MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
if, based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could conclude that the person was not free to leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter due to law enforcement’s display of authority or use of physical force. For purposes of this analysis, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington.
I mean this basically would include most encounters with the police that the party didn’t initiate themselves. An armed policeman with a gun is by nature a show of authority. His uniform is his authority, and most people would be properly intimidated by a person authorized to use force, in the uniform that symbolizes his ability to use force, walking up and asking questions about my activities. As such, especially if you throw in the race angle, most police encounters are seizures simply because a person knows better than to walk away from a guy with arresting authority and carrying a weapon.
That and the group is entirely composed of military aged men of high physical fitness. If you look at most political action groups left or right, the ages vary and the fitness level is pretty low. These guys could easily change clothing and march onto a military base easily
I think it’s the decline of two important things: expected church attendance and the single income family. Church was the dominant reason why things didn’t get scheduled on Sunday. But the two income family reduced the ability of families to participate in activities on other days — neither parent would be home before 5-6pm and by the time meals, homework and showers/baths happen, it’s time to go to bed.
I don’t think it’s about losing adherents per se. But I don’t think you can simply rip a practice out of a different religion and incorporate it into Christianity without it changing Christianity. It comes with baggage, philosophical, religious, and cultural. I don’t think you could adopt the Kabbalah out of Judaism without some integration of ideas. It even happens between denominations to some degree. I don’t think you could pray the Roman Catholic Missal without it having some impact on your Christian beliefs.
Rights versus safety is despite the Ben Franklin quote, not necessarily opposed. There are two ways that I can take your freedom. The first one is the government arresting people arbitrarily and framing them for crimes. The other is allowing crime to go on and get bad enough that ordinary citizens are unable to go about their lives. The second becomes even worse if the government also limits how a citizen can protect himself from crime. When that happens, the citizens are deprived of their rights just as surely as if the government had taken them.
Some rot more slowly than others. Monarchy has worked in England I’d argue from the fairly early Anglo Saxons to Victorian times. That’s a thousand years. 300 years seems to be a hard limit of democracy.
The big issue with democracy is that it by design tends to replace feedback loops with fake feedback. The common game is to insulate the mechanisms where the real decisions are made (the administrative state) from both electoral processes and from the consequences of bad decisions and failures. The steering wheel and the sensors are both disconnected and the driver has been told over and over to want to go wherever the car happens to be going at the time.
If you’re careful about it and actually enforce the rules, sure. If I can join the church and get away with bending or breaking the rules and codes, then no. That’s kinda what happened with the episcopal church. They officially have Cramer’s 24 articles. They just ignored them until there were more rainbows than crosses.
Im gonna blow your mind.
These kinds of things — they are, in a sense, the important stuff. Caring for yourself and your family, and figuring out how best to go about it is how real life works. Real life is jobs, chores, family and home care and so on. The ordinary stuff is where you care for yourself and the people and community you actually care about. Fake shit is the global type issues like international politics where you have no control over, culture war stuff that’s happening far away from you, AI stuff being done in companies you can’t control. They’re interesting to talk about, sure, but you have no control over it, and obsessing about it is not going to make your actual life better.
Im a woman, and a lot of older female conversations are about cooking, cleaning, husbands, and child care. Why? Because this is what adult female humans do with their time. Adult male humans deal with mechanical issues of the home and car, the yard, kids’ sports, and careers. And so you talk to your older relatives, you’ll get that, weather, and sports. Weather and sports are fun ways to connect to people around you, and the rest is real life.
To be honest, especially as I get older, I find the people who obsess over politics, culture war, fandoms, and so on to be the boring ones. They obsess over things like that mostly because their real life isn’t all that great. They don’t care about normal everyday life because they have nothing in their real life worth caring about. They don’t care about cooking because they live alone in an apartment and have no boyfriend or girlfriend to cook for. They don’t care about their career because they work in basement level restaurant or retail and thus they don’t have a career to care about. Their car is a junker, why worry about upkeep? In order to have time to obsess about politics and culture and viral trends and fandoms, you have to have the kind of life only a Redditor could love. They don’t have anything going on in their real life, so they can sit around and argue about non-real-life stuff.
The issue I have specifically with modern meditation is that the older version of this was explicitly Christian and often was meditation on Christian themes and often explicitly the Bible. David might have meditated, but he was mediating on the Bible, not just sitting there with an open mind watching his thoughts. The Orthdox use the Jesus Prayer, again not just sitting and breathing. Some older traditions use the psalms. The idea that Lectio Divino is the same thing as New Age mantras is not only silly but potentially dangerous syncretism.
Part of my issue with modern Buddhist and New Age meditation is that it makes a distinction in practice between the spirit and body. You are supposed to be training your spirit to be better often by ignoring the outside world. It thus tends to, in practice, lead to a kind of mind body dualism (which Buddhist philosophy accepts) where the practitioner identifies with his spirit as “his real self” and his body as a shell.
I think part of the infighting is the need for a strong immunity from entryism. Leftist groups don’t need to worry as much as rightist groups simply because it’s a constant issue. Rightists are the outgroup and they need to be sure that everyone in the group is there for the cause and not undermining the cause. A conservative Christian church needs to worry about liberals entering and changing the way the group views themselves.
I mean I think there are a lot of philosophical reasons that we ended up here. First of all, you have the blank slate growth mindset memes that say that any kid no matter what can do literally anything and that the only failure is to stop trying. This isn’t true, or at least not as true as we would like it to be. You might get a 10% improvement if you’re putting in more work, but you can’t take a kid who in tenth grade can’t do basic algebra and send him through the MIT engineering program. A second related problem is that equality of outcomes is expected, and thus any attempt to put kids into skill appropriate classes is going to be illegally discrimination if the classes are not absolutely equal numbers of all races and genders in each track.
Im mostly a pragmatist in most social issues. The best solutions are the ones that work for the majority of people involved. And I don’t really care to pretend that blank slate is real when most of my practical experiences with real people across all kinds of contexts show that humans are individuals practically from birth. There are vast differences in skills, interests, personality, and diligence that affect what a kid is capable of doing from birth. What’s funny to me is that we are fine with this in sports. We don’t take the kids who throw dirt clods in the outfield and shunt them through select high skill baseball as if they are simply one outstanding coach away from a future million dollar contract with the Yankees. They have tryouts, and you either make the team or you don’t, and everyone understands it and accepts it.
As far as schools becoming everything a kid needs, I think this is a problem of the government taking on those roles. It happens all the time. The government starts offering a service and other groups that had been doing those things tend to step back until the government is the only game in town. Why would you take the time to teach your kids to be good citizens when the government will do it for you? Why would a church or community group do that when they can outsource it to government?
I appreciate the idea, but I don’t think you can take the corpus of Islam and remove the hostility simply because it’s central to the foundation of the religion. Muhammad was a warlord. He conquered a territory which he then governed. There are lots of references in the Quran and Hadith to wars, rules of war, and historical battles. This is unavoidable, much like it’s unavoidable to say that Moses and Joshua had wars of conquest in the Torah. What changed for Judaism was that it had later revelations that encouraged peace and getting along with other tribes. Unless you have a second Quran, you’re stuck with the book and traditions you have written.
I’m not convinced it’s actually possible for AI to be “kept in a box”. For one thing, if you want it to be useful as anything other than a cute toy, it needs to be able to gather data and use that data. That means giving it access to other systems. And those systems may well have back door access to other programs that have access to either critical intranet or the general internet, probably both. In order to have that not be a problem, in order for the box to be foolproof, it needs to be physically air gapped from any other system. If you have an open socket, it’s not a foolproof box. But, having your AI agent on a single computer not connected to any other computer in your system and make sure that no one enters the AI room with any sort of device they can connect to the computer, you have no reason to use it. If I want AI to test code, I have to let it read the code. Am I going to write thousands of lines of code in a notebook, carry it to the clean room and spend two weeks copying it into the secure AI box? It would slow the process enough that it would not be worth it.
Furthermore, there are always bad actors and stupid people. The stupid won’t see any problem with releasing AI when the AI tells them it’s a nice AI and it will give that person a reward of some sort (or stop blackmailing them, which AI did in a safety test). Or maybe the Houthis who are putting AI into missiles and then asking Claude why the missile missed the target will give AI access to real world things beyond missiles. Or a criminal gang will. Or a rogue state. There are plenty of reasons why a human might purposely break containment, and it’s out for good.
I’m firmly in favor of tracking kids. I think kids should be in some form of education through 18. I just don’t think trying to force everyone through a pre-college curriculum is good for lower achieving students. No amount of IEP and extra help is going to take a kid who reads like a first grader in ninth grade and make him capable of doing even community college work. I’m not even convinced you could take a kid with the reading comprehension and math skills of a sixth grader and get him ready for university level work. The bad thing, for them about trying to do such a thing is that basically you set his expectations far above what he can actually accomplish, so anything less than university and white collar work is beneath him, but you also fail him by not teaching him the kinds of skills he can actually use to support himself. Teach a kid with a sixth grade reading comprehension and math skills to do trade work, and he can not only support himself, but if he works hard enough might even own his own business. A kid with worse skills might not be able to do that, but maybe could do simple line cooking or manual labor or something. But if those kids try to compete with high achieving students who can leverage those skills, they’ll just end up unemployed and probably unemployable.
At the same time, those kids will slow down the education of the rest of the class to their level. The kid who’s disruptive because he doesn’t understand the concept of algebra is holding back other kids. Having the teacher repeat lessons because he can’t do them slows the class down as well. The smart kids end up never developing their skills to their potential because they’re stuck in classes with kids much dumber and the curriculum is geared to them.
It doesn’t work that way. If you’re in a public school, ADA accommodations are legally required, IED plans and extra teachers for the low performing kids are required. There’s no requirement for AP to even be offered. So when the budget cuts come, they cut the non-required elective programs, and AP and advanced courses.
Two problems:
1). Unless you can do this enforced at a global level, it doesn’t matter (the same is true of the safety stuff btw) because if it’s illegal to use AI to do say translation work in the USA, then the cheap solution is to simply use AI to translate things in Canada. The humans are still going to lose those jobs, you just get the added bonus of not only losing the human paychecks, but the taxes paid by the company as well. Or if we’re talking safety, we slow down and limit our technology for safety. China is under no such obligation and will happily lap the safety conscious American companies and dominate AI.
Second problem being that effectively, there is no way to enforce such a treaty even if we make it. The UN is a glorified debate society. To the degree it allows wars or issues arrest warrants, it’s basically dependent on member countries to go along. It doesn’t have a military or police force, it doesn’t have a police force. It doesn’t have the legal right to put boots on the ground to arrest war criminals and instead must depend on the countries to volunteer to abide by the treaty or resolution. If Trump were accused of war crimes and was supposed to stand trial in The Hague, so what? The USA is not going to agree to let a sitting president be tried in an international criminal court, no military is going to volunteer for the suicide mission of trying to defeat the USA military to arrest him. And other treaties are on the same honor system. We have the Paris Treaty on Climate Change, right. But countries face no actual penalties for not keeping to their carbon limits. That’s the same international body that’s supposed to police the AI treaties when countries have trillions on the line if they win the race. The first to create a human level AGI has enormous power and influence and can basically print money. It’s worth trillions, conservatively in GDP. It means military superiority. No one is going to even pretend to follow the treaty if it even exists. The only use of that treaty is to try to trick other countries into slowing down so you can catch up or pull ahead.
I think, as I said above, or at least hinted at, is that fast travel really only becomes attractive if getting there is basically a throwaway experience. If I can walk between towns and nothing happens and I experience no problems or dangers, it’s not worth spending time doing that. Skyrim’s slow travel was boring mostly because unless you made a point of going out and looking for something, you really never had to do much more than smack some wolves or low level bandits along the way. And the environment itself wasn’t a danger. You didn have to eat, your weapons didn’t dull or break, and even in blizzard conditions, you didn’t freeze to death (there is a survival mod that adds such things). Making meaningless travel take longer doesn’t help. Making it difficult enough that you’re glad you finally made it to safety helps a lot.
Or the Louisiana purchase. St, Louis never voted to leave France.
I don’t think full independence of an island in a strategic location and that has oil and other minerals is possible. The island is too sparsely populated to make a real go at defending itself. Autonomy within another country is probably the best option for them
I like the concept, but I think probably the best way to make it work is to make the environment itself dangerous.
Just for an example, imagine a space based game. You’d have to worry about resources, crew morale, environmental hazards like radiation or asteroids or gravity wells or something. And that makes the “boring” bits a lot more intriguing. You don’t just travel, you have to plan the trip knowing that if you run out of food you starve, if you break a critical system, you can’t make it, and if you run out of laser battery power or missiles even a weak attack will kill you. So now, instead of traveling being just a boring trip to the exciting parts, traveling is the excitement and planets and star bases feel like oases in a dangerous world.
It depends on the group. I would think that it’s a lot more difficult with a group like Hamas with a stated goal of ethnic cleansing Jews out of the Levant than it is with some other groups. Once a group decides that killing and genocide are on the table, it’s hard to say “they have a point about X” while not condoning all the negative things they want to do. The Autobahn might be a good idea, but it’s kinda hard to simply take that one good thing and ignore the terrible things that are more central to the group. Saying I supposed that group that wants to kill the Jews but I don’t want to kill the Jews is incoherent. I take it more as “I am fine with that outcome, but I don’t want to be caught saying it.”
If you have three independent AIs do the numbers and they match, they’re likely right.
Also one of the things the Yuddites seem incapable of doing is figuring out that superintelligence does not mean omnipotence. The laws of physics will still work and some other too. Internet is trivial to be made more secure, not every infrastructure needs to be connected to it anyway.
Anti-Yuddites Don’t understand that you don’t need omnipotence to do major damage here. AI is probably, if so directed, perfectly capable of taking down the banking system. And since few people have cash on hand and governments could not produce that much cash quickly, you could easily destroy the global economy that way. Most people would be ruined if their bank accounts were deleted, and im not convinced hard copies of that data even exist. You can probably easily assume the same of most infrastructure which isn’t up to 2000s standards of two factors or even strong passwords. So you could direct AI to take out power grids, water treatment plants, nuclear power plants, and traffic lights. That doesn’t require even much intelligence, but it certainly doesn’t require omnipotence either.
I think most of that is on purpose. The German (or in some cases Dutch) is deliberate as if you train the dog in English, the perp could easily give commands in English that the dog would understand. As a bonus it can’t be confused by other English chatter. The dog isn’t listening for the English words “no” “down” or “stop”, all of which a person might shout when a dog is running at them ready to attack. They listen for “nein” and “fuss”. And having the dog trained to obey anyone on scene is likewise a problem as you don’t want crooks to be able to simply Duolingo some German and tell your police dog to go away.
- Prev
- Next

Is it really back door sumptuary laws to say “maybe dont wear gang colors in a gang area”? I don’t think that’s reasonable, as really wearing gang colors and flashing gang signs in the wrong area is a good way to get pegged by a rival gang. This isn’t hard stuff either. Dont carry a colored hanky in your pocket, don’t wear a doo rag, and dont do weird signs with your hands.
That doesn’t seem like a high bar. You can still dress pretty badly
More options
Context Copy link