kjPhfeYsEkWyhoxaxjGgRfnj @ kjPhfeYsEkWyhoxaxjGgRfnj @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

31

Joined

2 yr. ago

He was on Lex Friedman's podcast a while back. Honestly he seemed like a smart guy but I came away feeling like he was pretty cynical about the whole thing. It really did just feel like a neurotically trained intuition about boosting view metrics.

He did seem like a decent dude I guess. Its hard to tell from those kind of things.

Don’t lottery tickets cost like $1?

I will continue to be a proponent of meditation practice. It’s honestly a shame imo that it has a “mystical” connotation. I think it’s very practical. I really don’t think of it much more than dedicating time to observing how my brain works. And a lot of that is all the stuff that arises that doesn’t feel like it “under your power.” When you actually sit down regularly and take notice of the arising and falling away of thoughts and emotions, it becomes a lot easier to not let it consume you and react.

It’s one thing to “know” the emotions are temporary and you shouldn’t react so strongly. It’s another thing to really internalize that and be able to have that same perspective in the moment of strong emotion. It’s practice.

Well this is what he’s aiming for but it doesn’t say much about how

Good bot

It’s almost hard to imagine getting through this election cycle without at least one deep fake crisis

I don’t find the designation to be that much of a thing. There are former players that are great and there are former players who are completely awful clickbait clowns. Same is true for non former athletes.

The good former pros definitely have a valuable perspective though I think there’s also something to be said for a bit of a removed perspective.

It’s not that different than other media. There is really good analysis out there but you have to really go out of your way to avoid the bullshit. The stuff that really gets eyeballs is the low hanging, drama oriented, sound-byte-y stuff.

What does Ja Rule think?

WHERE’S JA?!?!

I doubt it. It would likely kill any non Giant tech backed AI companies though

Microsoft has armies of lawyers and cash to pay. It would make life a lot harder, but they’d survive

Large Hadron Collider could be an interesting candidate. It’s not very visible, but it’s unique, gigantic, and insulated from damage

I’m announcing I have put $1 towards getting a new set of tires for my car

Same reason anything else is. It’s big money. Porn is a multi billion dollar industry.

As for why “extreme” porn is so “normalized” I think it’s more because it’s stigmatized ironically. Have you ever had an in person conversation about why there’s so much step family porn? No of course not because then both people would be acknowledging they watch porn for one. So the social factors that would guide things are totally absent.

In this particular context regulatory capture and political donations is the unseen bullshit of the claim. Corporations DO make the rules

Maybe so. If both are ok, then what’s the claim of immorality?

I would agree it’s just a better experience for me personally. If I use a product extensively I would prefer to pay for it to remove the ads. But it doesn’t affect the creator’s compensation so far as I can tell.

But if I subscribe, I don't see ads, they don't get ad revenue; they get subscription fees. I don't subscribe, they get ad revenue but not subscriptions. Its not both, there is no denial of pay

I mean you can believe paying is better than watching ads for your own experience. But the morality argument about whether they make their money through ad revenue vs subscriptions is pretty dubious.

I would only add to do this also when you are not feeling this way. In my experience it’s very hard to make this happen if I only try to roll it out when I’m already feeling mad. Doing some daily meditation for 10-15 minutes is the only way I’ve had any success being able to engage that when I really need it. Also it’s nice to be able to step back and recognize good emotions / reactions.

I mean, if it’s good data with good analysis. Even then there could still be quite a lot to debate

I’m not really following here tbh. Articles might be wrong and so…. something? Sure simply pasting any old link isn’t inherently proving anything. One would have to assume the link is being provided because the poster thought the content of the article was good.