walleeee

83 ms·

451.
by walleeee 5y ago
In the original post you state > For now, it seems like DEMOCRACY is the best thing to prevent wars. I'm not interested in throwing punches, however I don't think your claim is coherent Twice now you respond with a loosely rela
452.
by walleeee 5y ago
If there is no longer any desire among the democracies of the world to war against rival nations, why have the leading democratic power and its allies been involved in constant covert and overt warfare for the better part of the last centur
453.
by walleeee 5y ago
The President of the United States, 2 days ago: "We’re in a competition with China and other countries to win the 21st Century." The leading global purveyor of DEMOCRACY is deeply embedded in the dangerous game you describe
454.
by walleeee 5y ago
The internet was born as a military R&D program and remains one today. What is the "free" web? What is the "free" structure of the internet? I assume "free" is not used here to mean "fault-tolerant&quo
455.
by walleeee 6y ago
The school district certainly exists but that doesn't alter the honeypot calculus
456.
by walleeee 6y ago
How can one be so deeply pessimistic about survival on a planet whose atmosphere we can safely breath and whose climate will likely be more amenable to us than Mars' even in a worst-case global heating scenario, and yet remain optimist
457.
by walleeee 6y ago
Following this logic, let's assume we can't. Then what are the chances we can plant a self-sufficient colony on a barren lifeless planet, all from a dying civilization on our still infinitely more hospitable homeworld?
458.
by walleeee 6y ago
Yes, and it's not only stock market misvaluation. Perpetual growth economics itself functions like a Ponzi scheme insofar as it renders the planet more challenging for future humans to live on.
459.
by walleeee 6y ago
> I was alluding to caution in reference to fossil fuels specifically because nuclear power I follow you more clearly now- yes I agree. Maybe nuclear power gets undue scrutiny because its failures are rapid and local. I think I prefer th
460.
by walleeee 6y ago
> As distasteful as it is to admit it, we learn much more quickly by failure than success, and often the quickest, cheapest, and most thorough way to understand the consequences of a technology is to implement it. I totally agree. This i
461.
by walleeee 6y ago
I agree. All that follows is wild speculation, but... Maybe the utilitarianisms of history maintained concrete referents in part because the notion of "utility" worked somewhere in basement brain. When we pulled it shrieking into
462.
by walleeee 6y ago
You've posed the trolley problem to someone explicitly refusing to answer it! I'm joking :') thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree that we see utilitarian thought experiments influencing engineering decisions. But as you
463.
by walleeee 6y ago
Yes, not only is naive utility-maxing preposterous, it can also launder questionable ethical decisions: "for the greater good", etc. Unexamined consequentialism breeds infinite self-justification, imo As far as I can tell claims t
464.
by walleeee 6y ago
> Like the "repugnant question" itself, this is a theoritical absurdity, too abstract to have any real value as an ethical experiment. Utilitarian ethics require that people inhabit thought experiments like this. It's diss
465.
by walleeee 6y ago
> If it is something that's a hundred plus years out then we'll probably need whatever tech develops in the mean time to help Circular justification of technological development is the reason unfriendly AGI is a threat in the f
466.
by walleeee 6y ago
speculative fever driven in part by intuition that currency is being debased?
467.
by walleeee 6y ago
Thanks!
468.
by walleeee 6y ago
How does this work, if you can spare a hand-wavy explanation? If the perceived time between events varies by observer, and if for every observer there is a precise threshold at which events become casually disjoint, naively I would imagine
469.
by walleeee 6y ago
IANA physicist or neuroscientist but I think one open question is whether mechanistic causality is sufficient to describe/model living beings, or even non-life. See Wheeler and Feynman's interpretation of electrodynamics for insta
470.
by walleeee 6y ago
you'd think by 2021 we'd have wised up to this tired fever dream
471.
by walleeee 6y ago
By "keeping Europe free" you must mean maintaining the primacy of the United States and her allies in the planetary trade federation?
472.
by walleeee 6y ago
Philip McShane wrote something similar "...a thing is defined by... systematizations of coincidental aggregates of the properties of lower things [and] the emergence of the systematic from the non-systematic"
473.
by walleeee 6y ago
> It sounds like they're saying that if someone is committed to a mental institution, rehabilitation could be a bad idea because it's just as likely that they're not fit for society. I'm saying if we make unexamined a
474.
by walleeee 6y ago
Article isn't, but parent comment is. With respect, I didn't strawman anyone.
475.
by walleeee 6y ago
That the social body might learn to accommodate some ways of being which defy initial expectations, rather than altering individuals to conform to rigid norms. When certain behaviors are thought worthy of institutionalization, it may reflec
476.
by walleeee 6y ago
It's not that avoiding an arrest or other police involvement isn't an improvement. It is. But it's easy to assume anyone committed to a psychiatric facility ought to be rehabilitated to society. Often you could just as justif
477.
by walleeee 6y ago
I dont think your view is naive. I think people read statements like yours naively. Hedge funds reliably do what they are designed to do, as you say: funnel capital into the hands of people who will dump it back into multinational economic
478.
by walleeee 6y ago
I'm sorry for assuming your meaning, I didn't realize you meant to refer only to software. I do agree that we could benefit from re-localizing. I'd prefer it not come wrapped in a new cold war, though. We have all the motivat
479.
by walleeee 6y ago
I was with you for the first few paragraphs. But whichever system of ethics compels us to "catch up to China's manufacturing technology and output" and "smother the 'enemy' in an avalanche of production" (
480.
by walleeee 6y ago
It's a good point. Many of the more popular subs are transparently astroturfed, and more than a few mods are bought and paid for. Reddit is already neck deep in information warfare. I'd be surprised if what you describe isn't

More ›