Nasrudith

We should have the exact opposite of qualified immunity - committing a crime under the color of authority as a serious felony in itself.

I don't quite get why the author thinks it would be impossible to get a big budget nose-rub in the dirt to the security apparatuses about their incredible abilability to create self-fulfilling prophecies against themselves via bigotry. It isn't like it takes pentagon cooperation for history biopics, the tech is all old.

So what about those with political influence or high placed in bureaucracy who are even more power and have even less in common? Worse yet, the positions select for those who are not only manipulators but have a malleable sense of reality. The infamous Karl Rove attributed quote about being an empire and making their own reality.

If we are going to avoid promoting sociopathy the first thing to do is not to make the sollipistic manipulators even more powerful.

I know I sound like the cliche hubristic mad scientist here but, the public seems completely incapable of thinking of the potential of AI and it is deeply frustrating. Is this what a factory worker oriented school system gets us?

So you would rather promote preventable toil under the theory that there are enough otherwise unemployables that they would literally die otherwise? That there is literally no other useful task that may be performed? I mean we have crumbling infrastructure but strong backs are apparently utterly useless for doing work there....

The rationale sounds a lot more like thought terminating clichés and an emotional rationalization for not wanting to see the world change on you, than any depiction of reality.

Seldom do real and considered changes come from anger or annoyance. Especially if you add the qualifier of 'improves the situation they are in'. That is unfortunately the exception. We didn't solve Polio by getting really angry at it.

There isn't qualification for a reason - it doesn't fucking matter when it is both or neither. You might as well further your Dunning-Krueger by complaining that the US failed to develop bullets that only hurt bad people!

We already learned long ago that real name policies don't make people less toxic - they just double down on their bullshit.

Seriously it is a sacrifice fallacy that we will actually gain anything by giving up anominity.

This black and white thinking that anything bad for things you dislike is frankly just incredibly spiteful and stupid.

My best contribution to that sort of debate is experience with general anesthesia. I recall being in a disconnected state wondering idly if I had died of complications without any fear as I could not feel my heartbeat or embodied emotions. That implies a heavily embodied component to consciousness. It is all body so not quite dualism but it does provide some limited observational evidence of distinct components. Combine that with what I have heard about the mechanism of anesthesia working by disabling nerve transmission that suggests that a disembodied but supported brain which does not have neural access to sensory feedbacks would be rather stoic to emotionless.

They do both involve taking risks for money admittedly but there are crucial differences.

You actually participate meaningfully in the outcome via investing instead of just price discovery and the successes are derived from the valuation or income of the venture instead of the losers. The participation is not only in impact on their credit rating and sales but also concrete choices in government of it.

Not to mention in principle there is an actual activity being backed by the investment to produce non-zero sum gains. While there may be risks involved in say, running a turnip farm or sending a ship across the ocean, you are still supporting a useful activity for its own end. Crucially as well there is motivation to do the task even without the market, even though it may enable it.

If you can manipulate the outcome of the turnip farm (as opposed to the market) to make it succeed that is doing useful work and not just cheating a bet. A guideline of the distinction would be - would charging somebody for making the outcome successful in a not otherwise criminal way be a Kafkaesque injustice?

You can in fact use the market to gamble via options intended for credit or insurance but stopping those by stopping the market entirely would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Haha no. If the news media were any good they wouldn't be threatened by online rumormills as a replacement. Instead they produce such crap that comments sections on aggregators provide better information.

Trading on pretentiousness in cliques has been a thing in art long before the internet and Twitter.

If they don't get voted out for attempting to pass it. Unfortunately it seems fundamentally destroying ou rights is enough for that, you need to do something truly outrageous like try to raise property taxes on seniors to get that from the electorate.

Understandable thing to test for but, in my experience magnesium has been legitimate for me. I've found it improved my ability to think personally and depression. The 'dosing effects' are the thing that convinced me it is a real effect. If I ran out of it and was say, waiting for it coming in the mail I could go for it for some days without noticing a difference. That level of 'some endurance, don't need it daily' seemed to suggest some real pharmacology behidn it.

I also say for me because if you already have good levels of magnesium in your diet, it will have nothing to improve.

Meanwhile I've personally found myself completely unable to take it seriously due to the subliminal messages being "marry and reproduce" and "consume". Like people need sinister brainwashing to fall in love, have sex, or engage in hedonistic consumption. These are base biological urges that have existed regardless of societal economy for millennia! By casting it as something from a sinister conspiracy it makes the creator come across as someone completely insane from being so swallowed by their ideology. The sheer ridiculousness of it it brings to mind the "Mortal Engines" series and its incredibly dumb basic premise and the critical panning that it received. The lesson being, that just because something is an allegory or metaphor doesn't prevent it from being so incredibly stupid that it completely derails the message it is trying to send. Imagine if the billboards instead said.

I recognize that this is certainly a minority view given how influential the film is. But I just plain cannot unsee it, like a Lovecraftian revelation and that ruins it for me from the start. Short of thinking Jodie Foster is talking to you through screens, it is very hard to look like an outright unhinged anti-Reaganist given the many legitimate things to object to about the man and his policies. Even if you agree with some of it, you can easily see where others would reasonably disagree. But this 'basic urges are part of a sinister conspiracy' sort of message? This managed to do it.

You literally could not be more wrong that opposing voices stop mattering once fascism is reached. Doubly wrong because fascism isn't a binary. Thrice wrong in that you think that a lack of anominity and privacy would somehow be helpful for prevention when fascism already here!

Oh look, an aristocrat patron sponsored is big into aristocracy, what a surprise.

"National security" has long been their favorite cheat code for 'do what I say, you can't question it, damn it!'. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on the old man who cried national security.

Technofeudalism always has been a complete inanity of a term, really and worthy of eyerolls that shows no understanding of either tech nor feudalism. You might as well call your relationship your grocery store 'inverted feudalism' because you depended upon them as the vector for food.

Generally anybody conflating corporations with feudalism shows a complete lack of understanding of the latter. Nobility and monarchs hated merchants for one and ruled by force of arms. Being rich didn't make you a king, having an army obeying you did which was what made you rich. But that sort of utterly concussed understanding and rhetoric is woefully common.

It reminds me of the inane motivated reason backwards reasoning from people desperate to cast Amazon as a villain and nonsense they claimed. About how online shipping was a carbon villain. Acting as if goods are simply teleported onto store shelves and they aren't delivered using trucks and then picked up by consumers with their own vehicles. While pretending that every delivery consists of only one package per truck on a route.

About the only worse case of motivated reasoning I have seen are from NIMBYs straining their brains to claim how any new development would be catastrophic. One notable example being a claim that adding trains would bring in more criminals to the neighborhood and lead to more burglaries.

That idea sounds like it is a Freudian slip of sorts of an authoritarian mind. Basically, involuntary ideological tells from patterns of their thinking that slip through into their speech. The sorts of things which would give a spy away.

The idea you mentioned is the mark of an authoritarian who considers expressed dissent a sign of weakness instead of a crucible for the strength of ideas. That they literally cannot conceive of a purpose of it other than propaganda or division because they see democracy as inherently a weakness and they think that a 'strong man' is needed to create unity.

It is a similar tell to bigots who cite 'homogeneous society means' as being inherently socially cohesive or responsible for low crime because they cannot comprehend a cohesion based on something other than ethnic unity.

Or reflexive deceivers promising to 'restore a sense of trust' because the thought of being trustworthy even never comes to mind as something to promise as a lie. I have seen that one in officials in response to corruption or abuse scandals far too many times. A cousin to that is expressing fear of 'turning into a low trust society' where they promise parades of horribles to try to poison the well against people rightfully distrusting them.

I mean, if I add a bell to a tic tac toe game it is being designed to be addictive. It is triggering positive associative conditioning. I see 'designed to be predicting' as a misleading rhetorical device used to excuse control over speech. The 'fire in a crowded theater' of its age.

I mean, sometimes the status quo is just that you can continue breathing. To be blindly for or against something just because it is the status quo is abject stupidity. Sawing at the bough which you rest upon is not something to be proud of.

You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further.

There is a difference between 'can produce the food with the climate' and 'should produce the food with the climate'. Comparative advantage crops up yet. Iceland can grow bananas by magma but they are grown slower and have more expensive labor than tropical banana growing countries.

That is the stupidest thing I have heard all year - and that has quite a bit of competition. Because nobody is going to be grateful for you de-homogenizing work and adding requirements of artisanal knowledge, and removing capital from industry to a productive task. Because all of that translates to adding needless toil to the task, reducing productivity and making everyone poorer!

It utterly antithetical to the practice of engineering, productivity, making sense or making things better.

Get out of here and go worship Dis someplace else.

I suspect cynically that as soon as someone not a republican takes power the presidential immunity will magically evaporate in a burst of bad faith jurisprudence.

Do you honestly believe that teleco companies wouldn't receive government backlash about 'the children' if they were to implement an actually secure standard?

I hope I'm wrong about this - but they sounded like some breed of utopian leftist mad that an AI not specifically trained on their drivel doesn't agree with their utopian ideas, and they believe that this is solely responsible for The Rapture/The Revolution (TM)/real communism not happening. The use of euphemisms and incredible lack of awareness of using 'hellscape' to describe the first world is a bit of a give-away because you usually only hear that sort of hyperbole-that-is-unaware-it-is-hyperbole from leftists mad that capitalism exists.

I don't believe that to be possible in general. Because we've already had Millenia of philosophers attempting to make discoveries through sheer reasoning and with the small in the grand scheme of things exception of formal logic failed to do so. Which leads me to a principle: No matter how smart you are, you still need the real world as a reference.

Once again LLMs will have to be bound to a source of entropy or feedback of some sort as a limit. Sure you might be able to throw terawatts of cycles at say music production but without examples of what people already like or test audiences you cannot answer the question of whether it is any good.