burrows

Right, what I’m trying to say is that I don’t think the label genocide adds anything to the conversation. We can say there were this many murders and this many sterilizations and this much property damage and then do whatever restitution calculation. It’s being or not being genocide seems irrelevant.

Were they punitive sterilizations? As given our willingness to incarcerate people, I don’t really see an issue with sterilization.

> Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point?

I suppose we just disagree about this. My own experiences indicate that mostly I ape other humans rather than “figure” things out.

> As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER."

But isn’t that happening in the real world? Machines intended to present as human are becoming more human-like overtime.

> I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains.

I don’t think computers need to work like brains in order to do most of or all of the things that humans do. As you pointed out a car doesn’t need to work like a human’s locomotive system to do like human locomotion.

Well maybe I’d say that by “our”, I mean the people who self-describe as “fans” of at least one of those teams, or people who have been to a live match featuring at least one of those teams in the last five years, or something like this.

What is the test for deciding whether a policy is “genocidal”?

And are “genocidal” policies somehow different from policies that can be shown to have caused harm? And if so are they somehow worse or more deserving of recompense than this category of “harmful” policies? They are in some sense, double harmful?

> Ah, I see you're an adherent of the "finders-genocide, finders'-grandkids'-keepers" sociopolitical philosophy.

Are you saying that I and every other human are owed for any and all unrecompensed wrongs committed against any and all members of our ancestries and that governments should go about facilitating this “business”?

> But for me that's a lot like "a car going faster than a person running."

Yeah, I’d love to have car-like locomotive capability built in to my bio-machine. Or, maybe I wouldn’t, I dunno what all the consequences would be.

> Machines are good at well defined tasks, but not good at determining what those tasks should be, or even how to do them, etc.

But as a human, I mostly just copy-paste other humans. I’m not out here Solving Life from first principles.

Human newborns can’t autonomously do shit either.

> It's also probably the reason so many of our sports teams bear the images of peoples we committed quasi-genocide [3] against.

Who is “we”? You weren’t alive for the so-called genocide and neither was I nor anyone else on hn for that matter.

> This is basically the only thing the computers can definitely outdo you, the human, on. They really can't think as good as you.

Can you give some intuition about “thinking”?

Is “thinking” what I do when playing chess? In my case probably not, but let’s say a grandmaster. Because if so, in that domain, whatever a computer is doing seems superior to “thinking”.

Armchair counterintelligence!

Any test for determining whether I’m doing a “good job” at dropping ideas that contradict evidence?

> You know how stupid the other side is, yeah you probably look around that stupid yourself

Any other techniques for dealing with this?

To get a better measurement of my own intelligence I think about my “dumb friend”, and then try to realize that that’s probably actually about how smart I am.

> it is absurd that the law places any limits whatsoever on the act of examining how an artifact you legally own functions.

You’re just smuggling in your own implicit definition of “legally own”.

As you’ve pointed out, “ownership” is a legal construct. One that can feature any number of limitations or clauses through the execution of a contract.

> so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness.

Completely unsubstantiated nonsense claim.

> China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough.

Alarmist gobbledygook.

“Theft” is a legal phenomena so let’s not get ahead of ourselves and declare the relevant digital assets as “stolen”.

So, cash out right now?

Can we please get an engineer from this asshat crypto company to tell us about the bug and how mgmt handled it internally? Do it for the lulz

What timescale are you thinking on, 75 years or 15000 years?

> the return of an empowerment is spread among the group of supporters who funded the empowerment

But, workers by definition don’t fund companies.

Okay, then how are you determining the increase in value?

> I certainly don't need to justify my reasoning for using Facebook or Instagram to you, but I assure you there are some things which are easier when you have an account.

Of course, every deal with the devil offers something in the short term.

You’ve substituted “exploit” with “generate”. What is the technical definition of “generate”?

You’ve just replaced the word “empower” with “exploit”.

Do you have some technical definition for the word “exploit”?

> A certain fringe of the population will eat any propaganda unthinkingly, domestic or foreign. But if a majority was so uncritical, democracies would have collapsed a long time ago.

Like the millions of people who unironically watch CNN, FOX, ESPN, MTV and whatever else TeeVee networks are carrying?

> Trucking is an industry that while it does have good jobs for people, it is just a pure cost for literally everybody. Everybody except the truckers themselves would benefit from lower trucking cost.

Right, this is exactly the neoliberal argument for importing and outsourcing jobs.

Is “<insert-working-class-job> nostalgia” an everywhere thing, or limited to America?

How about just not going to Chernobyl rather than repurposing some old scuba and WW2 chemical defense gear into a hazmat suit?

Seems duplicitous to suggest that a web browser provides something like an anonymizing client.

I find this story extremely compelling. (Is it True?)

> Because they slaughtered 97% of all life, by accident.

And isn’t this also true of humans? We’re not killing other species (and their “habitats”) on purpose, it’s a side effect of Real Goals (eg, we want fuel to heat our homes so we can survive the winter. Or more cynically, Fuel Source Executives need to sell fuel in order to consume yachts and ski vacations).