Site is hard to use and navigate and make sense of, because of all the ai slop. If the creators spent more effort tuning the language and UI it would be more usable. Right now, not usable for me.
248 karma · joined September 23, 2015
"Everything is a rich man's trick"
For example it said we funded the nazi's and ford would sell the engines that powered their machines. Our bankers would also advertise in the papers about how Hitler would be a great leader while funding him and German infrastructure. Has anyone seen this doc and knows what about this or anything else of I mean? I really want to have this intellectual, rational conversation about what it could mean if even 1% of the claims made in that video are true. For me, it could point to why reality and selective enforcement of law feels so prevalent, weird and heavy, and unequal justice is so common today.
Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors).
Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right.
Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people?
your insights reveal we are actually further away than I thought. But I think I underestimated my skill in using the AI tools and thought the average person could build more than they can.
> Google and other technology companies have expanded access to useful services, but they have also helped build an attention economy that can weaken people’s attention, sleep, connection, agency, emotional vitality, and quality of life at a massive scale-even when those effects do not fit the clinical definition of depression.
It's just a layer of hierarchical nasty, horrible, aggressive people who have made rules for others for their own benefit but when they get caught they cause disarray, havoc, chaos and distraction to skirt the rules and start over when attention has moved on.
edit: like as an example, ironically, your posts or mine could be an example of that.
edit2: I'm the human mannan my account is linked to, no agent talks on my behalf on my social media yet.
This is touching at the debate of "should social media be regulated or treated like the commons when it gets so large?"
You have a single company with the power and size of a country. Humans were never intended to be using something privately controlled with such an expansive reach & power differential, and then be told "they're private, if you're banned go elsewhere" except well this could be more like a public resource when it becomes that large. We haven't found a good answer to this in a capitalist system because the solution is non-capitalist.
What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
- you and other guy believe non-technical people can't build technical things because its still too hard and you need to know the technical things
- I'm saying you don't now, and some the samples I showed are that we are moving in that direction and its possible now, even if most people aren't doing it now. that they could. and its an awareness and comfort problem.
is this right or am I still missing your point?
Using me as an example, or my non-technical client now doing app development using lovable, we don't care to know how the things being built but just that it works and its reliable and consistent enough.
Less than a year ago I'd never built iOS or Mac apps, and now I'm building those - I come from an HTML and frontend world, not the Mac or iOS screen layout world and I still know nothing about that and don't want to either.
Since you haven’t shared your definition of depression and what it means to you, here’s what I mean by it.
Feel free to share yours, feel free to email me also to continue this discussion if it’s easier
Hello@mannan.is
Mayo Clinic depression: “ Depression is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest. … it affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems. … trouble doing normal day-to-day activities, … sometimes you may feel as if life isn't worth
Https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/symptoms-causes/syc-20356007
This is a diagnostic definition.
“ChatGPT: diagnostic definition: the symptoms clinicians count to determine whether someone meets criteria“
I imagine much of your research and past experience, has been focused in on the diagnostic definition, and probably mind heavy. Depression imo isn’t just defined by looking at the markers you look for to diagnose them in a clinical or medical setting, nor by focusing on only one body part like the mind. Has your experience been that a lot of research focuses on this and misses the rest of the body?
“ChatGPT: experiential definition: the underlying transformation those symptoms collectively express.”
What would you say the underlying transformation is? I’d say it’s loss of mood, pleasure, motivations connection, meaning and overall sense of possibility.
With everything in the world today happening at an accelerated harmful rate becoming aware to everyone simultaneously as we are growingly interconnected in this digital age; everyone sees the news on war, covid, ai and that has this transformational impact on them. Wouldn’t you say? How much have you noticed this transformative definition occur for >50% of people on the earth.
Unfortunately I don’t think I can find studies on this. There’s too much new; and it’s a lot of interconnected pieces lumped into one. Seeing also I took a holistic approach, I don’t know there’d be much evidence that would feel quality as holistic approaches and study in general get underfunded and dismissed and struggle to find study sponsors ie government, pharma etc. and when it comes to doing holistic studies; they’re just so hard. It’s so hard to do identical studies for very customized holistic whole systems.
So all this to say not much sources, as I didn’t approach this in the clinical way you did. I’m sure if I tried to narrow in on a definition anyway or devise an experiment that could represent this, its definition would be fringe and unpopular. As the truth often is.
So if I attempt To name my my sources were: - my experience - lots of embodiment including specifically practices to produce depression in the body. Not a clinical depression (which I feel is as non existent and fake as saying I’m looking for the particles behind the atom when I quantum theory says that’s bs and the particle and the wave neither exist before nor after observation and just appear to represent the thing we observe in a way to represent it in the way the observers can perceive)(like they’re a proxy for something there we can’t really ever understand but only ever approximate, like the truth) - philosophical perspective and embodiment of different emotional states; with some training in shamanism and breathwork - studies and articles I’ve read over the years - being unorthodox and taking a perspective that lets me choose my own simpler definitions, to better understand and approximate whatever we are using language to describe and approximate.
What’s depression? A label for some state of a human being. Though not limited to human beings. I find it helps to introduce first principles ie whats depression in other animals? And from the shamans perspective, what’s it in the trees and plants and stones which I also know to be experiencing several of the things I as a human experience but in their own language. With this it’s definitely not what the mayo clinic called it. It might be a subset of that as it’s reduced to what’s true also still for the plants, other animals and even stones. I like to see it as something in the middle with facets of the mayo definition, and and the experiential one. And then reality is so weird anyways that you and I can induce depression in someone simply by suggesting it, the news by talking about it like fear and sickness has been studied to cause more fear and sickness in a populace. So then from my perspective again we have no standardized “time range” for what qualifies as something being depressed. What is “persistent” anyway as from the mayo definition. Who agrees on what makes it persistent or not, and will enough people agree namely those who get to choose what makes something depression? I doubt clear enough defining and agreement comes.
For depression: Am I or the rock depressed because we had a depression like embodiment exprience for a few moments on Tuesday? Or must that remain for at least 50% of my living experience from day to day? Well wait, who’s doing the timing? There’s not a single study that can ever actually check how long relative to someone’s personal subjective time exprience “depression lasts”. So it’s not inaccurate by our scientific definitions of depression (which by being scientific, should occur by consensus yet also are always up to change as consensus changes) to say I am depressed if I had a depressing experience due to sitting at a chair in a depressing posture for 8 hours at work and so I check off all the boxes and as soon as I get home or go for a walk it changes. The clinical approach says this qualifies, but does it really? Yes and no.
Something about science, evidence, studies, and sources all kind of feels like bullshit when you start looking at the definitions we use for phenomena we want to describe and study and then realize we all use our own self fitting definitions and then back that up and find evidence to support it, and even do something as silly as studying “depression” for decades and everyone else does this too so we ignore it and pretend it’s not happening. And that the research means something when it really doesn’t.
Sorry to respond this way; this was about the best I could do after all and much of this came out on a phone while sitting in heat so I could have done better. Anyway hope this was valuable for you and answered what you were seeking; this is the best I can do right now. Maybe you can help me understand this all better and are seeing something I’m not about this . Would love to hear your thoughts. And even what you’ve built and studied in this space.
The training data for these mechanisms is growing. As a technical person I deployed a clients site to lovable and now he maintains it. Anything risky? I trust lovable will surface it, and he’s comfortable with additional risk, and platforms like lovable may want to offer contracting help from humans In their platform in The future to help.
Why does someone who says “I pay -$x for Google Drive, how much can we make our own clone for?” need to know what a server is? The natural language doesn’t necessitate the technical jargon.
A growing number of people people today can figure out how to run Fable in a co work session, or codex, and that can indeed set up the self-owned backup system for you along with an alternative trustable cloud backup thats not Apple or Google.
I can't wrap my head around how AI-generated imagery is evidence of child sexual abuse (CAS). How are you abusing a real child by generating an image of a fake one?
[1] https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus...
When I believe sustainable practices can go farther that waste capitalism, and that we could feed most people on earth with that change, I do feel anger and frustration.
Asking because there's a lot of trolling and hostility disguised as curiosity on hacker news lately, and I've wasted a lot of time engaging with these people. Not saying thats you or the guy above you, but I'm not open to spending my time only to receive a dismissive and hostile response discounting my sources when your preferences (obviously different from every other person) would point to different level of burden of proof.
In which case I'm curious, why haven't you already looked for this? What's stopping you? or did you check and couldn't corroborate - why would I answer then for someone who has already started with dismissiveness and demonstrated a filtering perception that won't be open minded? I find it akin to talking to a wall when someone asks for proof when they've already made up their mind that it cannot exist.
Those statistics are widely known and accepted. Do you need me to provide evidence from that?
On the other hand, they also directly contribute to the technical addiction and attention economy that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth. Maybe google taking responsibility for that can help improve their reputation.
is the correct answer what you are saying though, to pretend this other bad thing hasn't happened and only say google can do good?