I’ve got a project coming hopefully this fall. You probably just saved me hours next summer.

I would think a two-hander is massive enough to be a blunt weapon if turned sideways, striking with the flat of the sword. But, my opinion is really uninformed.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I accused the other of misinformation when the article even said I was wrong. I’d be a hypocrite, an idiot, and an asshole to not make it right.

Thanks for not only recognizing but also taking the time to reinforce what we both want to see more of.

Thank you for the compliment. But, in this facet the biggest difference between us is probably only how much time our parents bought us before we had to fend for ourselves. My ideas aren’t special, just regurgitated and stitched together pieces of work by actual smart people.

We’re on the same side because any reasonable and intelligent person is on our side. We came from all directions, reasoning our way to the same basic conclusions: It’s broken and humans suffer. We’ll sacrifice to fix it together.

Thank you for pointing out that I’m being an idiot in such a kind manner. I apologize. I also learned more about mpox.

deleted by creator

Stupider or wiser relative what? If we measure against a what it takes to live a wise life at the time then people are definitely getting stupider (and you are absolutely correct). The wisdom required is rising much more quickly than the wisdom possessed.

Perceptions are also easily swayed because we’ve been on an unusually long objectively (not relative) downward slope. Some think technology of communication the last nail in the coffin, that we will never begin to become wiser again. They may be right. You may be very, very correct. But, hope is an important thing. In this, I think one should believe what’s necessary for personal morale.

You made me think more about pot smokers. I think you’re correct. Even in my own observation they’re a much more diverse group than I present. And, I bet a lot of them keep their habit totally private.

I came down on you pretty hard there. I think you saw I wasn’t attacking you personally. You received it so well you even changed my perspective. This is why I’ve faith in humanity. We’ve still got the special sauce.

deleted by creator

Your perspectives suck and no one’s told you. This was maybe a time when you should’ve only asked a good question.

That’s not a judgement of you as a person.

Handjob McVape chose a ridiculously gerrymandered district. This is middle class wage slaves, rural property owners, and the employees of rural property owners (incl. oil workers on rented rights).

Pot smokers worldwide lean hard left or are unengaged with their political and activist proceses.

It’s not COVID making people stupid. They’re just stupid, always have been, and don’t know it. Humans have been choosing kings to conveniently let another reason and choose for them since the beginning of humanity. They’re not changing. You are.

There’s an incredible story behind it. But, the short form is that Proton is more expensive because they’re not harvesting your private information. In a few months the law will prevent them from doing for as long as the core fiscal law and Proton exist (at least decades).

I just like bears, know a little bit, and think they’re getting fucked over in many parts of the US. I definitely wasn’t finding fault with a joke.

If you tried to scritch a wild cat you might just get away with it for awhile. But, you’re never getting that hand back :)

I know it’s just a joke. But, black and brown bears are very intelligent and quite peaceful creatures. I’ve run into forty or fifty in the wilderness. I’ve never once felt the bear was considering an attack. They’re smart enough to recognize our complex behaviors as a large risk to their safety.

The story of the vast majority of humans mauled by bears:

Your dog has a perfect record of defending the pack. Every single time the target either runs or turns out to be friendly. No other pack member defends. Its primary reason to exist is to defend. A bear has a perfect record of fights with anything but another bear.

One day the bear smells some food, good stuff it can’t find normally. It’s some campers with their dog. The dog smells the bear, full adrenaline drops for its whole reason to exist, and defends the pack. The bear wins in about one second.

The human defends the dog. The bear fights because that’s what it’s doing right now. Then, it reconsiders and runs away. Finally, the Forest Rangers track down and kill the bear quietly, preserving the tourism the community relies on.

We’re really shitty to bears, at least here in the US. They’re not even very dangerous relative an wild elk, moose, or even free range livestock. It’s the big and dumb ones you need to watch out for. And marmot. Never disagree with a marmot.

There’s been no rulings granting a transgender rights greater than another. It’d have been global news, the consequences of which would still be cascading through the judicial system.

So, when this transgender person was granted what may have been, after an arduous battle, equality in one situation, you disagreed.

What defines humans from other animals is complex communication and it’s derivatives. I need not know the transgender person, be transgender myself, or even have a gay friend to feel basic human sympathy and empathy for them. That’s the minimum human response: neutrality, equality. Anything less is animalistic hatred.

Edit: I’ve passed judgement on just this perspective you hold, not on you as a person. If I didn’t believe you valuable I’d not have invested the time to explain why I expect more and believe you capable.

deleted by creator

I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.

deleted by creator

I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.

Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.