slibhb

34 ms·

631.
by slibhb 3y ago
It goes both ways. Maybe you'll teach your kids to be open and tolerant to everything but they'll grow up, convert to Catholicism, and -- gasp -- vote conservative.
632.
by slibhb 3y ago
People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, et
633.
by slibhb 3y ago
If we implement UBI, what's forcing people to work? And if people stop working, how can we afford UBI? I hope some country that I don't live in tries it so I can see if my intuition is right.
634.
by slibhb 3y ago
> We have so much wealth, food and stuff in Western countries. We could provide a basic level of comfortable living for anyone with no strings attached. We could then remove minimum wage and all the things we do to subsidise low income w
635.
by slibhb 3y ago
Your hypothetical has no relation to actual choices that voters and governments face. The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. Politics aside, I'm skeptical
636.
by slibhb 3y ago
None of these quotes has anything to do with what I posted. Normal, productive people will not sign off on their money being redistributed to unproductive people unless those people have a good reason for being unproductive. Therefore, ev
637.
by slibhb 3y ago
Regardless of whether it's "technobabble," it's a misunderstanding of how courts operate. The law is not a formally specified algorithm. If you overfit a NN to produce someone else's work, that's not going to g
638.
by slibhb 3y ago
It seems pretty clear what AI means in this context. > There is no difference between a lossy jpg, taking its pixels as weights, and the weights of a NN. Somehow I don't think this is going to hold up in court.
639.
by slibhb 3y ago
Welfare is taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people. In order for this to work in a democracy, you have to convince the productive people that the unproductive people are unproductive for good reasons (i.e. m
640.
by slibhb 3y ago
As I understand it, the underlying problem here is inflation. The idea that you can address inflation by "giving people money" seems dubious. And is the UK really a "starving population"? Come on.
641.
by slibhb 3y ago
If you extend this policy to "consuming a video/image/text message," that would be dystopian. But this is about porn. Maybe it'll be a slippery slope but I doubt it. I wouldn't vote for this policy but I get it
642.
by slibhb 3y ago
https://archive.is/wuxLA
643.
What If People Don't Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It?(nytimes.com)
2 points by slibhb 3y ago|1 comments
644.
by slibhb 3y ago
The best analogy for LLMs (up to and including AGI) is the internet + google search. Imagine explaining the internet/google to someone in 1950. That person might say "Oh my god, everything will change! Instantaneous, cheap communi
645.
by slibhb 3y ago
The article hints throughout that polyamory is just for the rich. I don't have the data but it's not clear to me that the rich are having more non-monogamous sex than the poor. As far as the concept itself goes, I don't think
646.
by slibhb 3y ago
Careful now, you wouldn't want to "dehumanize" doctors, would you?
647.
by slibhb 3y ago
> Oliver McGowan was 18 years old when he was hospitalized in England with recurrent seizures and pneumonia. He was autistic, and he and his parents had one specific request for the medical team: no antipsychotic medications. When he had
648.
by slibhb 3y ago
> From what I've read about the American civil war is that all historians agree that the rebellion was about the right to hold slaves. The argument about federalisim is a narrative constructed afterwards to evoke sympathy for the re
649.
by slibhb 3y ago
You can't rule it out but I'm skeptical. Godel was alive in the 20th century. Spinoza was another philosopher who found the ontological argument convincing and he was such a radical that he was kicked out of the Jewish community h
650.
by slibhb 3y ago
I find ontological arguments interesting because so many smart people took them seriously (Leibniz and Godel being two, but there are many more). Even if these kinds of arguments are wrong, their popularity seems to suggest something intere
651.
by slibhb 3y ago
I think being hailed forever as the genius who predicted some cataclysm before it happens is a pretty big reward, especially for an academic. But anyway, the whole idea that scientists can predict the collapse of civilization is wrong. At s
652.
by slibhb 3y ago
I'm responding to the linked article and the broad "collapse community" not to your claimed "depressed friends with PhDs". Anyway, the vast majority of climate scientists and economists don't think that civil
653.
by slibhb 3y ago
Absolutely. They hate technology and modernity and want to live as subsistence farmers, a lifestyle they romanticize endlessly (see the part about "growing your own food," "learning to fix things," etc). So many people f
654.
by slibhb 3y ago
> Like Communism, capitalism is a teleological system at its root, relying on a narrative of progress, on a forward-moving vector of time, but when that time turns cyclical, repetitive, without a clear direction, the system begins to dis
655.
by slibhb 3y ago
Comparing "riding in a car" and "flying in a plane" to a "young woman staying with a male stranger she met on the internet" is bizarre. The risk involved in the latter example is way higher than the risks invol
656.
by slibhb 3y ago
The problem with the "victim blaming" concept is that it prevents us from giving good advice about how to avoid being a victim. It's clear that women shouldn't stay with male strangers. Men should think carefully about i
657.
by slibhb 3y ago
The birds in my area are falling apart so I'm not shocked to hear the company is doing poorly. I'll be sad if renting scooters is no longer an option. If I was designing a city, I'd ban cars except for a few prominent roads a
658.
by slibhb 3y ago
If Israel wanted to kill civilians, why order evacuations? Why let aid trucks in? Israel is willing to kill a lot of civilians in order to destroy Hamas. But I've seen no evidence that Israel wants to kill civilians . Individual Israe
659.
by slibhb 3y ago
Israel should try harder to avoid killing civilians. But to act like they don't try at all (which you did) is objectively wrong. Moving onto hypotheticals, international condemnations don't mean a whole lot. At any rate, I expect
660.
by slibhb 3y ago
If the IDF didn't care about civilian casualities it could kill everyone inside Gaza in a matter of days, with or without nuclear weapons. Consider the opposite: If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, would it pause before detonating it in Tel

More ›