Windex007 @ Windex007 @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,107

Joined

2 yr. ago

So his defense was that he was merely intending to humiliate people who find issue with the gesture?

Long story short, PP refuses to get his security clearance because he doesn't want to be "gagged".

He was offered a special pathway to getting the briefings that didn't involve a mandatory security clearance.

But, after finding out that he still would not be able to share classified information with others, he's backing out again.

Not for a moment did I believe the comment was made in jest

If you read the article, 9% are undecided.

Only 6% were for it.

Considering how many of the orders are being written by AI, there is probably a lot of maneuvering room to comply with the written letter while completely ignoring the spirit.

The definition of sex, for example. Every single passport reads "F" from now on. Very malicious. Very compliant. Very much ignoring the spirit.

They won't

What value is there you knowing my expression of ARHGAP1? What about TP53BP1?

Yeah, or someone will die because lab result baselines that are dependent on sex get fucked up.

Politics need to stay the fuck out of medicine. Having people try and do a political dance around lab science is a recipe for disaster.

I agree that from a psychological lens there is value. "Why does a person do or think things?" Valuable there. VERY valuable. Greed, fear, when do they become maladaptive? Why does this happen? Is it intrinsic to some individuals or is it just capacity?

I don't think it's very valuable from an ethics/philosophy standpoint. "Is it right to do a thing?"

I don't think it's especially valuable from a sociological perspective either, it needlessly complicates a model. For some population, a variance of greed will exis within it. A variance of fear of outsiders.

I don't mean to shit on the idea. Just suggesting where the limits of value may be on the idea.

I don't think the AI meant anything.

But like, practically, what does that mean?

I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.

Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as "natural". Cats hunt mice. It's natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.

Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument "natural" are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.

And that's usually where the wheels come off. We're animals. We have animal urges. They're informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.

We're animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we're animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don't suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of "natural" and "acceptable" and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.

This isn't a new idea. I can't stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.

It's so obsessed with UX and negative space, even on a 4k monitor at full screen you still only get like 100 characters line width. It's a fucking joke.

What would it mean to you, to stop pretending to edit: NOT be animals?

Sometime after 2000 BCE, the question of what the ambiguous reference to "purple stuff" referred to became a shared cultural flashpoint.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I really like the idea of people with likewise sensibilities being able to act as their own cross-community mod team, without impacting other groups with different sensibilities.

An idea would be to allow "plug-in able" content sorting algorithms or content filters.

I hear so many stories of people slapping tons of filters in their clients (block all comments from ml users, block "Elon" and/or "Trump" keywords)... I think tons of people are running almost identical filters. Why not bake right into the Lemmy core the ability to pull filter sets from say, a public got repo?

Same with sorting. I'd love to have a "hot" algorithms that "punishes" posts based on comment sentiment analysis. Again, let me choose my sorting algorithm from a git repo. Let some person or persons develop a "good vibes" algorithm which keeps toxity off the top of my feed.

IMO, this is the way. Sorting by engagement has obvious issues. Introducing other weights to augment a system would make a huge difference in user experience.

You can't change the people. Look at this comment section. OP said they don't want to be yelled at and everyone took that cue to give a lecture. Completely no self awareness. Can't change that.

But you can improve the algorithm. And IMO if you could crowdsource that dev in a way that doesn't impose on mainline development.

I don't think it's that complex.

People recognize it isn't a crime, they still aren't so far gone to suggest criminalizing it... But they still don't like it and just want the person removed from their society. Putting them on a plane or bus out of the country and not letting them back in fits the bill.

I really really don't think people think that deported means you go to a concentration camp somewhere. If they did, there's no reason to not just criminalize the behavior. Make them do slave labor in jail in the USA for the benefit of the USA, if that's the case.

It's not like people aren't happy to suggest criminalizing ALL KINDS of behavior anyways. It's not like they're not happy to chant "lock them up!". Why not just go that route in these cases? Why even bother with deportation as word?

Deportation I think is just "banishment" in the brains of everyone who suggests it.

It's great because when the AI bubble pops everyone will just say "damn, THAT'S why there is nothing to show for it" while his bros waddle off with pockets just bursting with money.

He's not an asshole for disliking a Nazi. He's an asshole for deciding to spring a question he knows the answer to which apparently demands of him to boycott a wedding.

His idiot brother likes Elon Musk. The brother isn't disinviting him. OP is the one who created and is enforcing a rule about Elon.

I have no idea what the family dynamics are, but if they're otherwise good and you're willing to burn your family relationships because they don't share your views on Elon Musk, wowza.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to play the part of the shrill reee-ing blue haired archetype foil that Republicans created.

I'm going to get drunk and ruin a wedding. THAT will fix the world.

No, dumbass, it's going to validate everything fox news has been telling their base about the left. You have absolutely no self awareness, and will ruin your brother's wedding as if he was the CEO of Shell even though he's a construction worker in rural Montana.

Be the strawman the Republicans want you to be!