Templexious
Stuck in time
User ID: 2308
Templexious
3mo ago
Catastrophizing over a long-ass shot like this is unwarranted. This SCOTUS reform bullshit is less likely to happen than Trump being elected for a second term. Additionally, this catastrophozing has the exact same crunch as the people who cried over Jan 6th, calling the participants traitors.
Therefore, until we have a text that actually states how it would work, there is really no point in debating exactly what would happen.
Additionally, if I was so concerned about this, the solution would simply be to make sure to win and get justices in that will give rulings I want on a consistent basis. That would necessarily require making sure my party continues to get elected.
Similar to how the "fix" to project 2025 for Democrats, should it succeed, is to make sure you win the follow-up elections.
Templexious
3mo ago
Mild aside: whenever it's discussed if Google is censoring things, an old litmus test was to search for the documentary Demographic Winter.
It's a pretty banal HBD documentary all in all. They even stay out of discussing IQ! However, for a while there the entire thing had gone down the "we're definitely not censoring anything" memoryhole. It's only been un-search-holed in the last year or so.
Templexious
3mo ago
There was a similar pro-abortion style of ad that was run back during the McCain v Obama era, so at the very least, it's not a new style of Ad.
Templexious
4mo ago
Does it matter?
Trump flops on all the hard questions in a way that asks whether or not there is anything deeper in there than making the liberals cry. Of course there is, and of course he understands but he and every supporter of his don't actually care about that.
Getting dragged into the harder questions is a sign of weakness.
Templexious
4mo ago
fabricating
Not having read your article, and in isolation of whether or not this is actually a "problem", per se, this seems like a bad-faith article. If you go back and read old lesswrong articles and their comments, you will find now-known neoreactionaries like hanson posting on lesswrong, including roko.
Additionally, breitbart in 2016: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
In your defense, even lesswrong somewhat disagreed
Templexious
8mo ago
It's usually not very strict, otherwise you would hear about things like subway's breads being classified as cake from the US instead of just the EU.
Templexious
8mo ago
I have nothing but applause for your constitution in being able to endure everything between those polar points.
Templexious
8mo ago
I've yet to see the mods knock an actually-good two-to-three paragraph post, so I'm dubious this is a report on the reality of the moderation's behaviors.
Seems self-evident that it's more difficult to moderate six+ paragraphs with five sentences each on each comment.
Templexious
8mo ago
In an unrelated note, since there's no better places to discuss this, instituting a more strict character count per comment would bring a breath of fresh air to the thread.
Reading the motte has become a dull slog, and many of these top-level comments consist of word soup with BIG TITLES pretending to say something meaningful without corresponding substance.
Templexious
10mo ago
I find the need for "steelmanning" of trump to be silly.
He's running for president. People like him for what he stands for. They can vote for whoever they want, it's a republic with tinges of democracy.
I will be voting Democrat because I don't like Russia/Putin, but that's the extent of my reasoning for my presidential picks. I understand and see why people like Trump, and to say that he's being unduly attacked because he doesn't "fit in" to the establishment is not a lie.
They're very clearly trying to pin him to the wall for things that would be relatively minor scandals with a few fees and a public apology and then it would be over with any other ex-president. It's really satisfying to see how hard the establishment strains at gnats to pin him to the wall, when we know that they've gotten used to letting people like epstein go around as an open secret.
Templexious
10mo ago
This thought occurred after Christmas this year during a few activities where family members wanted to play a game, so they pulled up a YouTube video to demonstrate how a thing is done, and it was incredibly gross.
99% of modern kids will never have the ability to be forgotten- parents post their pictures online when they're not able to give consent, including embarrassing and compromised photos. This includes YouTube videos of moms putting their daughters in compromised positions and posting them on the video site.
Such videos are easy to find- the mom often speaks, and their prepubescent girls do a seemingly-innocuous activity. Those girls will always have those videos on a stranger's hard drive at best, or at worst, end up as data used for ai generation.
I'll note that I don't have a proposed solution to this. The laws on child-porn already exist, but this content skirts the edge of acceptability. The girls are usually 10-13, and doing an innocuous activity- like playing pattycake or ring around the rosie, usually in mostly-acceptable clothing.
When you stumble on one such video, you can tell what I'm talking about. It's the camera angles.
For this reason, I come to TheMotte- have you seen the videos I'm talking about? What do you think about them, and how would you evaluate whether or not such content is okay to post online?
If you have kids, do you worry that there's some random perusing Instagram or willing to train ai on them?
After seeing these things, I can't get it out of my head, nor can I come up with a reasonable solution.
Templexious
10mo ago
The thing is that the romney campaign didn't reciprocate with those punches, and instead held their tongues.
Templexious
10mo ago
That mitt romney article reminds me of one from the bush campaign where they claimed that the John Kerry kids were awful and rude and used slurs and a bunch of other bullshit.
His kids at the time were two-four years old. People will write literally anything during campaign years, so long as it makes the other side look bad.
Templexious
11mo ago
Tangentially to this, toward the end of the bush years, there were media reports on msnbc and cnn that basically questioned whether or not bin laden even existed.
No one else remembers that, but good to know people still believe that he existed.
Templexious
11mo ago
The trick to competition in my experience is building up an internal mythos for why one loses while absorbing other intuitions for how to actually win.
Every person I know who wins a lot that also loses a lot has this ability to shunt the pain of losses into the ether. They may also just know exactly why they lost and what they do to correct it.
Still, I find myself in a similar boat as you. I avoid public competitions, as I am not very competitive, though for me it's not the pain of losing- there's no personal investment when losing. But if I think I have a chance, I'll give it a shot.
Templexious
11mo ago
oh it's this guy again
My top 5 candidates to be techno-king in 20-30 years:
- Sam Altman
- Elon Musk
- John Carmack
- Demis hassabis
- Xi
Unless Sam exits ai development, he is the most likely candidate for the future techno-king in the US.
Xi is obvious- all corps in china are extensions of the state, so whatever ai is built will be built with oversight from The Party officials, and whatever Xi wants.
Templexious
11mo ago
The mid-late 90s were a pretty excellent time period to be alive.
I'd skip vietnam and nix nixon. I certainly wouldn't complain about going to see Queen in concert or buying in on the 90s tech sector.
Templexious
11mo ago
I was wondering if anyone would call me out on the use of whence. Congrats! 🧐
Templexious
11mo ago
To whence shall we roll back the clock?
We joke about the glory years, the years when Things Were Better, which just so happen to coincide with people's younger years. You get me to say what years I would like to roll back the clock to and live, I would probably say somewhere around the 90s-late 00s. I am an outlier, as far as I know. Virtually no one I know would like to roll back the clock to spitting distance from two thousand and fucking-eight.
Back when the most lefty thing on the internet was a girl telling people that she didn't appreciate being propositioned for sex on an elevator. Pre-tiktok, the era of old forums. The iphone still a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye. The era when Google and Microsoft weren't the undisputed emperors of your lives.
Actually, forget that. We all know there's nowhere to roll back to, we can only roll forward, embracing the aesthetics of what we imagined the past to be. I, for one, am glad that I am not eternally inundated with "WOW DAE PARENTS ARE BOOORIIINNG????" ads. You can pull my 70-lb tub of legos accumulated over more than twenty years out of my cold, dead hands, NSA. And it's probably true that in the next 30-40 years that democracy and republicanism-as-we-know it will no longer exist.
No seriously, whence come the true techno-king? Who are the contenders for the first immortal god-king of humanity. I joke in the phrasing, but it is not exactly an incorrect joke now, is it? It is very probable that we will have the first actual trillionaire human in the next thirty years. The first effectively-emperors of mankind.
The only reason companies don't do governance of humans is that they're shit at it, actually, and Democracy is surprisingly efficient over long timescales. But assume for the sake of thought experiment, that the singularity happens, and we have our first crowned god-emperor of humanity thanks to the creation of AGI. Who are our contenders?
Personally, I should expect them to:
- Be in AI or AGI development already or in the next 2-3 years
- Be incredibly wealthy already
- Likely be from a company currently valued at least in the tens of millions of dollars
As such, pick your top 5 most likely individuals to become humanity's first true techno-kings, and why. Do you have any you think are sleepers?
I'll hold back my top-fivers for a couple days or so.
Templexious
11mo ago
SJ-ers will continue to exist so long as there are those from oppressed groups who become intellectuals and want to teach their stories.
Will they lose, long-term? Perhaps if they don't openly side with the State of Israel.
Templexious
11mo ago
teachers just don't actually care if our children isn't learning.
Which is why involved parents who will go out of their way to ensure their kids can rotate shapes and will bribe admissions officers to get into the best school, those kids have better outcomes long-term. Because teacher has 30-odd kids to deal with and the odds that your kid gets the attention they need to excel is basically 1/30 even if you factor out teacher biases.
With teacher biases the odds are worse. Parents who realize that teachers don't give a fuck and are able/willing to make up for that fact will have obviously better outcomes. Of course, if you have dumb parents then the kids will probably be dumb too. But instilling a work ethic in kids by way of parent involvement is a quality all its own. No wonder the high-iq middle class have less kids, if they "get" this fact- the amount of energy and resources required to help one kid get out into a top-10 college and therefore career is insane.
Templexious
11mo ago
It's not a particularly surprising reaction, no.
Nor is the rolling over and acting offended that people reacted to IH the way that was entirely expected and predictable?
"Ah yes, these edgy jokes we used caused the expected reaction. Now, we will be offended on IH's behalf toward the people who took the bait."
It would be bad bait if no one took it, no?
Templexious
11mo ago
this individual
"this individual"-ing Nick Bostrom is a hilarious way of wiping away his work in promoting effective altruism and longtermism.
That is, in fact, the premise of both democracy and republicanism. Until some other form of governance appears, it is what the USA operates under.
More options
Context Copy link