naught101 @ naught101 @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

661

Joined

1 yr. ago

Me too, but I'm not paying enough attention to reddit to make me a useful moderator..

I have a maths major, and think in networks, same as you. I agree that that's a good start to thinking about the problem. It's basically similar approach to Jay Forrester's World model, that used system dynamics to model the global economy.

But what you're doing is building a model, and then proposing using it to make decisions about how to run the world. This would be sensible, except that any model is necessarily a simplification of the real world, and that simplification process is subjective. What you value and care about and think is important defines what you put in the model, and also what you optimise for, and how you interpret the outputs. So your decisions ultimately end up being subjective too.

There are other issues too, such as the fact that any dynamic model like this exhibits complexity, which makes it analytically unsolveable; and chaos, which means numerical predictions will suffer from unpredictability due to the Butterfly effect, and the Hawkmoth effect.

If you want to get a deeper understanding of this stuff, systems thinking is where you need to head. I would recommend this paper as an excellent introduction to the field as a whole: https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.54120%2Fjost.000051 (Open access, about 50 pages)

For the first wave/system dynamics approach, this article is worth a read too (IMO it presents far to simple a picture though): https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

I don't think this is a maths problem. It's a social problem. Monkey brain combined with internet communications is still not a solved problem.

I think part of this is figuring out the values you want to express in the format of any given service (Marshal McLuhan style). You need to figure out what it is you're trying to build for, and then build systems and tools that optimise towards that. (Corporate social media is failing because it's only optimised towards profit, and that approach eats itself in the long run).

I posted an issue for mastodon on this recently. I think Lemmy should be asking the same questions.

What was the picture?

Maybe we need a shitRedditBans community here to repost all the stuff that get banned for bad reasons there? Could be risky, I guess, but could be great with some good moderation.

I do. I was offering an explanation for why someone else might be feeling depressed.

Personally I think the aim should be to focus on neither negative nor positive news, but to try to get the clearest, broadest understanding of the true state of things, which means trying to focus on news that has systemic relevance (I think your examples do).

Unfortunately I do think it's pretty reasonable to be .. maybe not pessimistic, but at least fairly worried about the state of the world. Some things are definitely changing for the better, but some things are really fucked, and looking like they could get a lot worse, really quickly (looking at you in particular, US politics). My personal reason for optimism is that a) it could mean the end of US capitalist hegemony, and b) it could open the way for a massive progressive backlash. But who knows? We'll fund out soon, I guess.

I don't think it's a therapist's job to fix your problems. It's a therapist's job to help you figure out how to fix your own problems. If you don't what that, they will absolutely be useless.

That's possible. Or you could be paying a lot of attention to world news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

They're behind other manufacturers in some ways: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ

My impression is that the stock market is not really interested in real-world value. It's interested in projections of future stock price. And those things should be coupled, but they can be very decoupled sometimes.

I don't understand enough to known why yet though.

Not a bad set! I would add something related to "funny".

Also, separating agree (opinion) from accurate (factual) would be nice. But I guess you gotta keep it somewhat simple.

No

Not video games, but go/baduk taught me a lot about many things:

• the value of failure with review for learning
• the value of cycling between theory and practice for learning
• approaches to pattern recognition, or at least how to apply already recognised patterns (this is more or less all of thinking, IMO)
• reinforced my understanding of the ability of simple systems to produce very complex outcomes and emergent behaviour

I'm a scientist, so these are all relevant to my work, but I've also used some of them in my personal life.

More generally, C. This Nguyen frames games as "the art of agency" (where music is the art of sound, etc.). His observations of games are amazing and relevant to anyone working in a bureaucracy. An excellent intro to his work is his episode on Ezra Klein's podcast. Well worth a listen: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/best-of-a-life-changing-philosophy-of-games/id1548604447?i=1000576579207

Yeah. There's not a missed punch in it politically either. Some of the best satire I've seen in ages. His other film, Force Majeure is also great.

The original of this seems to have been removed, but this is fun an weird if you're into music production: Andrew Huang - Foods n Dudes

Oh yeah, that whole thing is creepy as fuck. But very well made.

I think Triangle Of Sadness fits this bill pretty well. Certainly one of my all time favourite films. Maybe a little less silly-absurd, but the real-absurdness makes up for it, and has bite.

Hrm. I reckon this is kind of a bug. It was partially addressed, for comments. I added a report at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/3965#issuecomment-2739123868

I have 3 mastodon accounts, for different purposes. One personal, one more work focused, and one parody