slg

13 ms·

181.
by slg 6mo ago
>Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But you're ignoring my point that your dialog is actively counterproductive when you don't engage with the root of
182.
by slg 6mo ago
>I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children. Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have
183.
by slg 6mo ago
>The public, and consumers in general often state a want or need for something that they don't actually want or that would harm their quality of life, it is correct to demean or deride these wants when they're identified, some
184.
by slg 6mo ago
Your argument has two main flaws. First, it relies on an inherent connection between age verification and authoritarianism that is just taken for granted as true. Meta could easily be in favor of age verification because it reduces their
185.
by slg 6mo ago
>organic desire for these proposals Even if everything you said was true and there was a global conspiracy among the politicians, the tech crowd consistently denies and demeans these organic desires. We could cut the legs out from under
186.
by slg 6mo ago
>If it was then this kind of solution would be being legislated for. What's more likely a global conspiracy to get age verification passed to allow these unnamed groups to identify everyone for some unknown purpose or politicians ju
187.
by slg 6mo ago
This is a law about grocery stores. How much haggling do you think is happening at grocery stores?
188.
by slg 6mo ago
>I don't think we will ever see such law, nor do I think this would be a good idea. Why isn't this a good idea?
189.
by slg 6mo ago
And yet there has been very little about their actual priorities that have been surprising. Anyone who fell for it should do some self-reflection on why they believed those lies when so many other people saw right through them.
190.
by slg 6mo ago
Does anyone else see the disconnect between how Americans talk about our history compared to how we talk about political violence of today? How can we glorify Thomas Jefferson and teach kids about him saying "The tree of liberty must b
191.
by slg 6mo ago
>Have you ever done what you're asking of others here, btw? What question do you want me to answer that isn't some loaded rhetorical question along the lines of "What is your motivation for denying the obvious?"
192.
by slg 6mo ago
What counter evidence is there against you, AnonymousPlanet, and gslepak being the same person? You're all seemingly acting in a highly coordinated manner. Would it be reasonable for me to assume you're all one person? Because
193.
by slg 6mo ago
>And yet, it is all part of a script. You, AnonymousPlanet, and fc417fc802 are all responding to me in very similar ways and yet I'm not accusing you of reading from the same script or being puppeteered by the same person/group
194.
by slg 6mo ago
This is a very strange response. Am I not allowed to criticize the answer you provide when it doesn't actually answer the question? For example, if I asked you who killed JFK and you responded with "It could have been Oswald acti
195.
by slg 6mo ago
>What is your motivation for denying the obvious? Comments like this don’t make you folks sound less like “conspiracy theorists”. It’s also a tone that tells me that you aren’t going to approach anything I say in good faith so there is n
196.
by slg 6mo ago
Lobbyists don’t lobby just to lobby, they lobby on behalf of someone paying them. So this doesn’t actually answer the question, it just shifts it to “Who is behind the lobbyists?”
197.
by slg 6mo ago
Do you not see how this comment is actually counterproductive to the point you’re arguing? The long list of suspects, most of them being totally independent of each other is evidence of this not being orchestrated by some central group.
198.
by slg 6mo ago
It's very noticeable that this is the part of my comment you responded to and not the question of who is behind all this. That is why people consider this stuff conspiracy theories. You aren't analyzing the various parties and w
199.
by slg 6mo ago
Who do you think is behind this? That is the question no one is answering here and why people are calling it a conspiracy theory. And the car manufacturers all decided to install spyware because it made them money. That's just capital
200.
by slg 6mo ago
People have been drinking alcohol since time immemorial. Our laws need to overcome those longstanding cultural standards that vary greatly across the globe and therefore laws will be different too. It varies by country, but I would guess m
201.
by slg 6mo ago
>which are imperceptible compared to the noise of living near any highway or airport in America Imperceptible compared to two incredibly loud things that most people wouldn't want built within a few hundred feet of their home. Some
202.
by slg 6mo ago
>AI is on track to become the next Concorde A technologically impressive innovation that is ultimately doomed by being too loud and so expensive that it mostly benefits the rich before the costs just become too high for even that to be p
203.
by slg 6mo ago
I agree it "ought to be", but from a practical perspective, this often just isn't worth it at a local level. Actually determining the right cost for the externalities would take a decent amount of work and odds are whatever
204.
by slg 6mo ago
>There are many different groups of anti-AI people with different beliefs. See my other comment. I qualified what I said while the comment I replied to didn't, so it's weird that this is a response to me and not the prior comm
205.
by slg 6mo ago
Which is why I said "The majority of anti-AI people...". It was the comment I was responding to that was treating the anti-AI crowd as homogeneous by ascribing to them all a rather fantastical belief of a minority of that group.
206.
by slg 6mo ago
>If humanity goes extinct in the next few years because of unaligned superintelligence This is either a misunderstanding of the anti-AI crowd or an intentional attempt to discredit them. The majority of anti-AI people don't actually
207.
by slg 6mo ago
Is there a name for the phenomenon of when someone provides a single explanation that is so inconsequential that it ends up being counterproductive because surely they would have given a better explanation if one existed ? If your go-to re
208.
by slg 6mo ago
>The oil trade structure actually does make sense, because this is how you buy oil, or really any commodity that takes so much space and weight. You order it ahead of time, then if you hold till the contract settles you are allowed to pi
209.
by slg 6mo ago
Say whatever you want about the merits of prediction markets. But I just don't see a way those benefits outweigh the societal dangers of these constant reminders that people in or close to power can freely profit from their positions
210.
by slg 6mo ago
> But again, to avoid partisan bickering, you should shift spending in the category... It doesn't have to be political, it's not a money problem. We can't really have this conversation from the mindset that the status quo

More ›