last_philosopher @ last_philosopher @lemmy.world

I very deliberately avoid politics. If I fail let me know.

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

47

Joined

2 mo. ago

There's so much to explore. Not just physical locations, but our own minds and each other's too. Learning about the laws of the universe, history, and seeing what's to come. Even pain is a thing to be experienced that the dead don't get to.

Is all that meaningless? All of us contain our own universe within us. Sure, it would be nice to care about all the other people (if there are other people) and what impact I have on them. But if in the long run nothing I do matters to them, fuck it. I'm mainly concerned with what's going on in here.

Once I worked at a place that had its own in-house project management software. It actually worked rather well. Part of the problem is that every company has its own process and Jira and the like try to accommodate all of them and it ends up being a jumbled mess that doesn't fit anyone's actual process. It's like trying to fit a tesseract-shaped peg into a round hole. But companies don't like to spend money on developing their own software so that's what we end up with.

Obviously, solar energy is going to continue to grow. Less obviously, this will have a pretty significant effect on global economics. Countries that previously lacked domestic energy production now will suddenly have it. Countries highly reliant on fossil fuel exports will suddenly be less important. I think this will probably be the most significant change and it'll be for the better. Obviously global warming problems are on the horizon but over 5-10 years from now it'll still be comparatively small.

I personally don't see AI getting much better than it is now because it's starting to run out of how much it can do with existing data. It'll continue to be a useful tool for autocomplete and generating low-effort content, but otherwise won't rearrange society or build us dyson spheres or anything like some seem to expect. I don't see software technology doing anything especially great for a while and its role in the economy may shrink for the first time really since it started.

More speculatively, I'd guess we'll see more advancements in DNA and RNA technology that will make medicine more resemble programming rather than throwing stuff at the body and hoping it works. This will progress slowly, but in 5-10 years I think we'll be looking at some vaguely significant impact on common health problems. Other medical tech will be significant too - knowing someone who takes GLP-1s I think we've kind of missed celebrating how big a deal that is for some people.

Society as a whole - who knows, that's especially hard to predict. I tend to be optimistic that the current reactionary period will fade, having already used up its credibility. I worry though that we're getting better at exploiting human emotions and that can be used by the powerful to control masses. But when has that ever not been a factor? We've only relatively recently emerged from the era of divinely ordained kings, and mass literacy is still quite new in the grand scheme of things. Our society will continue to evolve, a bit inconsistently.

Yeah but first boyfriend/girlfriend drives me crazy because then I'm going back through my various early relationships trying to figure out who counts as a "girlfriend". I'd say Sherry was the first but she always said we were never really together. Well now you're a security question answer so you can't deny it anymore Sherry.

I mean the other lyrics really do back it:

So here's a story from A to Z You wanna get with me, you gotta listen carefully
We got Em in the place who likes it in your face
We got G like MC who likes it on an—
Easy V doesn't come for free, she's a real lady
And as for me, ha-ha, you'll see
Slam your body down and wind it all around
Slam your body down and wind it all around

Basically they're walking you through what you gotta do to please each one of them. Baby wants the lingus, Ginger and Sporty by contrast want it on an "e" - i.e. ecstasy, Posh of course only gets off if you buy her expensive stuff first, and only then do you prove yourself worthy of Scary, who will beat the living shit out of you.

Can't get no respect I tell ya

No. I mean look, I'll put up with this whole social delusion of unconditional love if it's not too crazy, but at some point fuck it.

Apparently stops existing, to outside observers who've never been able to see it anyway.

Sleep outside, if you have a space. Get a deck umbrella, a mosquito net and a cot and a sleeping bag (actually on super hot days I used to just sleep on a towel). It's so much cooler than trying to get by indoors with no AC, even with fans. And it's rather pleasant.

I think generally speaking, we've been in a computer tech boom for decades, driven by the growth of computers going back to the 80s. The internet and smartphones just grew out of that.

Unfortunately I think we're running out of new stuff to compute and newer technologies seem to be a bit week on the "problem being solved" end of things. Most likely what we've come to think of as tech will take a back seat to technologies with more room to grow, I'm guessing biotech in particular will be the next big thing.

Left my iron plugged in for a week without realizing it.

Accidentally caused massive heat wave. Sorry folks, but I unplugged it so temps should start to go down now.

I swiped almost everything right

Don't do this, if this is an input into your app's algorithm at all it'll assume you're ugly and desperate and not show you to anyone. Only swipe on people you'd be at least potentially excited to meet and that could actually work out (e.g. don't swipe right on someone who's profile says "I want a man of god" if you're a hardcore atheist). I shifted to this strategy on hinge and it made a noticeable difference in the number and quality of matches.

Think about it - if you only swipe right on good matches (for both of you), they'll see you and be more likely to swipe right on you, improving your match rate. And don't worry about how their level of attractiveness plays into this, because it'll be weighted for that.

As a massive introvert it's pretty much the only way I meet anybody. I could write a multi-volume treatise on why people hate online dating and how it points to them doing it wrong in some way. But I'll spare you other than to say remember that you're asking a computer to match you with someone. It has no feelings for you and will just do what makes sense for the system as a whole, not for you in particular.

Just have low expectations - a lot of people treat those they meet on the app as relatively disposable compared to someone they met in real life. So if someone ghosts you or just disappears from the app without a word, it's definitely impolite but not uncommon. Don't take it personally (even though my friends tend to take it personally when it happens to them).

At least it's not driving straight into a tree, I call that an improvement.

The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don't really work in reality. We don't tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that "the intolerant" is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.

For a less-political example, let's imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they're showing intolerance towards linux.

But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don't use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they're inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there's no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.

Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like "hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them." That may sound idealistic, but I think that's a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.

Sure. My parents had different religions and being an atheist I don't really have a duty to care about other people's religions.

Of course it helped that my parents weren't too seriously religious. And I've rejected religious people for having religion-tied views I find appalling. But the religion itself isn't the issue, just the things that sometimes result from it are.

Social media is just a symptom of the larger problem which is the corporations prefering to build walled gardens so they can control users rather than the open protocols that defined the early internet. Back in the day, I used to call it "everything becoming facebook".

Social media is fundamentally a moat - a wall built around a set of consumers to keep them away from competitors. Investors love moats. If you whisper as quietly as you possibly can to yourself "I found a company with a wide moat that no one is talking about yet" JP Morgan himself will literally burst through your wall like the Kool Aid Man. They love it because it avoids competition, and as much as competition is the whole point of capitalism, it's the last thing an actual capitalist wants to deal with.

A big part of what made the early internet super valuable was the opposite of moats: open protocols. For example how GMail can send email to Yahoo or any other email provider. If Google had their way, that's not how email would work at all - you'd need a google account to both send and receive emails. That's why these companies have been trying to kill email for ages, trying to get people to use their own proprietary messaging systems instead, where you can only send to others with an account. Then they could capture you and keep you all to themselves.

Which brings us to the fediverse. The fediverse is an attempt to return to open protocols rather than creating a moat around a group of users. In many ways it's like email - your email provider might cut off a server if it's just sending spam all day, and this is basically defederation. But otherwise nothing stops you from communicating with anyone, and that's how it should be.

A lot of people are saying cut them off, but I have a family member who was into the anti-vax conspiracy theories and kinda still is, but it's much less of a focus now and is pretty obviously just being carried forward by cognitive dissonance at this point. There will never be total victory, but there can be a reasonable truce.

What I'd suggest is the most counter-intuitive strategy - show genuine interest. Say "Ok, I want to know more, but I need you to be specific. Tell me what your theory is and what the evidence is, I'll take my time looking at it, and respond in detail."

Keep in mind, they probably won't pay attention to whatever your respond with. That's ok. The response isn't the point, pinning them down on what they think is. So often these things are purely emotional, and forcing them into a logical framework will make them do the work for you. As for the response, odds are it's some combination of cherry-picked data and spurious correlations, if not outright made up facts. Think of alternate explanations for what they're showing you that are more plausible than a vaccine killing people. And remember that if the vaccine really was killing people, it would be really obvious, not something we need look deep into the matrix to find.

I think genetic engineering is the most high-potential tech right now. They're already using it to cure sickle cell, and my (total non-expert, probably way too hopeful) pipe dream is that we could basically treat it like we can open a terminal on the body some day and change whatever we want.

Edit: I just want to point out that I'm imagining curing cancer, reversing aging, etc. Not like, additional orifices or anything.

It's a form of communication that reaches us more fundamentally than words. I imagine it's like animal sounds - what does a dog's bark mean to another dog? Probably the same thing as when you tell someone "Stop!" or "Hey!" really loud. It don't carry a concrete meaning, but feeling. Music is taking that and turning it into language. It can have many different meanings and tell many different stories, even without lyrics. Although it'll never be as exact as written words, we can still enjoy the story.