So... there are no tools used for managing people that are not used for managing software?
Well, that is remarkably fortunate.
48 karma · joined April 9, 2019
Well, that is remarkably fortunate.
Unless the drugs are to give other inmates, I suppose.
As for your kitchen example, you don't need to say anything. Walk into any room with a weapon and people will know they might be in danger. If I'm in that kitchen, and you walk towards me, I'll move out of arm's reach.
Basically it's the same problem: Assurances are worthless. Rationalization provides seemingly excellent reasons for any course of action. So, the onus is on you to show that no harm will be done. It certainly is not the responsibility of some 3rd party to establish this, that is a coercive worldview.
Coalitions dissolve all the time in governments all over the world. The remedy is to form a new coalition ASAP and then proceed to an election as soon as possible, because the things you describe certainly would require a mandate from the Italian people.
Now, I'm sure Draghi, as a member of the current government coalition feels that he is the man to solve this problem, but his government can't even hold together the coalition, for any of the myriad ways things go sour in Italian politics.
"Vote for me, because Russia is laughing at us!" is basically what he requests.
I'm vastly skeptical about his actual reasons for publicizing this story. Perhaps he wishes to gain a mandate, and then, of course there might be Russian actors in Italy, perhaps some new measures to deal with them, using modern IT? Surveillance, perhaps? To keep Italy safe, of course.
Nah, I think we have plenty of time to get a mandate, Italy is broke, and raddled with covid, and has virtually no ability to project power past it's borders. It's July. The new govt can be in place by fall, if need be.
Italy has to put it's house in order, first. You can't help freedom in the Ukraine by abandoning democratic procedures at home.
To answer your question, the most important tasks of a government is trade deals and prosecuting foreign relations. Why in the world would we pick a bunch of dudes with "good intentions," to do this thing, instead of electing a government?
Your suggestion, is not insane, it has happened time and time again. Happened so often they even have an local symbol that represents unity. Perhaps you're familiar with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Anyway, not an insane suggestion, but a terrible one.
How long to terraform a planet? Our first one? You don't think we'd retreat to virtual worlds instead? Or fight the fight we all want to fight, lose 80% of the population which would solve our problems just as well?
What makes you think we can live on Mars anyway? I'm absolutely sure random microbes we carry can live on Mars, after a lil naked solar radiation, keep our population down, although we'll probably handle that ourselves. We don't even know how long we can travel in space outside of our interpenetrating biome, under the naked solar wind.
Unless you mean the AI's which we might build?
You are not wrong though. It just is not a defensible position. You won't be the one who suffers.
Roads are made for wheeled vehicles, many of which are cars and many of which are bikes. Demanding they stick to the side street ghetto seems suboptimal, considering car drivers are just as lethal with respect to motorcycle riders, are they not?
I personally would very much like to use my phone after somebody fed me TEN GRAMS of shrooms. I strongly feel that I would want to do them on the plane, and not in a remote village where I don't even speak the language, and I've got to occupy myself in the darkness with strangers who are going to make me stagger into the jungle and fish, or farm, or hunt. Something I was not severely depressed about would be my very low parasite load, or the lack of arthropods in close proximity. In fact, there are virtually none here. Somewhere in South America there are very large spiders. We don't have them here. I would certainly not be depressed about this. In fact, I am jubilant and appreciative of my good fortune.
In fact, were I to have this condition, it would stem from an imbalance in my head. Because of it I would become depressed. This would be different than me not being "tuned" to my lifestyle, it's not clinical depression if I just need to paint my walls orange or just stop being such a mopey downer, it's a real drag, pitter patter, let's get at er! WEW! PROBLEM SOLVED!
It's like going bald, or having asthma, or being washed away by a tsunami while you are on a date. Sometimes things happen, which are not ideal and also not because of any defect or sin on your part. Sometimes things just happen, sometimes they happen to you.
For example, the poor person who's mind you reset with TEN GRAMS of shrooms and fired off thousands of miles from home and back in time thousands of years to do backbreaking manual labor among strangers. Seems unusually coercive, no? Punitive. Would you do that to your dog? A dog? For being sad too long?
Depressed is not stupid, after the monumental shroom trip, you'd have to force them to stay there, surely? This is probably the part where the ethics board might ask more questions, I reckon. We agree on that at least. Anyway, what if they in fact are not shamming and succumb to despair? Or simply tip the canoe or whatever over learning how to fish? TEN DAMN GRAMS of shrooms is going to make skills acquisition difficult, for quite some time after they eat them.
Socialization might be a lot to ask, do we share a language? What's the purpose of this anyway? Shouldn't this PURPOSE be something defined by me? Lack of agency was not a problem I had before, why is it part of your experiment? I mean, you don't even give me a choice, can't I volunteer or something? My friends probably are not sick, can I socialize with them? Instead of the strangers? In the village? How about you send me to work in Milan? Ok, Wales? Scotland? Missis... hmm. Scotland?
I mean really, you think phone and internet need to go, but instead want to force group interactions with strangers instead?
By the way, about your "personal opinion." If you know a whole bunch of people with ranges of issues, how did you achieve the deep insight into las depresionistas? Or are you saying that slacking is the root cause of mental illness? Force them into paleolithic lifestyle and they'll snap out of it? Would you say you've read 10 books on the subject? How many more than 10? Lots? I'm just trying to properly value your opinion here. How's your results?
Finally, I have to say that your experiment kind of seems similar to pray away the gay camp or whatever name was used for it. Isolation, coercion, duress and reconditioning. Plus TEN GRAMS OF SHROOMS.
Whole thing seems a bit sus, frankly.
“sit in chair for 30 minutes everyday and be mindful of your breathing.”
Now this is great advice for everybody. Unless during these quiet times the weight of the world lays upon you, or your grasp over your inhibitory system is not sufficient to find stillness, never mind finding discipline of the breath.
What about the people who's affliction is not due to some implied lack of industry or effort? What if the problem is not ... sloth?* ... but actually a flaw in the brain, or imbalance?
I guarantee you that there are not a billion people who are gagging for psychedelics as a solution to their mental problems. The question is: Are they in fact a solution?
Prayer: Unless you are praying to some entity who publishes regularly, I feel this avenue has been tried and found to be lacking.
[*] I do not endorse this concept. I don't think you can just "apply yourself" and heal your mind, any more than you can do could with your lung cancer. Sure it helps, but we'd like to minimize the suffering, not endure as much as possible.
It's also quite possible that they are excited about the potential to try a different method of reducing the suffering of patients with mental illness with more efficacy, or fewer side effects, or some other positive change. Anybody can be excited about something while doing another thing. Presumably at least some of these people wish to provide aid, um, when they are not reeling from acid, and grooving on E's, or apparently, assaulting patients, based on the article.
By the way, how does he know they use the drugs? He said some guy said he knew a lot of people who did. A valid concern with mental health is the difficulty of evaluating statements people make about their, or other peoples internal states, and for what reason they make such statements. Basically he's saying, "They're addicts! Some dude told me!"
That's literally hearsay, although this is not a court environment, I suppose. Still, I, for one, would prefer a bit more rigorous statement about this endemic drug use among researchers.
As for his example, lots of people don't eat pork, for a variety of reasons. If someone follows their procedure and replicates their results, then does it matter if they were Muslims? Skeptical? Have some bacon and do the experiment, see if you get what they got. Of course you wouldn't just take it on faith, my goodness! Not all, certainly, but some people don't allow their desires to supersede their professionalism. I don't know, are Muslims even that invested in not eating pork as to fake a bunch of studies to fool the masses into not eating back bacon?
Actually, given what we know about the replication crisis.. hmm.
But surely people who take psychedelics have their own subculture, right? Dr. Alice and Dr. Bob might spend long weekends listening to Cream and obviously Black Sabbath, and definitely some jazz, staggering high because they are trying acid to wean them off of the Oxy's they were into 3 years ago, or the boozing they did under quarantine ... but what if they got results that are worth looking into? Anybody who's known someone using psychoactive drugs surely... well the drugs available now sure seem sub-optimal.
( What about their kids? They're trippin with the kids? Really? REALLY? )
You know, I'm quite unsure about this assumption that the researchers need to spread their drug of choice to people claiming ( skepticism about the afflicted seems to be a theme in the comments? I guess they should just snap out of it? ) mental defect to a third party, which is a life changing decision.
I'm not saying that these things are impossible, or inconceivable. Unfortunately. I question the number of people who act like this, while maintaining well enough to author research papers and do Guardian interviews, vs the number of people who are enthusiastic about reducing suffering and are pursuing a surprising and somewhat promising avenue to do so. They would be in a great position if this work led to a better way of treating mental illness. Seems exciting.
I suppose those who own stock are also upset, I just realized. I don't think liberals will boycott Tesla and Starlink unless they become associated with their political opponents, enough that the environmental aspect would become secondary. If that happens... well, that's a lot of sales regardless, right?
Is it not possible that your unilateralism on this issue has galvanized the will of the victims of the conduct you espouse to oppose you via controlling speech?
Seems that what we have now, which is essentially Isiah Berlin's negative liberty would be a good compromise. Negative liberty:
"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject—a person or group of persons—is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons" --Isaiah Berlin
Basically working to eliminate coercion of individuals as much as possible.
This state would serve everybody except, of course, those who were seeking to coerce people either overtly or covertly, instead of persuade them, which I feel is something different.
Thoughts?
How do you know they are not being harmed by those who actively utter speech designed to be hurtful? Is it not also antithetical to freedom to allow such people to attempt to make existing in what's left of the commons as painful as possible?
What qualification can you present that would make me trust in your assessment of some other person's level of tolerance to abuse?
And really, "tolerance to abuse" here means "inability to escape abuse."
Sorry, offense, you said offense, of course your willful offending never becomes abuse. In my experience that is a difficult line to always see clearly. Can you share how you maintain that balance always? Your insight into other people must be incredible, I eagerly await your reply.
What is not reasonable is me trusting YOU, someone who's arguments, seem somewhat ... unconvincing, about the severity of the covid infection you would spread to me without a care.
As for your babies, supply chain issues coincided with covid, they are not caused by it. Please research the issue, you will see.
Why not take a trip to a hospital and ask the staff what they see and think? Oh, and a mortuary, see what they are seeing.
I look forward to your report, sir.
Besides, I suppose, emphatically opposing the alternative? Could this be it? Perhaps the alternative side is somehow bad for their business?
I strongly feel this is would explain what you claim to see, something I do not.
What I actually see is that coercion is at the root of your philosophy. Your arguments, demand that you have freedom of action at the expense of others. Your issue is that you are unable to compel compliance. Unsurprising since that concept is at the root of your ideology. Quite transparently, and distastefully so.
It's understandable that you would assume such a spurious obligation, human history is full of references to such obligations, up until the age of Big Data, which is when we realized that most of these assumptions were false. It's been a painful time for all of us.
In fact, the actual obligation is yours, if you decided to use this logging library. Seems there was a severe vulnerability in the code. It also seems that the people who responsibly forked the code, ran their own security audit, discovered the vulnerability and then patched decided not to make their contributions known to the general community of users of the software. They, if they exist, seem to be acting as if no obligations exist with respect to the code they acquired.
Speaking of assumptions, your proposed actions regarding your employment assume that your boss was obligated to tell you the reason your contract was terminated. Again, no such obligation exists. They can't fire you out of disgust for your Satanism, or because of your Innuit heritage, or because there are ambiguities regarding your gender. Luckily for them, at-will employees can be terminated, well, at-will, so there is no need for them to specify that it was not, in fact, because of your quite stylish haircut. Your public postings might in fact earn you a letter from the legal department, since you have no way of knowing the real reason was that you downloaded logging code on to mission critical servers, and lacked either the inclination or capacity to verify this internet code, and then when asked about your decision to do this thing, you quoted an imaginary "social context," an unwritten, unknown construct, that in this case silently tacks on the term "users of this library will receive free, unpaid support in perpetuity" that functioned exactly like Adam Keynes "invisible hand," that is, some rationalization to absolve you of the responsibility for explaining problematic aspects of the mental model used in your decision making. This was a vast surprise to the administrators of your company, who, understandably, know very little about logging libraries, which is why they hired someone to provide the required functionality.
Above quote shows the problem with the system. The intention surely is to gather the evidence first, and use that to make the predictions. What he is describing is cherry picking evidence to support his belief. Were I him, I would have left that sentence out.
This is scam driven development. Wonder if everybody there is doing this? Yikes.