.

There also seem to be more places where people go way overboard on their character stereotypes (like the one who remains being unable to complete a sentence), or Sylvie being a killer with major bloodlust now after one episode ago swearing off all of this.

I don't know, I'm not usually a critic, I get this is probably only half coherent and half ramblings, but as a usually casual viewer the shift between season 1 and 2 was so intense.

If there was any actual evidence against it you would've said "false" and not "probably false", but even in your own little make-believe world you couldn't bring yourself to that point.

It's clickbait but it's also absolutely true. I get it's easier for you to not do any research and continue to think it's "probably false".

My suggestion to you is instead of half-engaging, just fully close your eyes. Just continue living in your fantasy world and stop engaging with this kind of content, while the rest of us continue to try to solve these real issues.

Stating uncomfortable facts about the world that people would otherwise gladly ignore.

No way could this clusterfuck of IP (owning thoughts), the worry of AI "taking jobs" (e.g doing work that would otherwise be done by humans), and selling of the work on a marketplace at all be tied to the idea of capitalism.

In other economic systems, having work automated would be a good thing, not an existential threat to the functioning of our entire global economy. I'm blown away that people don't understand that.

I hate the phrasing "terrorist group" here. Not because what happened here wasn't an atrocity, but because people generally refuse to call state-backed violence "terrorist" violence. The word terrorism is incredibly broad, easily describing a ton of things Israel does. Yet, we refuse to call them a terrorist organization.

Israel slaughtered hundreds of protesters 4 years ago in Gaza.

Israel and Egypt have been blockading the Gaza strip in violation of the GCIV since 2007.

In 2014, a triple-homicide was committed. Israel claimed it was Hamas, and arrested hundreds of Palestinians. Hamas sent rockets into Israel, killing 2 people, and Israel initiated Operation Protective Edge, killing thousands of Palestinians.

Not to mention the entire Israel-Palestine conflict can be traced back about 100 years, where imperialist Britain endorsed the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. Eventually leading to the formation of Israel in the late 40s and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, forcing nearly a million natives to move to make way for Israel.

"terrorism" is politically charged language with the intent of making us sympathize with a certain side. Of course we'll side with the "Israel state" and against the "Hamas terrorist group". The language used to describe these groups already prescribes how we should view them. Western media will never describe Israel's atrocities as terrorist actions, so people will dismiss the slaughter of tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians as "just war".

I'm glad you brought this up, because yeah we're all selling our bodies and time. I wouldn't say this means we consent, though. We don't need to change what consent means to make capitalism sound better than it is.

If you're "incentivized" (e.g will be starved and punished otherwise) by a system to do something you hate, you can't call that consent.

If you had a system where women were raised and then presented with the option of either having sex with you & being allowed to participate in modern society, or being discarded in the wilderness, not being allowed to even build anywhere/make it on your own because all the land is owned by either private individuals or the government, then those women aren't free.

As we agree, just by changing the demand from "have sex" to "do manual labor" or "rent out your mind so someone else can own the product of your thoughts (IP)" doesn't change whether or not it's consensual.

What's actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?

It seems that the act of pushing alone isn't enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.

I think it's clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.

Most people aren't practicing teachers, so it makes sense that not all explanations are the best. Trying to get an intuitional understanding of passing by reference or passing by value in imperative languages is arguably more important than understanding how map works, and yet I'd argue it's also harder to do.

If you understand map (not just lists, but futures, IOs, Options, Maybes, etc.) then you understand Functors. Yes there are laws, but mathematical laws here are just encoding our intuition. Something like Iterator in Java may not have laws, but you would expect that calling .next() doesn't modify an SQL database, though it wouldn't be a technically invalid implementation if it did. The same is not true for Functors. If you map over a List and the act of mapping each int to its double modified a database then you wouldn't have a lawful functor. But that should make sense intuitionally without knowing the laws.

People in OO land are more happy to say they "understand" something if they generally get what the abstraction is going for. Do you know all the methods for Iterator/Iterable in Java? Even if you didn't, you'd likely say you get the "point" of an Iterable. The bar for understanding things in the FP community is usually higher than just understanding the point of something.

This doesn't mean FP is more complicated. Actually it kind of means it's simpler, because it's not unreasonable for people to totally understand what Functors are for all languages that implement them. The same is not true of Iterable/Iterator. There's no way you'd have more than just an intuition about what Iterable is in a language you don't know. I don't program in Agda or Idris, but I know Functor in those languages are the same as Functor in Scala and Haskell. Same with Monad, Monoids, etc.

Haskell/Scala. Huge fan of pure functional programming. Here's another comment I wrote about some FP-related things

I think the dislike for Functors/Monads/Monoids etc. is super overrated. I'm not a mathematician, but christ these are beautiful abstractions coming from a background in Java and OO programming.

Functor instances are defined by one function. Once you learn the one main thing that Functors do (mapping), you'll understand them no matter the language. Monoids have 2, Monads have 2, etc. Yes all there are functions built in terms of the functions required in the typeclass definitions (or several typeclasses), but they don't need to be known to effectively use the abstractions.

I was able to easily transfer most of my Haskell knowledge to Scala at my last job in the typelevel ecosystem because of HKTs like Functors, Monads, monad comprehensions, Monoids, etc. I was the go-to guy for FP-related questions despite most of my background being in Haskell and not Scala.

Using an Iterable in Java will be different than an Iterable in any other language in at least some respects. Yes they will represent the same abstract idea, but you can't just 1:1 transfer knowledge between different Iterable implementations.

I've programmed professionally in Java, Kotlin, Scala, Ruby, Python, JS/TS, and many more in hobbyist settings, and the cleanest transition was Haskell -> Scala (omitting language transitions on the same runtime, so Java -> Kotlin or JS -> TS).

Yeah choosing to abstain from eating certain animals for moral reasons (dogs/cats/cows/horses) and not others (pigs/chickens/fish) is definitely weird. Though the majority of people in western society fall into this category, you just moved one more animal across the boundary due to normalization. If you were brought up with pigs, chickens, and fish you'd probably abstain from those too.

The real question to ask though is despite normalization, what's actually the right thing to do? Is it actually okay that some people eat dogs, cats, and cows? Or is it wrong to do this?

People should put more effort into reconciling this dissonance, because slaughter and oppression is not a matter we should leave up to the normalization of society to decide. Society has countless times normalized immoral things.

"post-scarcity" in this context doesn't mean "everyone gets everything they want whenever they want it". Maybe I want to own a planet, but there aren't enough planets to go around, and nobody actually believes in a future where everyone can get their own planet.

When talking about these things, it's best not to assume the most ridiculous interpretation of what the other person is saying. e.g instead of reading "post-scarcity" to mean "everyone gets everything all the time no matter what", read it to mean "everyone gets what they need".

also for what it's worth, I've been an ethical vegan for several years after being a die-hard meat eater and literally convincing people close to me to move away from veganism/vegetarianism exactly for health reasons (I had the same misconception you did about veganism). After actually going vegan, doing absolutely no meal planning, no exercise, no calorie counting, still eating mostly frozen food and pickup, my blood pressure as a lean 6'1 mid 20s male has gone from pre-hypertension to normal levels. I get my blood checked regularly and I'm far healthier than I was when I was downing popeyes, jersey mikes, and five guys several times a week. And I'm not just eating salads or whatever, I'm usually having vegan buffalo "chicken" or beyond burgers.

I don't advocate veganism based on health benefits (veganism is an ethical philosophy), but vegan diets are baseline much healthier than the baseline for non-vegan diets. You can't go as wrong with them as the vast majority of Americans do with their diets.

As an extension to this comment, digital media is a perfect example of pure artificial scarcity. You can at least imagine a world where food or homes are scarce, it's not our world, but it can be imagined. The same is not true of distributing digital media, and yet it's still artificially scarce.

Without scarcity in capitalism things lack value. That is extremely problematic.

Within the context of one person's career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people's relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you've all done too well and it's to "cut labor costs" while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you'd gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.

Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.

Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won't have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it's something much easier for liberals to stomach.

I didn't compare capitalism to slavery. I said the word slavery. The first paragraph wasn't demonstrating a comparison, it was demonstrating a principle (principles are universalized, comparisons aren't). The idea that every system has positives, but those systems can still be horrifically bad.

I don't know if it's emotion that's clouding your reading comprehension, I hope it is, because then you can calm down and have a reasonable conversation. If it's not, then this conversation isn't worth having because you won't understand half of what I'm saying. Literally 50% of your last message was you misrepresenting what I was saying.

A capitalist society cannot enact socialist policies. It can enact "social" policies. These policies are inspired by socialism, and often advocated for by socialists, but the policies themselves are not socialist policies. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and socialism is an economic system where the means of production are socially owned. If private (not personal) property exists, it's not socialism. It's not necessarily capitalism (you could have other systems with private property), but in our world it always is.

Welfare capitalism, where these social policies exist, is a well established ideology that has been around for about 80 years in any serious form, and yeah welfare can be used to address some of the negative tendencies of capitalism, but it doesn't fix them. It's applying a band-aid fix, not addressing the problem. In the real world what this means is there's a class of people always working to remove those regulations and welfare because their class interests are opposed to ours.

Class distinctions cannot be solved with a regulation, they have to be solved with a societal restructuring. Our legal system does not support the idea of abolishing private property and by extension classes.

If by "have merit" you mean "has some positive aspects", sure. Every system has merit. Slavery had merit (slave owners got cheap cotton). The Holocaust had merit (antisemites felt better). The issue is weighing the merit against the negatives. You can't just say two systems have positive aspects and call it a day.

Are you a fan of democracy or authoritarianism? Capitalism is a system where productive forces are driven undemocratically, in the name of profit instead of by worker democracy. The commodification of everything exists in a world of private property:

• our bodies (labor power)
• our thoughts (intellectual property)
• the specific ordering of bits on a hard drive you own (digital media, DRM)
• the means of production (which exist as a result of collective knowledge, infrastructure, and labor)

These things being commodified and privatized are ridiculous in any democratic, non-capitalist system.

However, these ridiculous conditions are absolutely necessary in a capitalist society. Without them the system falls apart. And as society continues to progress, the situation gets more and more ridiculous.

What about when AI "takes away" jobs for 50% of Americans (as in capitalists fire humans in favor of AI)? That'll collapse our society. Less work would be a good thing in any reasonable system, but not in capitalism. Less work is an existential threat to our society.

If we ever have an AI that is as capable as humans are intellectually, the only work left for us will be manual labor. If that happens, and robots get to the point of matching our physical abilities, we won't be employable anymore. The two classes will no longer be owners and workers, they'll be owners and non-owners. At that point we better have dismantled capitalism, because if we don't then we'll just be starving in the street, along with the millions who die every year from starvation under the boot of global capitalism.

I've seen people get pulled over for doing 60 in a 65 on a highway where everyone is doing 70-85, because it's dangerously slow with only 2 lanes.

And it's 6 lanes because of how much traffic there is, forcing people to weave around someone going 10-30mph below the flow of traffic is dangerous.

Surprised this is getting as many upvotes as it is. It totally depends on context. I've seen posted 35 mph speed limits on 6 lane roads where every is going minimum 50mph, even with cops in the flow of traffic. I've also been on 2 lane roads (e.g opposing traffic is directly next to you) and the posted speed limit is 55mph.

If you're doing the speed limit in the second one, well done. If you're going 15-25mph below the flow of traffic in the middle or fast lane, because of a posted speed limit, that's a problem.