hax0ron3

7 ms·

61.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
In Sam Altman's case that is true. He is just one frontman for and beneficiary of a giant technological revolution that is almost inevitably happening whether anyone wants it to or not, since it is pushed forward by pure Darwinian logi
62.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
I don't see the bunkers as being as useful as some might imagine them to be. In the kind of apocalyptic scenario which would actually make him want to move to the bunker in New Zealand, why would his security people bother to keep taki
63.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
It depends on what kind of violent attacks they are exactly. I believe that most of the population would either not care about people of the Altman and Zuckerberg wealth level getting killed or would be happy about it. I think the general p
64.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
I love jazz but it's kind of funny how much this actually sounds like a really experimental jazz recording. But then, jazz is sometimes spoken of as expressing the rhythms, sounds, and emotions of the modern city.
65.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
Fair point. I mean, I'm a big fan of it in theory. Not so much in reality. It's still better than having no justice system.
66.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
To be fair, my role in structural violence, while not to the level of Sam Altman, is also far from non-zero. And that's kind of what I'm trying to get at. I'm not saying that people should kill Sam Altman. I don't think
67.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
It would be extremely difficult to have politics discussion without condoning violence. Deciding what sorts of violence is ok is an inherent part of politics. In practice, there's no way to ban calls for violence without banning the di
68.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
>Nothing about the US Department of War's actions over the last 2 years Questionable and violent US foreign policy is much much older than the current Trump administration.
69.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
I'm a big fan of the justice system. Can't have a functioning civilization without it. And yes, violence that is used by a democratic society following regulations is generally speaking better for society than arbitrary vigilantis
70.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
But it is the same. Better and more stable for society than individual vigilantism? Yes, generally speaking it is. But still essentially the same thing, just done through a different process.
71.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
Better stop paying taxes then, cause your government, whatever it is, is probably ok with using your tax money to in some cases fund the killing of people who have families and children. Now, we can argue about the morality of killing those
72.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
Would I not be allowed to post that removing Khameini or Putin would be good for the world? I find that hard to believe, and people do it all the time. And if it's just a matter of who it's ok to advocate for removing, then where
73.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
Yes, but when it comes to politically-motivated murder attempts by random people, part of this is because surveillance technology and policing effectiveness have gotten to the point that it is very difficult to get away with such a murder a
74.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
Pretty much everyone thinks that violence is ok against certain people. You probably do too. The disagreements are about who violence is ok to use against.
75.
by hax0ron3 6mo ago
>It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that is vying for contracts from a democratically elected government's defense department. Why though?
76.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Currently, probably yes. If American immigration policy was reshaped to favor immigration of people from high-performing societies, then it would be the opposite.
77.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Intelligence at least as measured by IQ tests is not distributed evenly across humanity. Intelligence as measured by scientific achievements is also not distributed evenly across humanity. Now, this does not mean that intelligence is necess
78.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country. Counting deportations alone does not count people who decide not to come at all. Also, note that I did
79.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I agree that your idea would be better. That said, it is still quite possible that even Trump's immigration approach is overall more good than bad for the country.
80.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Illegal immigration brings masses of people from more corrupt, disordered, and perhaps lower average intelligence societies into the US in conditions that make it hard for even the ones who are capable of assimilation to assimilate. It also
81.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I disagree with probably the majority of Trump's main policy ideas, but I think a strong case can be made that his immigration policies are in the country's best interests. Not all of them, but as a whole.
82.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I think many of those systems were created by elites who dominated the use of violence and fed off the work of the subordinate classes. Their use of violence was a skill that was crucial for them to learn to be good at but only had to be us
83.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I'm old enough to have been in spaces like that, but the aesthetic illusion still works for me if I look at an image that is supposed to depict one. Also, the infinite corridors is only part of the appeal. There are other ways in which
84.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
The East-West thing probably does confer an advantage, but it might be overstated. I'm not sure that the difference in required agricultural techniques between Mesopotamia and Europe was actually any smaller than the difference in requ
85.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I agree that if the disease luck had gone the other way and a large fraction of Europe had died of disease then it's possible the Native Americans would have remained unconquered. If the disease factor was just taken out of the equatio
86.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Yeah but eventually they were stressed by Homosapiensthalic
87.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
He wasn't claiming that the Native Americans didn't have agriculture, he was claiming that Native Americans didn't develop large-scale agriculture as early in history as Eurasians did, and as a result had less time to develop
88.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
In pure amoral military terms, the US military has barely suffered a scratch in this war, losing only a few soldiers and pieces of equipment. It has failed to subdue Iran, so in that sense so far at least it has not achieved a victory. Howe
89.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
Yes, but they are much cheaper and quicker to repair when damaged than large cargo ships are and they don't need crews, so with pipelines you don't face the situation you do with ships, where even a small chance of the ship being
90.
by hax0ron3 7mo ago
I agree in general, but I quibble with the "noticeable dent" part. I think that Iran is doing well given the enormous difference in power between it and the US/Israeli/Gulf Arab coalition, but the only way in which it is

More ›