martin-t

12 ms·

151.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> the one deciding And that's why it's important to establish publicly known and accepted rules about this. Nobody suggests one person deciding this, usually people who imagine this situation have some issues of their own. But
152.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> epitome of hypocrisy Only in single-step moral systems (one which judges actions as moral or immoral solely based on those actions in the moment and not what preceded them). I have a multi-step moral system. Basically any unjustified i
153.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> I don't believe that punishment can be just I've encountered such opinions before but never cared to engage with them since they seem utterly alien to me. Can you give me a summary of your opinions or links to some materials?
154.
by martin-t 8mo ago
On the contrary, target is a neutral word, justifying the violence against a target is exactly as difficult as it should be - based on the circumstances instead of emotions. Victim already implies wrongdoing so it makes justifying just viol
155.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Unfortunately I don't. Your link doesn't load for me but I think I read it earlier than 2025 and possibly even 2024.
156.
by martin-t 8mo ago
That's why anonymity is important. We need reliable anonymous communication as yet another source of friction (drink!) which the state needs to overcome to subjugate the people. And that's why so many states, even western democrac
157.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> learn from failure to coup-proof themselves faster than the population can keep up Institutional memory is longer than individual memory. What drove this point home for me was an article about how the police on London can predict wheth
158.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Thanks, looking forward to reading the full article myself. Hopefully there's more about how these regimes have failed in the past and how to make them fail in the future. Because AFAICT at that point, violence is the only possibility
159.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> the right tool Keep in mind this needs to be judged separately in the legal, practical and moral dimension. For example a state might determine that a person _legally_ deserves to spend 10 years in prison. But the same state will attac
160.
by martin-t 8mo ago
That's a good way to think about it but unfortunately, human language is so imprecise that IMO many people will leave with the conclusion that "sadly" means "using violence makes me sad and implicitly is therefore bad&qu
161.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Why would you want to, unless you live in a domain of indoctrination ("echo chamber") that pacifism is good and anything else is bad? I always find it useful to ask "why", whenever someone tells me their beliefs. Childre
162.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Why "victim" and not "target"? What are the input variables which dictate the morality of an action (generally or in this particular case)?
163.
by martin-t 8mo ago
This article is on my to-read list and I am a great fan of Mr. Devereaux's work. But I also feel like promoting non-violence outside the context of western democracies is misleading and potentially dangerous. Maybe he addresses it some
164.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Differentiate legal, practical and moral reasons. Hitler was so bad that anybody is willing to publicly talk about killing him, there are movies glorifying it, people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler. He was so bad that
165.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Don't say sadly. Don't further the indoctrination that violence is bad. It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad. States are the most prolific users of violence (even more when you also count potential/threatened, not yet mater
166.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Why would an attacker move on if it can maintain a successful DoS attack forever?
167.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> hard to quantify It's hard to quantify perfectly but we already quantify it imperfectly during salary negotiations. Don't make perfect an enemy of good. We could get a better system _today_ overnight if we just took everyone&
168.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> Why wouldn’t you advocate it? Because advocating things which are moral/ethical but illegal is often against the TOS :( We need laws which are explicitly based on moral principles. Barring that, we should at least have laws which
169.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Last I heard, putting a glock on a quadcopter was creating an "illegal weapon system" or similar fancy sounding BS but I wonder what the accusation would be for a paintball gun on a drone? Must less recoil too.
170.
by martin-t 8mo ago
I see an easy way, let's just take it from them. Not nationalization, that never works. Distribute each company among the workers. Turn them all into co-ops. (I've been thinking this a lot but have never seen it expressed so succi
171.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Their unaffordability is only the last straw that will hopefully break the camel's back and create a counter-force. Normal people generally don't dream to be ultra rich, they just want to enjoy life (and have enough money to do so
172.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Crazy idea: when companies change their product, they have to change the name. Do you ever feel like the same food item doesn't taste the same it did 10 years ago? Maybe it's your memory being faulty or maybe the company got new m
173.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Sorry to hear that. I added it to me to-read list. And yes, I do also think scaling is the biggest challenge in bottom up / democratic / cooperative organizations, but I think their critics overstate it. Democratic states might be
174.
by martin-t 8mo ago
I am not even sure what technocratic leadership means. For one, I don't believe people should need to be led. Being led makes sense when quick decisions are more important than optimal decisions, such as in war. Other times, people sho
175.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> unmoored by modern social isolation and addictive media without the dampening love (and healthy stress) of community. You have a point about community but I think for different reasons. Historically, most communities were created by ra
176.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Don't be ridiculous, AI will create robots that do all the work and the only use for humans will be as amusement for the rich who own everything. Probably not sarcasm, I don't even know.
177.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> I'm curious to hear more of this "Informed Consent" based framework. I think disclosure of potential negative outcomes from a decision would help. Maybe I was too optimistic. Instead of deciding who has what rights, we h
178.
by martin-t 8mo ago
Even if the assertion is correct, what would life be like with computers incomprehensibly smarter and faster thinking than humans? All management decisions from the top down to individual manual workers handled by an AI (LLM or otherwise)?
179.
by martin-t 8mo ago
> The principal danger is the concentration of power. Absolutely. Good people can cooperate or reach compromises for mutual benefit. Bad people are each in it for himself - while they do form alliances sometimes, ultimately working toget
180.
by martin-t 8mo ago
I am pretty pissed these companies stole ~10 years of my work. I can't imagine how pissed I'd be if they also stole naked photos of me and used them to generate porn which they claim has no relation to me.

More ›