FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311
FeepingCreature
5d ago
It's not a tell. For instance, it's so common in, say, German, that even German Wikipedia does it. "The Ukraine is a state..."
FeepingCreature
5d ago
Personally, I mostly read forum quests and fanfic on my phone. I don't think there's anything special about books in particular.
It's so weird to me, because it's like a minimum coup. Not even a minimum viable coup, because it clearly isn't. It's not doing your enemy a small injury, it's like slapping your enemy in the face with the broad of your sword, then running away. Are you trying to start shit or not? It's like they themselves didn't know if they wanted to start shit or not. Like a child's drawing of a coup: all the parts are there, the march, the violence, the fraudulent scheme, but they're just executed with zero skill or coherence, basically at random. I think that's why it causes so much division. It's like your neighboring country rolls a tank over the border, but it's made of cardboard, plops out one sad shell and falls apart. Now you don't even know if you're supposed to be at war.
It's a coup done by a person who just doesn't know how to do one. So do you let it count?
FeepingCreature
5d ago
The only thing I ever saw Apple commenting on is the first one. Did they say it's technically unfeasible to build a surveilable phone anywhere? Cause that's dumb.
FeepingCreature
6d ago
The disagreement is: having made a phone that works this way, it is now technically infeasible to search it. It was not technically infeasible to build the phone another way, but Apple also never claimed that. After all, they did this deliberately, as a sales pitch.
FeepingCreature
15d ago
FeepingCreature
1mo ago
I just had this comment in the "The Motte needs your help" report queue. Obviously it's in the wrong spot, but also I can't flag it as "this needs a moderator to move it maybe" because the report queue doesn't show context, and on its own this is a perfectly normal comment. Bit of a weakness, idk.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I mean, that kind of sounds like you're saying it's provably not a 1:1 simulation of a human brain.
What you're describing is measurable evidence of new physics. Every physicist in the world would want to buy you a beer.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I'd say do at least 3.5 Sonnet and whichever model of o1 is out by then. Sonnet is the best "classical" code llm (imo!), though you may have to prompt it pretty hard to get it to try a oneshot. But o1 is designed for oneshots and is the only one that may be a paradigm shift in ai design. It's been worse than sonnet at some tasks, but this may play to its strengths. Also if adding a Python interpreter, implore the models to add timeouts. :)
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I mean, I'm not proposing a model but an empirical observation. If the Republican machine could replicate trump to replace him they would have, considering how much they dislike him.
I don't think that "charisma matters in politics" is news. Plenty of American presidents have had mass appeal, just for instance Obama. But the Dems cannot produce Obamas anymore than the Reps can produce Trumps. If that's solved -- sure, but there's no reason to me to think that Trump moves us closer to solving it. American politics has had centuries to codify charisma and hasn't managed to do more than come across it in the wild.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
No because Trump is an outlier. Trump-style populism relies on his charisma; it's not replicable at scale. Not even Trump could build a machine that produces Trumps; and his party is not interested in doing so at any rate.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I think it's vibe-based. Culture doesn't have enough room for more than one bit, or more than one direction on the lever. Because trans is left and anti-trans is right, moving the lever towards trans moves it in a leftist direction (pro women), and moving the lever against trans moves it in a rightist direction (against child grooming).
From that perspective, "I am against trans participation in women's sports but for 18+ transition and cautiously in favor of puberty blockers given parental approval or a three month waiting period or idk" would simply have too many bits; no serious politician would dedicate that much cultural mindspace to the topic. "Against trans to protect women's sports" is already relatively nuanced. (Yes, the mind weeps, but that's how it is.)
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
To a first approximation, liberal = trans because "my body, my choice". "Bad for society, thus should be prevented" is usually the illiberal take.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Compromise: Move MLK day to October and put the election on it. I'm sure the Reverend would be fine with it. Republicans are happy because it doesn't create a new holiday and also it reduces the stature given to a black guy, Democrats are happy because black people and minorities get time off to vote and also it ties MLK even more tightly into the civic mythos, plus they can put pictures of him up in the voting room.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
National election day!
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Well sure, but it's still wrong to say that baptists are pro-smuggling.
I think the way to rescue this is to hold that a person has privileged insight into their own gender but can still be mistaken.
The existence of post-transition trans people who are by their account much less in conflict with their gender perception demonstrates that that there is sometimes privileged insight that is true, or at least beneficial to assume. The existence of trans people who detransition doesn't disprove the existence of those people, it merely establishes that the correlation isn't perfect.
I believe none of those are the reasons, though they're close.
for depopulation purposes
It's not "in order to depopulate", it's "because we don't hold population as a virtue, it fails to apply as an argument to prevent this".
to make money in the medical industry
You think the average leftist cares about making big medical companies money?
to give more power for government to intrude in the family
I think this is a general mistake with attributing intentions to other people. Leftists don't think trans is good because it lets them strengthen the government's intrusion, they think the government being able to intrude is good because it lets them support trans kids.
If X has the result of "Y", while you think "anti-Y", it's common to say "they're doing X to support Y." But those disagreements are very often a question of relative ranking of X and Y; it's usually "they think X is more important than Y, so that they will accept an anti-Y result to bolster X". Compare pro-life vs anti-life, pro-choice vs anti-choice.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
If I find examples of people who do appear to be claiming that men can be women per se, would you change your mind? For example, people who insist that someone who was universally regarded as a man ten years ago is in the present a woman
But this is arguing that "universal regard" is the definition of gender. Those sorts of assumptions are exactly what is being disagreed with. That's why there's "assigned gender at birth".
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
"Let's think step by step," the angel said dubiously.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Okay yes but they don't actually visit us. Even if this is all true, the people seeing demons in this worldline are still crazy.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Good point!
But then the point of "satanic religions of old", for a Christian, would be equivalent to saying "religions of old", surely? Because there is only one God, so every non-judaic religion is either fraudulent or satanic. Or is it "the set of religions considered demon-worshipping by the OT Israelites"?
Or is the argument more something like "LGBT has become like Molechism"?
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Ah, that's fair. So for instance the TPM could detect a patched bios by polling the actual eeprom for a checksum? Or just signature check the whole thing. It wouldn't even have to use the BIOS to talk to the hardware in the first place. The BIOS just has to go "okay, you have the hardware, I won't touch the bus for the next x ms."
I guess that's pretty convincing in theory. (Do I trust that it's actually working like that? Is it even on?)
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
No I don't think so.
It sounds like you're not saying "we know they did" but "well they would have, wouldn't they." IMO we actually cannot safely assume that at all.
However, nonetheless, even when you think somebody's position implies something you shouldn't say that they believe that thing. I think that's in the rules? And humans don't really work that way to start with.
More options
Context Copy link