@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

I'm basically a single-issue voter on this issue of identity.

Fair enough, there are issues that move me this way too. But I think it's important to recognize there are valid reasons why either side won't drop everything to get your support. It's a very limited set of circumstances where a one-issue voter gets to exercise influence.

This wing can actually win primaries/elections in very left-leaning areas; for example, they are going to be running San Francisco as of the recent election

I don't think I heard of this. Who won, and what are they planning to do for meritocracy?

On the other hand, the anti-hereditarian meritocrats on the Republican party, like Ramaswamy, seem to get slaughtered in primaries.

And then they get appointed to high positions by people who win them... what's the problem?

I'll give a line: better for the country than the median citizen in some measure combining ability to assimilate and ability to contribute.

I don't think it's the ability to assimilate that's the problem, because that's actually pretty high for most people. The problem is that there is next to no pressure to assimilate anymore, the very idea of putting such pressure is seen as deplorable, and higher immigration will necessarily lower that pressure even more.

Given how dominant US culture and values are globally, it shouldn't be very hard to find a huge number of people making this cut.

It would still imply mass deportations, wouldn't it?

So he's scandalous and unqualified? Again, why is everyone losing their shit?

I have to say that the thought of letting Kamala have her win being the more prudent choice long-term did occur to me.

Really? "Fail to support" transition, or "try to block their kid from accessing the relevant medical treatments"?

Without doubt, the former. There's a high profile case of a sex-trafficked teenager that the authorities refused to release to her grandparents, because they used her birth name, which resulted in her being sex-trafficked again.

This is without going into the question of whether there are any relevant medical treatments to begin with, or if it's just glorified cosmetic surgery/intervention.

There is written record of the Secretary for Health demanding that the WPATH removes minimum age requirements from their Standards of Care so that the Biden administration can better pursue their goals related to trans issues. WPATH did comply, in violation of their own procedures of how the SOC is supposed to be determined.

If we were talking about media broadly, I'd agree, but I think the broadest category that can be used fairly for the purposes of this conversation is "satirical publications". Is the any cathedral satire that matters at this point?

Even the trans community has been somewhat bothered by the "pronouns in bio/email" stuff,

So howcome they did absolutely nothing about it for all these years? Why did they participate in dogpiles on anyone who did voice their concern (including the occasional trans person, funnily enough)?

The bigger issue is that the barrier to entry is so low publishing online now that theonion.com doesn't hold much value.

So why did the Babylon Bee manage to overtake them in terms of relevancy?

Well, like I said, I don't know enough about any of these people to even make a vibes-based guess as to whether you or I am right, but if nothing else the grudge mechanics you're proposing are complicated, and what I put forward is simple.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding my position. "Guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" isn't about "tough publicly, cordial privately" (or vice versa as you say later). When guys fight, it's a real fight. It's just that afterwards they can still be friends / work together, and arguably the fight helps to facilitate that to begin with.

It might have happened to intra-party disputes between different factions afterwards, but it's definitely not the modal outcome when dealing with Trump.

Well, we are talking about intra-party disputes, that leaves people in the position where after settling who's top dog, they still have to deal with the fact that they're on the same team. Also didn't Vance was oppose him originally and now he's his VP?

As a non-American I don't feel very confident in my impression of these intra-party struggles for power, but somehow the way you talk about it feels off. You don't feel like "guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" applies here?

I think the Democrats unleashed the most massive wave of bot and shill astroturfing that they ever have before onto Reddit in the last year or so.

I swear even we got hit with splash damage on this one. I even got a response to that post telling me how I'm wrong and how all the responder's friends are posting coconut memes, which he promptly deleted possibly realizing it made even less sense in the context of the conversation than to comment I was complaining about.

That was never an issue until they started cracking down on non-progressive subs. In my opinion these sort of structural "it was inevitable" explanations tend to be wrong.

Can someone explain to me why is everyone freaking out about this guy? I pick up a fair amount of American politics by osmosis in places like this, and the name does sound familiar, but I have no idea why everybody is losing their damn mind.

I'm actually a big fan of Tulsi after seeing her several times on Rogan

Interesting, I kind of had the opposite experience. I liked her as along as I only saw her in clips or short interviews, but on Rogan she came off as pandering a lot.

Not enough to turn me off from her, but I have to say I grew cautious.

if I believed the ideals side was going to win, I would immediately become a die-hard Trump supporter.

That's interesting. So what are the things you love about Trump so much that would make you a die-hard supporter, if his (or the Republicans') stance on immigration wasn't an issue?

I believe that if you actually hold the ideals-based notion of identity, then the Matt Yglesias/Noah Smith-wing of the Democratic party is the right political home for you.

A single tweet / substack in the wake of a lost election doesn't make for a good argument that an ideals-based identity person belongs in that wing. Particularly when one of these is written by mr. "I want wrong right-wing ideas to be discredited, while wrong left-wing ideas gain power".

I also don't understand why Trump(ist)'s stance on immigration is enough to turn you off from otherwise die-hard support, but you are apparently able to tolerate the Democrat's constant abuse of the very notion of meritocracy.

I always thought that support for legal, skilled immigration was the best litmus test for this divide---if you are on the ideals side, then it is a no-brainer win-win and if you're on the blood-and-soil side, then it is very dangerous.

I don't think it's dangerous (let alone very), I even agree it's a clear win, given the benefits and the small schale of that particular form of immigration, but if you can't think of literally any risk or downside, I'd say you lack imagination.

That aside, I'd say most people are skeptical of skilled immigration, because they see it as a foot-in-the door for mass immigration (no one said how high the skills have to be to count as "skilled").

No, and making it so is likely to result in a wave of exit from banks and into cash-stuffed mattresses.

It's standard procedure in Europe. It actually saved me money when someone managed to clone my wife's card.

You would reject any procedure they have and any amount of work they do that ostensibly furthers that procedure in non-political cases as just covering it up.

The stated procedure they have doesn't enter the picture here, so I'm not even rejecting it. I'm saying they'll try to come up with any excuse to remove that photo.

I expect someone who's seeking the truth to attempt to falsify their belief first, especially if they're well aware the test they proposed is onerous. What you're doing, on the other hand, is the equivalent of a flat earther who smugly offers their interlocutor to go to space and see for themselves.

What are you talking about? I'm offering to do it myself, I just don't want to go through the process you describe as onerous yourself, if it will be met with an after-the-fact justification, and a refusal to change one's mind.

I'm putting the onus on you because I believe my case is more plausible

I'm not talking about the onus of going through the work, I'm talking about the accusation that I'm not willing to change my mind. I'm the one that put forward a test, you and sarker are coming up with excuses for why it won't necessary prove anything, if it comes out the way I predict.

When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras

And by that logic I think that an organization that doesn't have a healthy balance of opinion in positions of influence will use their rules in a biased way.

and if you're convinced a malicious agent has replaced your random sample with 100% zebras

Who told you the sample was ever random?

You're missing the point. The point is that there's nothing to distinguish this photo from the 150 other photos deleted in those ten minutes except that you feel strongly about this image. There's no indication at all that the process has been abused.

I'm not missing the point, it's just not relevant to my views. There's a lot of work in an org like Wikipedia including deletions, so these other 150 deletions don't move the needle either way.

There's no indication that the process was abused, because you cannot access the licensing info of the image at the time it was deleted anymore.

At this point, it seems it is you who has the unfalsifiable belief,

I literally proposed a test that would falsify it.

And I'm assuming producing another log of innocuous-looking deletions for that same "made-up" procedural reason will not change your mind either?

Literally why would it? Also, why are you criticizing me for not changing my mind, when I'm proposing a test that would falsify my belief, and you're just looking for excuses to never change yours?

Do you believe organisations are unlikely to have procedural reasons that don't serve political agendas contrary to yours?

It's not about "contrary to mine", and yes I believe it's rare for organizations to neutrally apply their procedural rules, unless they have a healthy balance of worldviews, political agendas, and values, in their decision-making positions.

It would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not interested if it turns out a prompt deletion for another made up procedural reason wouldn't change anyone's mind.

New: There are many agents. All these agents have goals and sets of possible actions. Some of those agents have physical bodies. But the actions and interactions of the agents only account for their physical bodies in the broadest sense, i.e., usually just location. Those physical bodies that are very close to the player's location are actually rendered and physically simulated, but the abstract behavior of the agents has priority over the physics simulation, and they can interact with non-rendered, non-physically-simulated agents just fine.

Yeah, makes sense, that's how I like think about my projects as well, though back to the engine question, I get the feeling that Unity / Godot is often an obstacle to it. It's like they really want you to think agent == scene node, and decoupling the game world from the scene / physical simulation often feels like a pain in the ass. Is this an issue you ran into, or did you come up with some cool way around that (alternatively - can't relate with the issue at all)?

How did your similar situation turn out?

Much like yours. It was a step down financially but that was unavoidable, for all the misery the old job was causing me, it paid quite well. Otherwise nothing but upsides - better management, colleagues I get along with better, a more up-to-date tech stack (which was a big relief, I felt I was in the danger of becoming a fossil with the old one). I also relate suddenly having energy after years of dragging myself.

Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell

What? No, I asked my question because it's relevant to my claim, which is - if the Brooks photo was deleted and had licensing information, nobody could tell.

How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?

Yes. The way to get a position of influence in an organization is to actually do gruntwork.

Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.

How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?

Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.

How is that evidence of anything?

If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.

You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures. We're claiming that the photo was removed because the Wikipedia editors don't want it to be published on Wikipedia, and are using any procedural rule as an excuse. A way to disprove my belief would be to reupload the photo and address the issues from the previous removal. What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?

By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.

Maybe? This doesn't explicitly say anything about what could have happened to the image.