Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
10hr ago
Some busses have a door in the front and a door in the middle.
Yes, that's how they work here: the front door is for getting on, the middle for getting off.
No real way to monitor those ones.
Our bus drivers seem to do it just fine. A big mirror that lets them see down the aisle and pretty much the whole bus interior.
Not like the driver is going to notice you walking in throughout the rear door and stop his route to demand you leave.
That's exactly what they do.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
For busses, you could require everyone enter through the front door
This isn't standard? It's how it works on the buses here in Anchorage: enter at the front door, pay at the little podium next to the driver, take your seat, and exit out the door further back (about midway down the bus) at your stop. No tickets, nobody sneaking on, or past the driver, only one employee on the bus — the driver.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2d ago
Yes, and? What do you want here?
Suppose indeed that people were angry at Gruber; that there was less anger directed at healthcare CEO, and more at policy architects like this guy. So what? What would it accomplish? Gruber, or someone like him, would still be making these policies. You complain that "will be writing the next "healthcare reform", whatever it is, and one after that - or somebody who is exactly like him," but even if you got your way and people were "directing equal hate to their local congress-critter", that would still be true.
It is the nature of Congress, as it currently exists, to do this sort of thing. And Congress, like most institutions these days, cannot be fixed, only replaced. You don't want Gruber, "or somebody who is exactly like him" writing the next "healthcare reform"? Then start working to overthrow the US government, because that's the only way it happens. Anything else is just pointless venting.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2d ago
How are you going to get people to accept that things will suck for them forever?
How did we get most people throughout human history to accept it? It's not like your average peasant was entirely unaware of how much better off the local baron was than him, and yet they accepted that this was just the way the world is. Every single Chinese revolution until the late 19th century took "the system" as basically fixed and was merely about changing who sat in the big seat.
The issue is utopianism. You get the difference between "we can make things better" and "we can make things perfect," yes? The position that human ingenuity can be applied to solve a number of problems, and the position that human ingenuity can be applied to solve all our problems? The difference between "we could do more to help the poor" and "we could eliminate poverty"?
Again, it's the idea that every problem has a solution, that we can intelligently design ever-better institutions (superior to any locally-evolved ones, no matter how time-tested), that we can build Heaven upon Earth — this is what I'm against. You seem to think that this view is the natural, default human perspective. I'm with Sowell in pointing out that, historically, it is anything but the norm. You may have absorbed the Utopian Vision so thoroughly that you can't readily conceive people not doing so, but even now in "the Information Age," the Tragic Vision still has its adherents.
I get that irrational persistence and sunk cost fallacy are pretty common human failings, but I've got to hope that after enough failures to immanentize the eschaton, enough failures of liberalism and "enlightenment" thought, enough disasters (or maybe just one disaster of sufficient severity) from attempts to achieve a "perfect system" that gets all the incentives aligned just right… that even the most irrationally persistent will call it quits and accept the limits of human capacity.
(Whether or not this either necessitates or gives rise to a return to religion — given the association of the Tragic Vision with traditional religion, and the difficulty of living with both it and atheism — is another question.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that "computer science" is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology—the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "what is". Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "how to".
Harold "Hal" Abelson, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
Or then there's this piece (from one B. Jacobs) back in 2005: ""Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering"
If the software discipline is "science", then the scientific process should be available to settle arguments. But it seems to fail. Some suggest that instead it is "engineering", not "science". But engineering is nothing more than applied science. For example, in engineering, bridge designs are tested against reality in the longer run. Even in the short run, bridge models can be tested in environments that simulate reality. Simulations are a short-cut to reality, but still bound to reality if we want them to be useful. If a bridge eventually fails, and the failure is not a construction or materials flaw, then what is left is the engineering of the bridge to blame. An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. The engineer is married to the laws whether he/she wants to be or not.
But we don't have this in software designs for the most part. We have the requirements, such as what the input and output looks like and the run-time constraints which dictate the maximum time a given operation is allowed to take. But there is much in-between these that is elusive to objective metrics.
…
So, if physical engineering is really science ("applied science" to be more exact), but software design does not follow the same pattern, then what is software design? Perhaps it is math. Math is not inherently bound to the physical world. Some do contentiously argue that it is bound because it may not necessarily be valid in hypothetical or real alternative universe(s) that have rules stranger than we can envision, but for practical purposes we can generally consider it independent of the known laws of physics, nature, biology, etc.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
I don't particularly have one for much of anything cultural or political except "wait for our Augustus." But just because I, personally, don't have a specific plan for accomplishing the triumph of the Tragic Vision over the Utopian Vision, doesn't mean it can't happen.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
Do you think scientific advances will stop?
Eventually, yes.
We have barely scratched the surface of what is possible.
How do you know that? How do you know we haven't already accomplished ~90% of what's possible?
In 10,000 years, assuming we don’t collapse our society and technology continues to progress
I, for one, think these are both big, unsupported conjectures.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
Then Europe wasn't constantly "tearing itself apart in holy wars," but only doing so part of the time.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
2. knows that the intent of the alleged misinfo was to deceive or bullshit.
AIUI, this is the characteristic of disinformation. From dictionary.com "“Misinformation” vs. “Disinformation”: Get Informed On The Difference":
Misinformation is “false information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead.” Put a flag in the second half of this definition; it will be important later.
The spread of misinformation happens often in our everyday lives. We human beings—news flash—are not perfect. We can all make mistakes. We all forget things. We mishear or misremember details. We tell our friends something we heard on TV or saw on social media that wasn’t really true. If you are spreading around information that is wrong but you don’t know it is wrong, then you are, well, technically, spreading misinformation.
…
Disinformation means “false information, as about a country’s military strength or plans, disseminated by a government or intelligence agency in a hostile act of tactical political subversion.” It is also used more generally to mean “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.”
So, disinformation is misinformation that is knowingly (intentionally) spread. Our first definition of this word gives one major reason why a person or group might want to spread wrong information, but there are many other nefarious motivations lurking behind the creation of disinformation.
My personal favorite in this area, though, is "malinformation."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
So, the smaller post-Reformation conflicts leading up to the Thirty Years War?
What about the many, many centuries before the Reformation? Europe wasn't exactly "tearing itself apart in holy wars" then, now was it? It still looks to me like Europe has spent a minority of the last couple millennia in "holy wars" — certainly not enough time to deserve the term "constantly."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
Would you be opposed to this in your city/town
Yes, because I live in Anchorage, Alaska; the length variation in the solar day across the year is just too big. It's also why DST is kind of pointless for us in the summer. For example, the official sunrise and sunset times (AKST) for Dec. 15 this year are 10:00 AM and 3:40 PM — If you work a 9-5 job, you don't see the sun. Go half a year to June 15, and with DST you've got dawn at 4:21 AM and sunset at 11:40 PM — without DST, these would be 3:21 AM and 10:40 PM.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
Wouldn't the counter-argument be that, prior to the invention of liberalism, Europe was constantly tearing itself apart in holy wars?
Other than the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), what other "holy wars" do you have in mind, such that "Europe was constantly tearing itself apart"?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
Till now I have not actually seen any lefties consider that maybe the unwashed normie masses had actually listened to what the left had been saying nonstop since 2016, and that the message was rejected on its own merits.
I have been seeing this in online circles — by people who consider anyone who understands and knowingly rejects the democrat party message is a Fascist in need of reeducation:
Maybe its the way i speak and act but like i dont think tumblr liberals realize that re education camps, or rehabilitation of you want a less scary word is like the least extreme way to deal with nazis, fascist and right wingers. As ive said before, if you cant reeducate fascists and right wingers then you have to get rid of them. Now there are many ways to get rid of facists and roght wingers but i would advocate for firing squad because if you let them live then they will become a problem again.
If you cant convince facists and right wingers to not be Fascists and right wingers, then you got to deal with them in other more permanant ways. Think on that.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
Where do you think the word "Roma" came from?
From Sanskrit or a related Indo-Aryan language, possibly from an earlier Dravidian or Munda borrowing. From here:
From Romani roma, plural of rom (“man, husband, Romani man”). The latter probably comes from Sanskrit डोम्ब (ḍomba, “lower-caste person working as a wandering musician”), which may have been borrowed from a Dravidian language.[1] Folk etymology pointed to a legend that the ethnic group were an exiled people from Imperial times.
And from "Romani:"
From Romani romani, feminine form of romano (“of or pertaining to the Roma”), from rom (“man”). See also Roma.[1]
Not related to Romanian.
See also the related Domari and Lomavren languages, spoken by the Dom and Lom ethnic groups (the former "scattered across the Middle East and North Africa," and the latter in the Caucasus), with "Dom" and "Lom" both cognate to Romani "Rrom/Řom/Rom" (spelling systems vary) — it comes down to how the respective languages changed the Indo-Aryan retroflex stops.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
Here, I find myself linking Wikipedia's page on "antitheatricality" and noting that it wasn't just the Romans, but a perennial bit of wisdom "as old as theater itself." And, while Wikipedia limits itself to the West, I recall periods of Chinese history with similar attitudes, as well as some interesting bits in the history of kabuki in Japan.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
Not sure what's up with the bizarre censorship of God to make it look like a swear word.
This is, IME, a habit of many Jews, and also some varieties of Protestant Christians, in line with the "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" commandment.
(And a quick check confirms that Benioff is indeed Jewish.)
But, in reply to your general point, I'd hold that this is all just "vibes," and vibes aren't terribly meaningful. I'll point primarily to Keith Edwards's "Delay, Leak, Disobey: How to Counter Trump 2.0 from Within," but also Yarvin's three pieces "It's easy from here," "It's not easy from here," and "Chevron and the professional Republicans," on why Trump's second term will not be much more successful than his first.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
If you want you can try Bostromian Simulation Argument big-tent syncretism
Even more ridiculous than classical theism, and more useless than classical Deism, which, IIRC, a number of 18-19th century thinkers pointed out was a sort of "gateway religion" to outright atheism (because a god who doesn't answer prayers might as well not exist).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government
It would be more responsive for you, as someone returning to a childhood faith. But if you were an atheist who'd grown up atheist, would it still be "more responsive"?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
I hope I don't need to point out that this is a hard sell to anyone in the information age.
I'd say you do, actually. Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions? Because what I'm describing is part of Sowell's "Tragic Vision," which he holds as defining the right, in contrast to the left's "Utopian Vision." And even now, 37 years after that book was published, there are still plenty of people who hold the Tragic Vision.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.
And I'm saying I've never seen this, ever.
I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense.
I didn't think you were. I'm saying that in my experience, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever need to even socially defend your gun ownership to anyone, and there's no need to ever be "a closeted gun owner," because here in Alaska, nobody is going to give you shit for owning a gun.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
9d ago
Sorry about that; trying to get Youtube links out of my browser history (Safari) can be a pain at times, with the way the queue ends up working. Hopefully fixed this time. Thanks for pointing it out.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
9d ago
People facing up to the reality of what that means would look a lot more radical than people whining about whores on X. Historically speaking.
What sort of historical examples do you have in mind here?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
9d ago
But we will never stop dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
Why not? Were people in the Middle Ages doing so? Or did they hold that
The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high or lowly, And ordered their estate.
And that the world is fallen, we are barred from Eden by the sin of Adam, the poor we will always have with us, and perfection will only be in the Kingdom to come?
People have always worked to make things a little better, but they accepted that some things are just facts of life, that cannot be changed, only endured. Only with the "Enlightenment" did the West really start trying to immanentize the eschaton.
Why can't we reverse this? Why can't we get back to people accepting that parts of life, including the government from time to time, are simply going to suck, and that's just how it will always be?
Much as with the medieval era, it seems like a total civilizational collapse back into barbarism and pre-industrial technology would probably do the trick, so why not something less extreme?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
9d ago
What is it like to be a bat? Why unique to brains at all? What is it like to be a tree?
Impossible to know. We cannot ever know the experience of being any sort of thing other than our particular selves.
Connect two or more "conscious" information systems
The only known "conscious" information systems are human minds, and there's no real way to "connect" them — except imperfect channels like language — such as to form a "resulting system."
And none of this undermines materialism or points to the existence of any kind of higher power, nor any kind of afterlife.
I think that's probably the key. Bus size and usage here in Anchorage is a minuscule fraction of that in large cities.
More options
Context Copy link