@jeffcliff @Natanahel A lot of people who were with you a year and a half ago are losing patience.
We've done something. We've been doing something equivalent to WWII for the past year and a half. We've done things that are absolutely absurd, that two years ago everyone would have said would never be done because they're absurd and dangerous and will have long term negative effects including economic collapse.
It can't go on forever, and they can't keep moving the goalposts forever, or even the true believers will eventually lose faith.
We've done something. We've been doing something equivalent to WWII for the past year and a half. We've done things that are absolutely absurd, that two years ago everyone would have said would never be done because they're absurd and dangerous and will have long term negative effects including economic collapse.
It can't go on forever, and they can't keep moving the goalposts forever, or even the true believers will eventually lose faith.
@coolboymew tbf, loafers are the only type of shoe that make any sense.
Big conspiracy by big lace to keep selling pieces of string we do not need.
Big conspiracy by big lace to keep selling pieces of string we do not need.
@Eris @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche @jeffcliff if this is war, then use war strategy. If you fight an enemy and cut off their root for retreat, and you don't allow them a method to surrender, then they'll fight viciously to the death.
If by contrast, you give the enemy a method to escape or to surrender then you can route the enemy and win the battle. This is one reason why it's very important to pick your battlefield. For too long we've let the enemy pick the battlefield, which has helped them win.
When fighting an enemy territory, the ideal is for your troops to be able to use the enemies supplies against them rather than have to ship supplies all the way from your capital. It also means if we can convert manpower from their side to our side then that's less manpower we need to supply from our capital.
The victorious general must seek victory and only afterwards seek battle. To seek battle and then along the way try to achieve victory will cause you to lose.
Finally, the ideal strategy is to win without fighting, to face an enemy already defeated.
All of this suggests that using the same scorched Earth policy that they are using is a losing strategy. We want to give their troops a chance to surrender. We want to give their troops a chance to convert to our side. We want a chance to use their resources against them. We want a chance to win without fighting. Otherwise, all you're doing is lashing out before your inevitable defeat.
If by contrast, you give the enemy a method to escape or to surrender then you can route the enemy and win the battle. This is one reason why it's very important to pick your battlefield. For too long we've let the enemy pick the battlefield, which has helped them win.
When fighting an enemy territory, the ideal is for your troops to be able to use the enemies supplies against them rather than have to ship supplies all the way from your capital. It also means if we can convert manpower from their side to our side then that's less manpower we need to supply from our capital.
The victorious general must seek victory and only afterwards seek battle. To seek battle and then along the way try to achieve victory will cause you to lose.
Finally, the ideal strategy is to win without fighting, to face an enemy already defeated.
All of this suggests that using the same scorched Earth policy that they are using is a losing strategy. We want to give their troops a chance to surrender. We want to give their troops a chance to convert to our side. We want a chance to use their resources against them. We want a chance to win without fighting. Otherwise, all you're doing is lashing out before your inevitable defeat.
@jeffcliff @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche I think you're right in that regard, there is a justified pushback.
Have to admit, while it feels good to go with cancellation since that's what they'd use, I don't see that as a feedback mechanism because there is no going back. It's a social death sentence, no chance of reform or repentance, just follow the rules whatever they are this hour or be destroyed.
Going with a death sentence makes it more difficult to help people see they're wrong. It's just a threat to everyone else. Eventually you purity spiral and there's nobody left but the looniest of the loony.
If someone figures out an appropriate and proportionate feedback mechanism that allows for mistakes or even doing something wrong and then coming back from the brink, I think that person sets the next dominant political paradigm.
Have to admit, while it feels good to go with cancellation since that's what they'd use, I don't see that as a feedback mechanism because there is no going back. It's a social death sentence, no chance of reform or repentance, just follow the rules whatever they are this hour or be destroyed.
Going with a death sentence makes it more difficult to help people see they're wrong. It's just a threat to everyone else. Eventually you purity spiral and there's nobody left but the looniest of the loony.
If someone figures out an appropriate and proportionate feedback mechanism that allows for mistakes or even doing something wrong and then coming back from the brink, I think that person sets the next dominant political paradigm.
@jeffcliff @ChristiJunior @NEETzsche
How do you define "the right thing"?
Obviously acquitting kyle was the right thing because he was attacked 4 times and ran away the whole time and only fought back after being attacked.
I'm not sure that letting thousands of people gang up on a kid whose only crime was surviving 4 attacks intended to kill him is the right thing.
I'm not a fan of the idea of forming lynch mobs to round up lynch mobs, but without a feedback loop, how will anyone learn that nobody should be forming lynch mobs in the first place?
The only thing they're learning right now is they have to lynch harder next time because their target escaped the tree and the rope.
How do you define "the right thing"?
Obviously acquitting kyle was the right thing because he was attacked 4 times and ran away the whole time and only fought back after being attacked.
I'm not sure that letting thousands of people gang up on a kid whose only crime was surviving 4 attacks intended to kill him is the right thing.
I'm not a fan of the idea of forming lynch mobs to round up lynch mobs, but without a feedback loop, how will anyone learn that nobody should be forming lynch mobs in the first place?
The only thing they're learning right now is they have to lynch harder next time because their target escaped the tree and the rope.
@Xalef @NEETzsche I mean, there's lotide, and it's Reddit like but it's simply programmed so you could just take out the controls for federation if you really wanted to
@FreyjaFrija Annoys me when people say he wasn't charged.
Of course he was charged, that's why he needed to get 2 million dollars in donations to get out on bail, and why he spend six figures on a legal defense.
He wasn't convicted. He wasn't convicted because when someone chases you for 100 meters and grabs for your gun they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. He wasn't convicted because when someone hits you with a skateboard they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. He wasn't convicted because if someone rushes at you and points a gun at you then they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. And you're allowed to use lethal force to stop someone else who you think is an imminent risk of death or bodily harm to you.
(I know you know this, I'm just ranting)
Of course he was charged, that's why he needed to get 2 million dollars in donations to get out on bail, and why he spend six figures on a legal defense.
He wasn't convicted. He wasn't convicted because when someone chases you for 100 meters and grabs for your gun they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. He wasn't convicted because when someone hits you with a skateboard they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. He wasn't convicted because if someone rushes at you and points a gun at you then they are an imminent risk of death or bodily harm. And you're allowed to use lethal force to stop someone else who you think is an imminent risk of death or bodily harm to you.
(I know you know this, I'm just ranting)
@ullard No matter what software you're using, I want to give everyone on the fediverse libre a high five.
Everyone is required to make this place worth going to, and you guys all do. Best platform out there, period.
Everyone is required to make this place worth going to, and you guys all do. Best platform out there, period.
@lain I'm not sure I'm comfortable getting advice on what is or is not gay from the ancient greeks.
They were based misogynists to the point that it was more than a little gay.
They were based misogynists to the point that it was more than a little gay.
@racuna It's ocean currents flipping around.
That's a good point, this year doesn't seem like the cooler weather associated with la nina, it was more like the armer weather associated with el nino.
That's a good point, this year doesn't seem like the cooler weather associated with la nina, it was more like the armer weather associated with el nino.
@racuna I recall they're calling for a la nina this year, so it may be a really cold winter with high precipitation.
@borzoi Working for a living is now "white" because the left is unimaginably racist, so they are actively opposed to labor now.
I've got a new site I'm working on, onlybans
The moment you sign up, you're banned for TOS violations
The moment you sign up, you're banned for TOS violations
One thing that's said a lot lately is the word "ableist".
I was thinking about what that word actually means.
If it's the same as racist or sexist, it's the idea that if you think people who are able to do things are better than people who aren't able to do things.
But....isn't that objectively true?
If I need to dig a hole with a shovel, and on the left I have a guy with no arms, and on the right I have a guy with two arms, guess who I will ask to dig the hole for me.
If I need to complete a math equation, and on the left I have a guy who has massive systemic brain damage and on the right I have a person with a perfectly healthy brain, guess who I will ask to do the math equation for me.
If I need someone to do customer service, and on the left I have someone in a persistent vegatative state and on the right I have a person who is in a perfectly healthy state, guess who I'm getting to man the till.
Hell, Stephen Hawking was totally paralyzed, he was never going to fight in UFC, but his remarkable brain was intact so he was able to contribute in the way in which he was healthy. He couldn't pretend he was physically healthy, everyone knew he couldn't move.
On the other hand, a person who was physically exceptionally healthy could engage in strenuous physical activity, but if they had an IQ of 25 then barring some really exceptional circumstances that person probably can't reasonably contribute to intellectual discussion.
Not to say that people who are not able to do something are obviously not lesser human beings, we're all human and there's basic respect we should give to individuals as members of the human race.
That being said, it is absurd to pretend that reality isn't reality. Sorry, but reality exists and it doesn't care what you think. If you think that words can magically make the legless walk, or magically make someone in a persistive vegetative state orate like Barack Obama then you're just being stupid.
I was thinking about what that word actually means.
If it's the same as racist or sexist, it's the idea that if you think people who are able to do things are better than people who aren't able to do things.
But....isn't that objectively true?
If I need to dig a hole with a shovel, and on the left I have a guy with no arms, and on the right I have a guy with two arms, guess who I will ask to dig the hole for me.
If I need to complete a math equation, and on the left I have a guy who has massive systemic brain damage and on the right I have a person with a perfectly healthy brain, guess who I will ask to do the math equation for me.
If I need someone to do customer service, and on the left I have someone in a persistent vegatative state and on the right I have a person who is in a perfectly healthy state, guess who I'm getting to man the till.
Hell, Stephen Hawking was totally paralyzed, he was never going to fight in UFC, but his remarkable brain was intact so he was able to contribute in the way in which he was healthy. He couldn't pretend he was physically healthy, everyone knew he couldn't move.
On the other hand, a person who was physically exceptionally healthy could engage in strenuous physical activity, but if they had an IQ of 25 then barring some really exceptional circumstances that person probably can't reasonably contribute to intellectual discussion.
Not to say that people who are not able to do something are obviously not lesser human beings, we're all human and there's basic respect we should give to individuals as members of the human race.
That being said, it is absurd to pretend that reality isn't reality. Sorry, but reality exists and it doesn't care what you think. If you think that words can magically make the legless walk, or magically make someone in a persistive vegetative state orate like Barack Obama then you're just being stupid.
@dave @11112011
Uber can give you a ride. The driver buys and insures the car, the driver pays for gas, the driver maintains the vehicle, the driver makes sure nothing gets damaged in the car. If there is a broken sensor or something on the car and there's a check engine light the driver can still drive as long as the car is running acceptably. If a drunk throws up in the back of the car, the driver has to clean it up. For uber to spin up in a new city, they need to buy some ads and change a setting on their servers. Their competitive advantage is that they don't need to own anything in particular.
By contrast, on-demand autonomous cars seem like a much more capital intensive and higher risk endeavor. Apple (or some local transport company) would have to put up money in each city to manufacture a fleet of cars. They'd need a way to fuel up. They'd need local methods to maintain the vehicles. They'd need to pay for insurance. They'd need to find out ways to make sure passengers aren't destroying the cars while inside of them despite not having any people inside. If there was any issues with sensors or anything the vehicle would have to be immediately taken off the road because there's no human minder to safely make decisions without the machine. If a drunk throws up in the back of the car, they'd need some way to deal with that or the whole service would become "the pukey apple cars" that always smell because they pick up drunks. to spin up in a new city, they'd need to advertise, purchase or manufacture vehicles, establish some maintenance infrastructure, local security, local cleaning, local fueling, and all this will require local administration.
I mean, we'll see, but there are a lot of technologies that are said to bring on a revolution that either never make it to market or don't come in the way people think. I'm still waiting for that holographic media that was going to replace DVDs, it's only been 20 years.
Uber can give you a ride. The driver buys and insures the car, the driver pays for gas, the driver maintains the vehicle, the driver makes sure nothing gets damaged in the car. If there is a broken sensor or something on the car and there's a check engine light the driver can still drive as long as the car is running acceptably. If a drunk throws up in the back of the car, the driver has to clean it up. For uber to spin up in a new city, they need to buy some ads and change a setting on their servers. Their competitive advantage is that they don't need to own anything in particular.
By contrast, on-demand autonomous cars seem like a much more capital intensive and higher risk endeavor. Apple (or some local transport company) would have to put up money in each city to manufacture a fleet of cars. They'd need a way to fuel up. They'd need local methods to maintain the vehicles. They'd need to pay for insurance. They'd need to find out ways to make sure passengers aren't destroying the cars while inside of them despite not having any people inside. If there was any issues with sensors or anything the vehicle would have to be immediately taken off the road because there's no human minder to safely make decisions without the machine. If a drunk throws up in the back of the car, they'd need some way to deal with that or the whole service would become "the pukey apple cars" that always smell because they pick up drunks. to spin up in a new city, they'd need to advertise, purchase or manufacture vehicles, establish some maintenance infrastructure, local security, local cleaning, local fueling, and all this will require local administration.
I mean, we'll see, but there are a lot of technologies that are said to bring on a revolution that either never make it to market or don't come in the way people think. I'm still waiting for that holographic media that was going to replace DVDs, it's only been 20 years.
@11112011 The everything bubble needs to burst already so we can see valuations come back to earth.
Why would Apple breaking into an industry whose entire market cap doesn't match Apple somehow magically double Apple's market cap?
Why would Apple breaking into an industry whose entire market cap doesn't match Apple somehow magically double Apple's market cap?