daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

only person that cites sources instead of just being a kind of aggressive tool, this post deserves to be at the top fs

This is me with one of my friends, except I also have a high tendency to recognize his friends also, since they're usually also people from high school, but then they don't recognize me. I'm a background character dude, it's kind of awesome.

Are other forms of BCI not permanent? I was kinda under the impression that they were, and the only upside of neuralink was the form factor, and maybe trying to bring down the costs by automating it, or whatever the idea was, but it the others aren't permanent, that would kind of make more sense. Though, I kind think it being temporary would kind of be an upside, for the most part, since that would prevent scar tissue buildup on the brain, and other potential problems like that.

I think if money were not an issue, probably I would either move to some sort of unpopulated island in the pacific, a space station, the moon, really anywhere I could sufficiently threaten geopolitical interests while being kind of isolated. Maybe even just the top of a new york high rise, lex luthor style.

More realistically, everyone's saying scandinavian countries, nordic countries, and these are popular for a reason. I could probably acquiesce, because I'm white and can speak english, but I also would pretty much be fine with any EU citizenship. I feel like there's a lot of different strengths and weaknesses that would be interesting to learn about from each and see which one I like the best, because I don't think it'd be a high level idea to judge any of them from the outside looking in. Likewise, I've also seen some taiwan suggestions, and that's kind of an interesting proposal as well.

I dunno. If money wasn't an issue, I think I might as well just stay where I am, and use it to do some cool stuff where I currently live. It's not really in the spirit of the question, but I think the main object, main limiter, in my life, probably in most people's lives, is gonna be money. I don't know if the context matters much, but then maybe thinking along those lines, I'd rather be homeless in a nordic country, so I might as well just kind of default to one of them because the consequences of financial failure there seem maybe less dire than in lots of other places. So maybe my answer is still the same as everyone else's, nordic countries.

I thought the real lesson that's never learned is that everything is just doomed to get worse forever?

dopamine pump goes brrrr.

But also, I think to some degree, "building meaningful platforms with an abundance of excellent communication options" is kind of just. Investor speak. It's kind of impossible. Systems are brittle, communication needs to be flexible, to some degree.

Speaking more specifically, right, if we're looking at reddit and lemmy as examples, we have to think about the kinds of content that these systems are incentivizing. Upvotes float a post to the top of the front page, top of the comments section, right, and then that kind of lends itself to platforms where the top posts are snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely agree with, while the most downvoted posts are going to be snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely disagree with. And then you're getting the full range in-between, with really no way to kind of properly find things based on what their substance is. The organization structure, basically, is arranged based on the kind of collective idea of quality, which isn't really a specific enough kind of organization to be useful to most people.

So, that has drawbacks. What if we just went at it like a classic forum, right? People make accounts, people make posts, maybe you even have a membership fee. Well, now post quality has maybe gone up, but we've also created a large barrier to entry, which is a really bad strategy for growth. That's maybe not a problem, as people tend to kind of, stupidly prioritize rapid expansion over steady growth and the quality of their core product, right, without really understanding the value they are actually looking to create.

Realistically though the biggest problem is just that the insularity of the forum is kind of going to be a snowballing thing, especially depending on subject matter. Jargon and in-jokes can develop that make it basically impossible to interface with as a newcomer, and that's going to lead to a kind of inertial collapse where forums just slowly come up and then slowly go back down. Also contributing to this is kind of a point at which every discussion has been had before on the server archives, so any time you make a new post, refer to post 1224. If they don't just die from inflation of basic goods, and can't afford to keep up hosting costs, which is also a major killer of classic forums.

So, conventional forums also have drawbacks. So maybe we get rid of the accounts, now it's anonymous, and everything is still going to be organized chronologically, right? Nope, that sucks, because now there's not really any incentive to keep up post quality and your forum is going to get spammed to death with the maximum amount of possible noise, meaning you need to take on bot filters, which means you need to create more brittle systems to try and sort quality posts away from chaff. You could also just, not do this, and let chaff kind of swim around on your platform, but, that might not be a great idea, I dunno.

If you do end up somehow making a platform that can be, at the very least, popular and desirable for communication, then you've basically just ended up making a public good that you're probably not massively paid for. Queue the platform getting bought out and ruined by an idiot stooge. Not just elon, but also, every other platform on the internet ever.

I think it's pretty reasonable to look at all that and just think. Man. I want some more dopamine! Turn on the dopamine pump! And then the corporation says, yes sir, here is your dopamine pump, "free" of charge, of course, go to town.

Basically the cynicism is from two ends, is what I'm saying. It's from the fact that the internet is kind of constantly undergoing a kind of expansion and contraction, where the systems work at the low end, and then rise, and then collapse under their own weight once noise starts to accumulate, right, so an ideal system is somewhat impossible, at least, under the current kind of economic constraints, maybe, but maybe also in general. So there's a cynicism to that, right. There's also the cynicism of being conscious of that. And then there's also the cynicism of like, people just not really wanting communication, and wanting dopamine pumps. Though, I think people might really want both, if they were pressed on it.

Damn, this place just kinda is reddit 2.0, huh? You're still gonna get the same fundamental person posting something to the wrong board, ragebait, to quick kind of snippit, to misunderstanding kind of cycle. If you post any, small or large, fraction of your worldview, you will inevitably get someone taking it out of context, misunderstanding it, or extrapolating off of it, substituting their own worldview for yours because you didn't provide your entire worldview in an entire reddit comment that they could just kind of piecemeal respond to one by one rather than kind of comprehending it as a whole and then actually responding to it. Regardless of whether or not you provide all of it, even, people consume it piecemeal, they're incapable of doing otherwise.

My brain is so fried, I fuckin hate the internet so much. Do we want to change this outcome, or is this outcome actually good? I don't fucking know, google probably don't know either. If you hit me with the 50/50 abuse stats, cause the men don't report abuse, then I can hit you with the oh well men are more capable of like causing financial or physical harm with their abuse because of power dynamic. And then you can hit me with oh well that's kind of a fucked up collectivist analysis to refer to this that way because that's evaluating every group as a whole, and also that might not be correct even. And then I'm gonna hit you with the oh well I thought we were prescribing a collective top down kind of solution based on this bifurcation here. And then you're gonna be like, oh, well, I thought you were kind of saying that men just don't deserve help in these circumstances because that's what your position was advocating for. And then I'm gonna be like nah not really but I can kinda see where you were coming from because the post is about how like oh this is an unreasonable decision and I'm saying well hold up maybe it's reasonable.

This is a false dichotomy, is what I think. There are no real trolley problems. Nobody's help has to come at someone else's expense. There are only mutually beneficial solutions. Other solutions aren't real solutions on the basis that they are harmful. I have to believe this or else everything kind of falls apart. I dunno, maybe you believe there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, like that libbed up POS thomas sowell.

I dunno, could we not just, probably figure out the gender of the person making this google search, and tailor their results, like we do for fucking everything else? Could we not probably just expect that if people need marriage counseling, or need some sort of domestic abuse hotline, they'll search "marriage counseling", or "domestic abuse help", or something like that? Can we maybe think that, I dunno, if someone is having a major episode with domestic abuse, maybe the police should be able to help them with that, maybe their support network should be able to help them with that, maybe google shouldn't be the thing that's expected to solve all their problems?

But then, if I say all that, make those points, then oh, I'm living in fairy land, and my solutions are unrealistic, and it's easier to try to ask a theoretical google search engine programmer to fix this very minor problem that is realistically just a kind of band-aid on the buckling crack on the face of the hoover dam. Every fuckin thing affects every other fuckin thing. You ask me about this minor thing, and instead of talking about this minor thing, we gotta blow it up into how life sucks for men and shit cause they can't report domestic abuse, and that's just one facet of how men are getting fucked up by everything. I dunno man! I dunno how to solve that! Gender inequality! Can't we just hit the big red button that says "solve gender inequality" and that will immediately solve everything, obviously, right? Like c'mon, it's so easy, obviously.

This kinda shit is just annoying cause it feels like nobody has a really good framework for filing this kinda shit away. Oh, yeah, men have problems with overly sealing their emotions, cause we can just kinda, broadly gesture towards patriarchy on that one, and then kind of just provide reasons for why patriarchy exists, and then kind of extrapolate based on that shared establishing on the problem, into what some possible solutions might be. Like instead we're just gonna spend a million eons debating whether or not patriarchy exists in the first place for the same reason that everyone can call some shit woke, and then two people hear two wildly different things even though the word might have the same literal meaning.

I say patriarchy, one person hears "oh the institution that kind of benefits all men broadly" and one person hears "oh the bullshit idea that there's an institution that benefits all men broadly". I'm like what are we talking about, do I have to get into pay gaps, and then I have to get into specific studies on specific pay gaps, and then as we kind of dynamically litigate this argument it's going to kind of come about that oops this study has problems, dismissed, oops this other study also has problems, dismissed, forever on, eternally, and therefore, my perspective is right, instead of us all just kind of admitting we don't know shit and then kind of like turning it back to, well, what would be the best thing to do in absence of clear evidence one way or the other?

I dunno man, I have internet brainworms and the peanut gallery is living in my brain rent free. I'm just tired that everything has to be an argument and not an actual conversation where people are asking curious questions in good faith. Welcome to life, though. Don't let the doctor slap your ass on the way out the birth canal or whatever.

I think it tends to be from a certain kind of framing of abuse, a certain kind of mentality. It's the same one that has the reaction to cyberbulling of "oh, you should just log off", type of thing. It's an oversimplification that basically only conceives of abuse as being as a result from a kind of strictly physical and obvious power imbalance, rather than thinking of abuse as being a more complicated psychological phenomena. You don't even need a scenario in which a woman is like, trained by bruce lee, or anything, you just need an idea that women are capable of somewhat basic psychological manipulation, and you maybe need a man that's vulnerable to it.

Damn, dead as hell in here, huh? Weird, I guess anime's kind of mainstream enough by now that it's kinda out of the purview of your federated lemmy nerds. Motherfuckers care a whole lot about linux and leftist politics, shit's crazy.

Anyways, I found this episode to be pretty good, pretty decent. Unlike a couple of the past episodes, I didn't notice any real stand out sequences of animation, like in the episode where laios goes into the painting, and they have the building joke where he eats a bunch, or the episode with the cockatrice, where they do a double reflection in the cockatrice's eye, in a really impressive shot. Mirroring the artistic progression of the manga's author and artist, I feel like this series is maybe a tad amateurish in terms of direction, like when they have the joke where they zoom in on marcille's face, and then you can noticeably tell that they've literally zoomed in on the image, as it has compression.

But still, it feels like, at least with the shots I'm seeing, there's a good amount of freedom animators are getting in terms of artistic direction, maybe, which kind of gives the series a good energy overall. For this episode, I'd maybe think of the shot with the squid over senshi, and that sequence, as being the most impressive of the episode, but it doesn't really stand out all that much relative to the rest of the series.

I've read the manga, so nothing here is a surprise to me, right, but at the same time, I kind of find it weird how much, in hindsight, a lot of the series at large is just the author kind of like, wheel spinning, and how late the plot actually kicks off and picks up. How much of the plot just sort of, is episodic, and then cuts in for maybe one or two episodes, and then cuts back to being a dungeon crawl. You can definitely tell this is, maybe not her first solo work, I dunno, but you can tell how it's kind of rough around the edges and lacks a lot of clear plot direction here.

The pacing feels weird, for a group of people who are kind of trying to rush down the dungeon as quickly as possible to save someone. It doesn't get super insane at any points, right, but it does strike me as the mark of kind of amateurish plot direction, maybe. Without totally outstanding animation all the time to save it, and without being surprised by the novelty of the different takes on fantastical monsters, and, more impressively, the groundedness of those designs, I kind of find myself without a lot left.

Of course, none of this is actually a real downside, because that's just not the focus of the series, really. There's not a large focus on action, there's not a large focus on like, a complex plot, the series is just kind of supposed to be a cute comfy dungeon crawl where we see some cool stuff.

I think I also kind of find the senshi-marcille character clashing to be a little bit repetitive as a character beat, and it's not really funny enough to me to carry it, except for maybe when senshi has his kind of sperg rage moments, and sunwong cho gets a moment to do some voice acting. I think some very basic, like, plot direction for that, would probably entail marcille showing senshi that magic takes work too, just in a different form than cooking- ::: spoiler spoiler but such a thing never happens in the manga, from what I remember. Something that could maybe benefit from a hard, or at least slightly more fleshed out, magic system than what we see in the manga, which, iirc, is basically nothing, we don't get much on it. This manga in general strikes me as very reminiscent of witch hat atelier, and something like that, on a smaler scale, could really help out the magic system here, and thus, the interpersonal dynamic between marcille and senshi. I do seem to remember it getting better as the manga goes on, though, so maybe it resolves at some point. ::: (how do spoilers work on lemmy? why can I not seem to get it to work correctly? idk)

I would say that I think a lot of manga kind of, has characterization baked into internal trains of character thought, that aren't necessarily included in lots of anime, and I would say that a lot of manga gags that will work for a chuckle or two, because of a crazy, hastily drawn expression, don't really end up working in anime, since the appeal is how unprofessional the image can look. If you don't include that stuff, or if you include it poorly, it ends up draining your anime characters of a lot of their characterization. I think dungeon meshi, as an anime and as a manga, is doing that pretty well. It stands out relative to other stuff I've seen, anyways, in my admittedly limited experience.

Despite my complaints, I'm still gonna watch it, of course. It's not really required that an anime adaptation necessarily adds a lot, compared to a manga, since that's kind of the whole point of an adaptation, right. It's just a medium shift, but I do find myself wanting a little more overall, as a manga reader. Not a lot of replay value, in this one, for me, is what I'm finding.

I dunno, I'm definitely interested to know the experience of a new, fresh anime-only watcher, for sure.

that's a pretty nice bait

I think the best option would actually be to see how many times we can pull the scam on him, before he realizes what's happening. Oops, oh no Elon, people are using a different instance! Look at how many users they have (they are different users we swear)! Looks like you're gonna have to buy that one now! and so on.

yeah, I've probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.

A lot of it is up to figuring out who's going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.

Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who's popular, and who's unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream "lemmy" opinion. I think it's generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you're going to have to uproot someone's whole worldview in order to make them see the light.

Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don't really know why this is, maybe it's because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it's just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we've seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.

I dunno, that's the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I'd have to look at your other posts and I'm too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.

Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn't exist, and it's more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you're actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?

and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.

tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it's sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I've just come to the conclusion that I'm writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I'm writing specifically for them, you know?

at least, that mentality helps me.

I’d like to know what proof you have of that.

Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims. Claiming dragons are real requires evidence, claiming that they are not real, well, I mean, first you'd have to establish a definition of what dragons are, but mostly, it wouldn't require evidence to claim they're not real, because proving such a thing would be a feat an order of magnitude greater than proving they exist.

In any case, have fun with your debate.

You know I do find it kind of weird to bring up the no true scotsman fallacy in this shit, when the real point of that fallacy is just kind of to get people to be conscious that their mental definitions don't actually exist in reality, and they have to work from a formal definition, right? But I think, without getting into the specifics of like, that guy's biblical interpretation, it's pretty obvious that they have a definition of "christian" that doesn't line up with the others.

You might, instead of bringing up the scotsman fallacy, have better luck in hitting them with what the scotsman fallacy hearkens to, and asking them for a clear definition that you might then be able to push back on with counterexample.

Basically, I am accusing you of the fallacy fallacy.

You know, I've been noticing more and more that lemmy has a bunch of people who just fuckin hate religion straight up, edgy 2010's reddit atheism style. I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of their criticisms, but it has gotten kind of annoying seeing people attribute these clearly complex and incentive driven behaviors to something so broad, so old, and so vague.

It seems pretty obvious to me personally that conservatives have kind of given up on contesting civil rights and gay rights as a means to differentiate themselves from the other neoliberals, since those issues remain pretty deeply unpopular to contest, and are moving to this as sort of the next thing in their playbook, the next highest profile minority that they can easily lambast on nightly news. All while they try to roll back those other issues through every possible angle they might be able to work in local, state, and federal government.

That's even a pretty big oversimplification of the issue, and the different forces involved, right, like it's not really tied into why or how specifically they're doing that, right, but it's really stupid to even have that surface level understanding, and still bump up against people insisting that it's more singularly some other driving, evil force. As though you couldn't, were you to analyze christianity, split such a thing up into another whole litany of forces, another whole network of relations, causes and effects.

I was going to maybe correct and add a little bit to this recollection by linking a comment I'd made a while back on the subject, but since lemmy can't seem to dig up the post, I guess I'll just kinda summarize.

Sometime a while back, after moot sold off the site, and it got bought out by the japanese dude that runs 2chan (apparently it's also funded by toy company "good smile"), the administrative staff kind of got slowly replaced by a bunch of white supremacists who will selective moderate to kind of create their idealized "free speech" shrouded platform. Mod logs from them got leaked some time ago as evidence of this. I think it's probable that some of those guys are funded by political activist groups in order to do it full time, after 4chan kind of showed it's hand earlier on with the level of efficacy they could achieve with internet hacktivism, but that might be reading too much into things.

I mean, obviously 4chan also needs a large level of moderation, contrary to what people might think. It's historically had some problems keeping up servers, because there would sometimes be CP floating around on the platform at any given time, and whatever company you're renting your servers from, probably doesn't want that shit on their servers. You also need a good filter against extremely large amounts of botposts, or large amounts of corporate spam, as well, which is really the case with any internet community. You can't really survive without some form of content moderation.

It was always kind of less about the new users, then, who can pretty easily be distinguished and mocked/ignored/moderated away (the latter approach is always better), and it's always been more about astroturfing, and who controls the switchboard, who's in the positions of power. "Eternal Summer" is only really a problem when that kind of outstrips the moderation of their ability to properly sift through posts and moderate, at which point, you kind of have some other problems that are more practical, related to scaling up your operation.

User based gatekeeping need not apply, because there's not really much the users can actually do to stem the tide, despite how much users like to squabble over the correct usages and origins of slang terms, surface level distinguishing characteristics, and in-group purity tests. How much people like to bitch about "board culture" and shit like that.

Internet communities are a collage, or a kind of, bacterial culture, that ends up reflecting their moderator's lowest possible standards and sensibilities, I think.

Edit: oh, I should've also mentioned, that in many cases, there's a financial incentive to let new users flood in almost completely unmoderated, because, even if it lowers content quality, it would be better to have lower content quality, but a larger userbase, than do anything that might possibly upset the userbase and drive them away. Oftentimes I think also that high quality content is a demarcation of a userbase that is not easily monetized, compared to low quality content, but that obviously reaches a kind of critical tipping point when the content quality gets so shit that corporate power brokers start to take notice and demand more control.

I think most people would be of the opinion, or maybe I have just seen such an opinion more as a matter of a vocal minority or whatever, but I think most people would rather just watch those sorts of things from the comfort of their own home. Own TV, soundsystem, recliner, food, what have you. Ability to pause and go take a piss if you want, sort of thing. I mean, I don't think most people have a cinema setup that's going to really rival what a movie theater can put out, but I think the convenience and cost efficacy of it is really going to swing it towards home viewing for most. Even just being able to balance the audio how you want it to be balanced is kind of a big step up in a lot of ways.

I think a lot of people kind of hate the theater because it's still being used in such a way that it's resting more on it's laurels, than on it's merits. "Be the first to see the movie, without a stupid cam rip from a southeast asian country with subtitles and a watermark", sort of thing. Part of the experience of a theater is that, when you go and watch the new pop cultural phenomena, everyone oohs and aahs. Part of the theater experience is that you can go an watch a horror movie and hear the people in the audience scream and cackle about how stupid the characters are. I think that's a good part of the theater experience, in combination with all the dumb HDR IMAX high dynamic range 3D live active rumbling seats and scented perfume garbage they have sometimes. I would say, in many ways, we've kinda been hamstrung by a pretense that every movie has to be like, a big A24 arthouse scorsese film that makes you deeply ponder the nature of being. That is not a movie best watched in theaters. Best movie watched in theaters is gonna be something like john wick 4, or meals on wheels, or maybe even clue, something like that.

Especially as cinema and the experience of theaters have evolved out of stage plays. The advantage of the medium of stage plays is that it's live, it can actively respond to the audience, play off of their reactions, and it can be different every time, with every troupe presenting a different interpretation of the source material. Cinemas, theaters, take that same format, and substitute the live performance for a pre-recorded tape. It's not impossible to strike at those same appeals, but it takes a lot of work on the filmmaker's part to really hit those same notes, and we're at the point where most filmmakers would rather not bother, and so audiences won't either.

Basically, I'm just saying that movies, in the cinema, need to be seen as a more casual experience, I think that would help with the experience.

Also the popcorn is a good appeal except like 90% of the time that sucks and is just a cheap vehicle for salt, to be paired with the drinks. Extortionist prices don't help either on that front, that shit needs to be gas station price at least, or else I'm gonna smuggle stuff in, and we all know the margins on popcorn and soda have to be insane anyways, so they should be able to charge like maybe five bucks for a medium soda and bag of popcorn.

I think instead of this they should just start doing more high profile versions of what they already do sometimes, where they bring back movies that were already in the theater once for another go around, instead of just remaking everything all the time. I'd also give this a +2 if it was a movie that was old, and you have to rent instead of just being able to watch on some service. Like Legend (1985), or maybe Brazil (1985). Maybe there are some other movies from 1985, I dunno.