VoxelVexillologist
πΊπΈ Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
The actual Palestinian problem is supposed to be solved the same way South African Apartheid ended
Everyone points to South Africa, but I see at least three ways this sort of conflict has been (mostly) resolved in living memory without wholesale genocide:
- South Africa, as is the usual comparison. Make what you will of its present trajectory.
- Northern Ireland: roughly "maybe this just isn't worth continuing to fight over", and a gradual cooling without singular grand political steps
- India-Pakistan (and Bangladesh): two religiously-defined states also delineated in the shadow of WWII, and bloody Partition into two primarily Muslim regions with a non-Muslim majority nation between. Those two didn't get along and fought a civil war between them, so now there are three states. Two of them are nuclear armed, and they've had a shooting war within the last couple years, but it seems relatively stable for now.
Honestly, the South Africa option seems the least likely to me, and was at least partially predicated on an obvious demographic disparity.
Did enough people just solipsistically decide it was bad through application of pure reason with no external input?
Doesn't the story of modern abolitionism originate with Quakers and Enlightenment thinkers in the Anglosphere? Much of that was within a century of 1861. My understanding is that effectively yeschad.jpg, with the ideas becoming popular and ultimately (OG classical) liberal societies decided that yes, it was in fact worth fighting for.
The number of examples of high-profile CEOs that have (seemingly) been faithful to long-term wives has really taken a dive in recent years. Who is on that list now, even? I had to search, but Phil Knight and Charles Koch seem to fit the description, maybe.
It used to look like Bezos and Gates were on that list, but they both divorced around the same time. Huang used to be one too.
Yeah, they're pretty essential. So is a car in most places in the US.
I am modestly surprised there isn't a market for the "dorm experience" for non-undergrads. It's probably just price (and the sorts of discrimination that isn't legal elsewhere) that makes a "post-college dorm" with the usual college amenities like fancy gyms and meal plans something that isn't commercially available anywhere I've looked.
It keeps tunneling on stuff that doesn't really matter or not really core to the goal of the project. Loses the forest for the trees so to speak.
My observation has been that "good code" looks very much the same for AI as it does for human developers, and that there is a sort of ideal fractal context or documentation where you should be able to start from no knowledge of the codebase, find the relevant sections for your query, and understand the adjacent bits well enough to confidently make changes within a limited context window. Somewhat amusingly, it wants to write too many comments (especially in places that will go out of date), where humans often have left not enough.
Also it's much better at reading code than writing it, IME.
The "minimum living standard" has demonstrably gone up: my grandmother grew up in a house without running water or electricity. Nowadays people seem to think cell phones and climate control are a human right. I'm not even arguing against that, but the hedonic treadmill there is very real.
I didn't say it was a good plan, but it seemed more practical than something top-down. Largely because it's what is already happening.
That said, we should, like, build more housing. NIMBYism is one of the obvious pitfalls there.
IMO the only viable way to something like UBI is an automation-driven supply-side surplus. Not that "everything will be free", but that marginal costs can be pushed close enough to zero that nobody really cares about counting pennies to worry about it. Salt and pepper used to be substances worth fighting wars over, but now they largely sit in unused shakers on restaurant tables or packets thrown away with disposable silverware. Sugar is similar.
Which isn't to say there won't be disruption, but the existing mechanisms suffice to allocate nicer apartments and such in the short term. Something like 50% of the population worked in agriculture as recently as last century, but the tractor didn't lead to mass unemployment, nor is basically anyone dying of starvation in the West for inaccessibility of calories.
My personal take is that human touches are going to become status symbols: they already are, to an extent ("bespoke", "hand-crafted", the marketing image of "organic"), but there is certainly a lot of room to spend more there. And I'm not sure that's all bad: people in my life really seem to appreciate when I give them things I've made myself. There seems to be meaning to be had there, I think.
if Anthropic takes over the light cone
In a world in which corporate governance really starts to look like actual governance, "a controlling interest is vested in Amodei's descendants" is not the most, uh, enlightened, form of government I'd choose to opt for. If you squint, maybe USD starts looking like shares of America, Inc (tm): we can issue bonds or mint new shares to cover debts, for example, but we don't weight votes by dollars.
Why wouldn't RSI be possible? Of course it's possible.
I'm not convinced, myself. We don't have good measurements of "intelligence", but I won't be surprised if it ends up bounded, at least tractably, sub-linearly in both compute and training data size. Like, I don't think a TV remote ever has a chance of omniscience. If your assumption is "FOOM" as in AI takeover on a very short (months or less) timescale as in Terminator or The Matrix, I have my doubts. If the claim is instead "GDP line go up at faster exponential rate", then that sounds more plausible. The robotics folks seem to be making some serious progress, but actually building an army of robots with human-level dexterity seems like it'll take the next few decades at best.
Us meaty hominids have been doing RSI via "evolution by natural selection" thing for the last million or so years: demonstrably results have been exponential, but not some "goes to infinity at T=0" singularity.
"What are you doing Step-Prince Albert?"
It'd be hilarious kulturkampf if they just replaced "stepsister" with "cousin" for the UK market. IIRC the legality and ethics of cousin marriage are a live UK issue at the moment along the expected ethnic lines.
Hydrocarbons were necessary for the spacefaring part,
If the Earth were too much bigger (or the atmosphere more dense), known chemical fuels wouldn't be sufficient to make it out of the gravity well. I'm not sure we'd be eager to use atomics for that even if it was the only real choice.
So you want me to press "cooperate" on the prisoner's dilemma despite a clear history of one side hitting "defect" basically as hard as possible (see: Biden)?
I'm not even particularly opposed to reasonable levels of immigration and I think that sounds dumb. What could you feasibly offer in return? Mandatory nationwide E-Verify? Residency checks for all hotel and apartment rentals (this is common in other Western nations)? Also bank accounts and transfers? Massive taxes on remittances? Not that any of those are on the table, but would that be enough, even?
I'd believe this more if many of the same voices pushing "expand" hadn't also been loudly anti-natalist for as long as I can remember. Not saying those are connected, but they certainly look suspicious together.
I think what the US needs is a grand bargain between the two sides on immigration: one big amnesty for those already there, obviously excluding criminals, etc., and to then start actually enforcing the law.
Reagan did this in 1986. We've fallen short on "actually enforcing the law" since then: do you think another round will go any better?
What is it that makes a state legitimate?
You're not going to like this, but in practice it's that other states see it as legitimate. You're trying to engage in prescriptivism, but in practice international statecraft is essentially descriptivist. "Is Israel a legitimate state?" Is like trying to ask "Is 'color' spelled properly?". Answers will vary ('colour'), but I doubt you'll get many takers for 'kolor' or 'culur'. If it were a purely technical definition, Sealand and sovereign citizens might count. They don't.
And this doesn't require any sort of commutativity: we recognize Argentina, but not it's claim to the Falklands. Or Ireland, but not it's claim to Belfast. Or that functionally two states claim to be "China", both with advanced economies. States just are, and definitions are an attempt to describe what is, not what ought to be.
China would be more interesting, IMO. There are two obvious states that claim the be the rightful rulers of the mainland. We give billions of dollars of military aid to China (Taiwan), but also recognize China (Beijing) in terms of foreign relations. Neither is willing to consider a "two state solution" formally, either.
I think his public history with negative-sum investment antics against whole nations seems relevant (see Black Wednesday and others). I can see how it makes skepticism of his political donations easier: does someone willing to tank the UK economy for personal gain really have citizens' best interests at heart? Gates is at least easier to find earnest.
Although largely I think he's just the best foil to Koch, and now Musk.
I have known at least a few women in my life that have described expectations of revealing women's clothing as at least akin to "oppressive" (I don't recall whether that specific word was used). "I don't want to go swimming because everyone will look at me weirdly if I don't wear almost nothing like everyone else" is not, like, a completely unsympathetic take to me, at least. Conformity in any direction is plausibly coercive.
What if Mike Pence or Mitt Romney or J.D. Vance of Pete Hegseth showed up like this?
I'm sure Romney's wife was also wearing magic underwear, and I don't recall that ever being a serious debate during his campaign. I could maybe see some devout Christian woman who is also a public figure (ACB? She doesn't seem that trad) adopting the traditional-in-some-communities practice of veiling, but I doubt that it'd make much of a splash. For better or worse, I don't know that the leftists are wrong that concern about headscarves is from seeing Muslims (especially observant ones) as an outgroup. IMO face covering is a bit different, but I'd bet there are hair covering styles that wouldn't seem too out of place in everyday life from the Christian traditions: hats are pretty normalized.
he was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.
I always found this one funny because it mostly glosses over the reason Jefferson owned a Quran: he, too, as president was sending troops across oceans two centuries ago to fight Muslims engaging in what would today probably be called "terrorism".
Maybe in two centuries someone will find that George W. owned one too, and try to use that similarly.
Sure, but the fact that we "eventually swallowed all that capacity" in network infrastructure doesn't mean Cisco was a good investment in 2000.
I've heard it's quite a valuable relationship at the federal level, but I was wondering if that still holds for a less-active legislature like the Texas system. Do Texas legislators make those calls when they're not in session, and do the civil servants feel responsible to pick up?
- Prev
- Next

Isn't the quote from (the first) Star Wars movie?
More options
Context Copy link