If we are, we're emergent behavior, not the topic of study.
Frankly, simulation theory feels a lot like other previous "humans are super special!" ontologies. We're not, we're just organic bags of complex chemical processes like every other lifeform on Earth, with all the cool potential and shitty vulnerabilities that such a thing entails. I've yet to see anything which truly sets us apart as a species beyond the need to ascribe a meaning to our mortality.
My last cat was food-obsessed. I would do the "show, sniff, remove" thing and it would work depending on the food. But many foods only needed a fraction of a second for her to know she needed it in her mouth right now. If you took it before her attempt to eat it, you met the response of "hey, I wasn't done with that!" and the paw would come out to bring your hand back.
For roast chicken you would have to actively defend your plate the entire meal. She would sit next to you and very slowly try to "sneak" her paw on to your plate to take what she could. As though I wasn't watching her like a hawk and she had some kind of cloak of invisibility.
This was really interesting and would explain a lot of my experiences very well. I might have to start tinkering with tryptophan and seeing what happens.
I guess you would hate every single leftist channel in France with that.
I hate any cheap tricks used to provoke emotional responses as a method of generating engagement. I especially hate when the person using them boasts a background that implies their use is very intentional.
Maybe I misunderstood the overall position of this community.
I wouldn't know, I'm nobody's ambassador.
I can see trying to address scientific fraud is frown upon here.
But you have certainly misunderstood mine. Addressing scientific fraud is entirely worthwhile and necessary.
I just won't be choosing a source for that who I suspect is deliberately manipulative and pushing dodgy investment schemes. His entire brand looks like a desperate attempt to be seen as an authority on anything at all.
Maybe the creator Pete Judo should lean on his behavioral science and psychology background to find out why it doesn't.
For me, the reason I'm not going to watch it is because the title and thumb scream "social media conspiracy theorist" rather than the seriousness and professionalism the topic rightly deserves.
Glowing red eyes? How am I supposed to believe this is a serious and/or constructive criticism of a huge genuine problem?
I can't fix a slow legal system, but I can actively undermine the strategy of omitting key information to boost ad revenue and user engagement metrics. It's manipulative on CNN's part, and fuck both CNN and Trump for manipulating information for private gain.
There was a big campaign to not use it in medical / education professional settings 30 years ago because it was also being used as a slur, but that doesn't mean the continued use of it as a slur is disconnected from its history or original meaning.
For what I expect are similar reasons the list of forbidden image and text content gets so detailed:
5.0.6: No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content requires a NSFW tag.
I now know from this list that posting Hieronymus Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights" would be problematic even though it wouldn't occur to me that medieval illustrations of fictional torture would break the rules. And I now no longer know whether this instance considers the usage of variously themed slurs as against the rules, especially in contexts where they're not direct personal user attacks.
What is socially acceptable obviously varies widely from culture to culture, and definitely instance to instance. The brief list from the previous version helped me to identify the overall culture of the instance to figure out if I would be welcome here. Now instead I'm just not sure if a sweet Aztec decorated human skull from c. 1350CE is allowed because it is half literal human remains, half turquoise, haematite and gold mosaic.
I appreciate that finding the balance here is very difficult. It may just be because it's late and I'm tired, but I feel less certain about what the expectations are with this version than I did the previous. I hope you will consider returning a bit more detail to section 5.
Exhibit #482,683 on why capitalism and medicine are inevitably a horrible combination.
And on why regulations and independent audits of product/service health effects are entirely necessary. If people could stop being such fucks and prioritising revenue, we wouldn't need a bunch of people to investigate, document and litigate their bullshit. And we wouldn't need courts to sit there and establish whether the law let's them do that in that precise way right this minute.
Greedy parasites going out there, killing us, profiting from it, and making a bunch of extra work for us, just to prove they're being greedy malicious parasites.
Company decisions should have personal consequences for the people who benefit the most from them.
This is part of due process in doing something about it. Unfortunately it's a lot faster to commit crimes and get "creative" with moving money in not-quite-crimes-but-still-bullshit than it is to weigh up their legality and enforce appropriate penalties.
When a legal system relies heavily on precedent as guidance and technicalities can destroy a decision, and fixing that might take decades and destroy lives, you have to make sure it's good. Especially when this many people are watching.
Unfortunately you're very right that the slow speeds to ensure precision are easily and visibly exploited by scumlickers like Jones.
He made very specific defamatory statements accusing fellow citizens / parents of murdered children of participating in a government conspiracy and those people were able to prove they experienced harm as a consequence of his words.
The plaintiffs also had enough financial backing from (understandably horrified) strangers, and a high enough chance of winning for lawyers to want to represent them. Those factors allowed the plaintiffs to survive the legal system long enough to get a ruling, and the severity of the situation maintained their motivation to keep pushing for it instead of accepting settlement so they could somewhat move on with their lives.
Sometimes, the planets align to create the trifecta of enough energy, money, and evidence to force the justice system into enforcing justice. And I am grateful that can sometimes still happen, as rare as it feels.
Quantifying people’s carbon footprint isn’t quantifying the value of their lives.
It's also not even necessary in the context of comparing the impact of continuing war to advocating peace. Military equipment doesn't have an inherent right to exist or uses once created, and the people we're talking about already exist and deserve a peaceful happy life as much as anyone else. The choice we do have though is around where we spend existing carbon and the damage we cause in pumping into mutual self-destruction.
And the value of people’s lives is quantified all the time.
I am keenly and painfully personally aware, and I don't enjoy participating in that either. I also consider many implementations to have led historically to bad things because it is near impossible to quantify without some truly horrible and ham-fisted reductionism.
Because they were making Reddit 2.0, with all the same flaws.