nand
2yr ago
We can see this in cases like Kyrie Irving mentioned below, and Kanye West, where if anyone says anything bordering on Jew-illuminati conspiracy theory, they are pounced on and labeled as fascist and far right.
Major nit: There's a difference between saying something "bordering on Jew-illuminati conspiracy theory" and saying something that can, without much interpretative effort, be understood as literally meaning "I want to systematically kill Jewish people".
Using Kanye West's outbursts as an example to prove a point about how you can't criticize Jews without being deplatformed is at least as misrepresentative of reality as claiming you're being victimized by somebody's (unwitting) use of the 'OK Sign' hand gesture.
nand
2yr ago
Isn't that what NeoVim did? Some group of devs were unsatisfied with the BDFL, they the project, and now it's basically the main fork. I don't think that at the time it was forked they were majority (tho I'm not sure).
NeoVim didn't kick out everybody's commit access and steal the name and website of the original 'vim' project when they decided to fork.
WDYM by 'deplatformed'?
Brought to awareness that the thing is no longer what it used to be and that everybody should switch over to whatever new repo they were forced to use as a result of the original one being taken over.
nand
2yr ago
Just like introversion-extroversion or sex drive, gender is a spectral trait which follows a Gaussian distribution: occupying the extremes is rare, most people fall somewhere in the middle.
I could not disagree with this more. Gender absolutely does not follow a Gaussian distribution. By this claim, you would have a hard time determining what gender most people are. And yet I can assure you, that barring cherry-picked exceptional cases, the median human will have an exceptionally easy time sorting photographs of people into "male" and "female". What gender is, is a bimodal distribution.
Incidentally, the same criticism applies to your forced normalization of all of the other labels you are criticizing - for people's usages of terms like 'ambivert' to to make sense, it is sufficient that they believe its a bimodal distribution, not a discrete one. (And this goes doubly for sexual attraction, where 'bisexual' is definitely not the majority category)
Finally, knowing that somebody is average in a trait is useful information, because it collapses your uncertainty about that person. It's not the same thing as describing an elephant as gray.
A far more symmetric view: Leftist inclined people want to create racial equality of outcomes, and they therefore boost whichever kinds of rationalizations they can come up with for the achievability and justification of such equality. Rightist inclined people want to preserve racial inequality of outcomes, and they therefore boost whichever kinds of rationalizations they can come up with for the unachievability of equality and justification of inequality.
Don't you arrive at these desires merely by adopting meritocracy as a core value? (In addition to different beliefs on the object-level question of whether or not racial differences in outcomes are primarily the organic results of natural differences in group abilities or primarily the result of societal oppression)
Are you suggesting that meritocracy is fundamentally a dishonest viewpoint? Or are you suggesting that most proponents of blank slatism vs HBD are not arguing as a result of an innate desire to see people justly compensation for their work? (If so, why? Isn't it just as infuriating to see people being unfairly elevated/oppressed from either point of view?)
nand
2yr ago
Female sexuality is about being defensive, elusive and making men chase after them - to catch the best, most dedicated fish in the sea. Female porn actresses are depicted somewhere along the spectrum from 'sexually aggressive' to 'total slut'.
nand
2yr ago
This post seems confused by its own argument. You setup an equivalence between a negative externality of X and a positive externality of not-X, which is logically sound. You then ask why we're treating X as a negative externality instead of treating not-X as negative externality. This does not follow from your reasoning.
Indeed, the logical equivalence of "X is a negative externality with respect to not-X baseline" and "not-X is a positive externality with respect to the X baseline", means that which framing you choose to do the calculation in, cannot possibly alter the result. Minimizing f(x) and maximizing -f(x) gives you the same value of x.
What gets you fiercely activated, beyond what you can rationally justify?
Unusually, for not being CW at all: Proprietary software, especially the type that takes control away from the user and keeps getting more bloated and awful with every version. And in particular, being forced to use it.
Probably because it's, at least in part, an attack on my core identity - a hacker, computer programmer and free software advocate. But also, because it's one of the most blatant forms of authoritarian oppression: Not being able to do something with my hardware that I know it's capable of drives me furious, because there's no technical reason for it. It's 100% due to a quasi-psychopathic desire by big tech companies to maintain an iron stranglehold on their users' rights.
nand
2yr ago
Note: the guy who kicked the other developers out was rather inactive as far as actual development of the project goes, so that does make this a bit of a pointless move. In open source, power is awarded to those who do. Merely holding the keys does not make you the supreme ruler. If you kick out the majority developers of a project, they will fork the project and leave you holding an empty bag. What this kid tried to do is take over a project he's not a majority, or even substantial, contributor to. That is a faux pas and a no-go in open source, and the project should rightfully be "deplatformed" (*) because of it.
Not because of his political opinions.
(*) But, please, call a duck a duck. A hostile take-over is bad enough, why does the media have to distort and lie and frame this as "malware"??
nand
2yr ago
In my own experience, there is a vast disconnect between perceived consensus on the "public internet" and perceived consensus in real life and private correspondence with people. (*) I think that what has happened, at least in part, is an internal schism caused by big tech's stranglehold on public spaces drowning out all dissenting opinions from the public face of the internet.
What you're left with is an illusion of progressive consensus, but the reality, to me, seems more like people are just moving on from publicly blogging their political opinions.
(*) Heavy disclaimer: I live in Germany, but primarily engage with the English-speaking Internet. So this rift is amplified by cultural differences between the US and Germany.
nand
2yr ago
The characterization of the New Right as being liberals but with added elite skepticism makes me wonder to what extent this demographic actually overlaps strongly with the supposedly far-left pro-communist anti-institutional "all cops are bastards" camp. Or, to put it more bluntly, I'm wondering what exactly about this 'New Right' demographic is even still right.
If the belief is essentially that free trade cannot work because 'checks and balances' don't exist, resulting only in centralization of power, corruption and impression - haven't you just made the case for the anti-capitalist / anti-market left?
nand
2yr ago
Imagine if a democrat arrested 20 republicans for possessing an illegal firearm because they misunderstood an ATF statute and the ATF webpage said that particular modification / accessory was legal. And when Rs got mad about it, a democrat said "think on the meta level - from a pure signaling standpoint - if we want to prevent people from knowingly committing gun crimes, we have to arrest people who commit gun crimes, even if they possess a defense.".
This argument makes complete sense to me. Otherwise, you get exactly the implication that people will start intentionally violating gun laws because they know that "I thought it was allowed" is a valid legal defense.
nand
2yr ago
This kind of proportional retaliation would likely reduce the amount of "cheating" in the game because people would be less likely to cheat in the first place if they received some sort of punishment for it.
My own experience and reading on this subject leads me to believe that this is an absurdly wrong conclusion. Retaliation tends to be disproportional, because people tend to underestimate harm caused to the other in doing so. This is the reason behind the common saying, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".
nand
2yr ago
Many of these people also seem to think that social norms themselves are arbitrary vagaries of specific historical circumstances, rather than being adaptive practices which were selected for through the process of survival-of-the-fittest. This view fails to account for many commonalities among civilisations, one of the clear ones being religion (one of the favourite woke whipping horses out there). Not only is religion completely ubiquitous in pre-modern society, you can generally see a shift from animist-type religions in tribal societies to the more developed and organised forms of religion mostly predominant in societies that achieve "civilisation" status. This clearly seems to suggest that religious dictates don't simply arbitrarily drop out of the sky - it indicates that some form of selection was occurring and that societies that adopted certain religions had an advantage. Even more than this, these "successful" religions that are common in civilisations share quite a few similarities in their dictates - selflessness, self-discipline, abstinence, etc.
This paragraph confuses natural selection of ideas with natural selection of the hosts those ideas apply to. It is entirely consistent with the idea of religion as a hyper-effective brain parasite / mind virus that spreads more easily in well-connected and organized societies.
nand
2yr ago
I'm with you. I've been locked into the technophagus practically since birth, and everything in that piece has resonated strongly with my own waning interest in the Internet. The past year-or-two for me has been demarcated by an increasing desire to withdraw from online interactions and disillusion with big platforms inevitably turning to shit. Hell, even Google Search these days feels like a cheap advertising gimmick - nowadays, if I have a question I need answered, I use the Reddit site search instead of google.. because that way I find responses written by humans instead of soulless, mindless auto-generated "blog posts".
In a way, it is my understanding of technology that precisely is what makes it so awful for me. Because I know what technology is capable of. And instead, I see it used for.... this. Another skinner box designed to make humans miserable. I'm sick of it and want it to die, for the real life to be revived.
nand
2yr ago
I think the most interesting question is whether or not Shutterstock (et al.) is itself capable of deploying AI-based stock art generators. Why fear new technology displacing your business model, rather than simply adopting that new technology and using it to further cement your market position?
With their existing portfolio, surely they have the easiest means of all to train an AI on their own corpus, no? Or is access to AI-capable hardware and the necessary know-how that gatekept?
I think the interesting nuance comes to considering the possibility of both of these things being true:
-
Social reinforcement is a real effect, significant enough to be worth counteracting, and disproportionately hurts women.
-
The upper end of the merit distribution naturally skews male, due to biological differences alone.
In such a world, which I have strong reason to believe we occupy, the meritocratic solution would be to enforce male/female quotas that are tuned to counteract 1 without negating 2. In other words, we want to find the correct ratio p of men:women that cancels out the evaporative cooling of women in tech but without lowering the resulting quality of tech workers as a result. (In other words, we want a policy that correctly identifies and counteracts any time a more skilled woman is usurped by a less skilled man because of gender bias in hiring/exposure, but without ever hiring a less skilled woman to replace a more skilled man just to fulfill a ratio)
The combination of my two assumptions leads to a correct ratio that's somewhere in between 0.5 and 1.0. For example, say that 90% of tech workers are currently male, then perhaps a '20% women in tech' quota would be net beneficial for overall merit. I think we would arrive somewhere fruitful if the discussion was about where on this scale that figure lies. But this is a discussion that can't happen, because insinuating p>0.5 is extremely taboo in the blue tribe, while insinuating that quotas could be beneficial at all is taboo in the red tribe.
Yet I've never met anyone who seems to have achieved quantifiable improvements in their lives due to it, or said that they've been "fixed" or "cured" from whatever was wrong with them and don't need it anymore.
I feel like I satisfy these criteria and I'm willing to discuss this with you in further detail, if you'd like. I can quantify improvements on the following metrics post-therapy:
-
Self-assessment of life satisfaction and mood (measured daily).
-
Number of friends, number of minutes spent engaging in meaningful social connection (by daily self-assessment).
-
Sleep schedule consistency (measured by, for example, number of appointments missed due to sleep issues).
-
Income and work schedule consistency (measured by my working hours, which I log).
As well as a similar number of harder-to-quantify but very personally noticeable improvements to my quality of life, such as my excitement and eagerness to try out new things, my decrease in aversion to social risk, and the fact that I can now stand in front of a mirror and admire my appearance instead of hating it. I attribute my decision to go to a therapeutic rehab for 3-4 months, as well as the ~2 years of follow-up talk therapy, as the major causal factors in arriving at these results. And while "cure" is a strong word, I previously satisfied the diagnostic criteria of three major mental illnesses (major depression, personality disorder, and social anxiety), and post-therapy I no longer satisfy the diagnostic criteria of any of them.
Specific factors that helped me:
-
Being thrown into an unfamiliar social environment and having no other option but to learn to engage with the people around me and engage in unfamiliar hobbies (since I had no PC during all of this).
-
Receiving encouragement (and social pressure) to leave my comfort zone and overcome fears.
-
Better understanding my own emotions, wants and needs, through talk therapy and critical analysis of my behavior.
-
Providing exposure to, practice on and familiarization with alternative behavioral strategies to deal with negative emotions.
-
Literally just having a parental surrogate figure that cares about your well-being and is not themselves mentally disordered in the same genetically inherited ways you are.
But I will go out and say that therapy is not an abstract thing - the most effective interventions are also the most visceral and concrete. I would broadly speaking characterize it as the process of reprogramming my emotional reactions to certain stimuli. No amount of thinking will do that, you have to experience the world in a different way, to arrive at a different result.
I will also, quite frankly, propose that the success rate of therapy depends more on the individual receiving it than the practitioner, and that a better outcome is generally correlated with other good stabilizing factors - so ironically, those most in need of therapy are those least equipped to benefit from it.
nand
2yr ago
For somebody mostly ignorant of politics: How come Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea was largely ignored by the west, or at the very least, did not receive such widespread popular culture support (e.g. Ukrainian flags everywhere)?
nand
2yr ago
Do the relationships between crime and economic equality get any more interesting when you break crime down into subtypes? Somehow, my naive imagination is that poverty would primarily motivate material theft, while wealth primarily enables psychopathic crimes (murder, rape, etc.).
nand
2yr ago
Baltic Pipe is also scheduled to start operating at the start of October, delivering gas from Norway to Poland (via Denmark). So the destruction of Nord Stream doesn't hurt Poland much and puts them into a good position to sell gas to other countries.
nand
2yr ago
What other options are there for a nontrivial correlation? One where both are causally connected to a common third factor?
nand
2yr ago
It's not clear for example how to distinguish real, fundamental correlations from mere happenstance.
You mean, how to distinguish correlation from causation? Isn't this exactly the domain of the scientific/empirical method, and its associated toolbag of trickery?
Am I right in coming away with the conclusion that your post seems to be arguing about two very different and almost opposite things?
-
An AI's general willingness to combine things in unrealistic ways. This is the ability required to produce images of things not heavily represented in the training set, such as female presidents.
-
An AI's ability to understand and ignore "spam" in its training data (e.g. popular depictions that mislead from "reality"), such as Marvel depictions of Norse mythological figures or faux 80s illustrations.
In a sense, these are directly opposite goals because 1 requires painting something unrealistic, and 2 requires ignoring/penalizing unrealistic outputs. I suppose the common ground is that an AI should default to painting logical/coherent/realistic things unless prompted otherwise. But even this desire is loaded - first of all, the way these AIs are trained, I think, sets them up to hopelessly fail at any measure of how "realistic" their outputs are - we humans have the advantage of our perception of reality being a distinguished input, and also by access to vastly more information crucial to understanding concepts such as causality and physical intuition. It's also clear to us whether we're seeing something real or seeing something fictional, by virtue of that fictional thing always being a subset of the reality we perceive (e.g. a still image on a display, rather than something we're seeing with our naked eyes directly).
It's not altruism if I'm getting something in return (or have already gotten something in return and am therefore indebted).
More options
Context Copy link