I wonder what chatgpt would say if you asked it to write a fact check that says the opposite of what it claims to fact check?
That's a good point -- the establishment has used the label of "conspiracy theorist" to describe things that turned out to be completely true a *lot* in the past couple years.
To the point that I used to immediately trust sites like snopes, but lately their articles have titles like "No, Bill Clinton does not have a red bike", and article bodies like "While it is true that Bill Clinton does have a red bike,[...]"
They've really been burning a lot of goodwill.
To the point that I used to immediately trust sites like snopes, but lately their articles have titles like "No, Bill Clinton does not have a red bike", and article bodies like "While it is true that Bill Clinton does have a red bike,[...]"
They've really been burning a lot of goodwill.
There's so many examples of long proven technologies that are being ignored because we need to chase stuff that's perpetually "just 5 more years away"
Electric streetcars are 100 year old technology, and they're basically gone but busses filled with materials mined by african child slaves are the new hotness.
Electric streetcars are 100 year old technology, and they're basically gone but busses filled with materials mined by african child slaves are the new hotness.
Good models of the world are how you make little changes that have a big impact on your life. The powers that be aren't wrong that misinformation and disinformation are bad. The thing they're lying about is who is disseminating it. They want you to build models that benefit them so you impact them instead of yourself positively.
Something doesn't smell right...
I mean, money supply didn't shrink during Volker slamming interest rates up to 20%?! How?
I mean, money supply didn't shrink during Volker slamming interest rates up to 20%?! How?
I've always advocated that we keep using our brains. Learning history, it appears that the best way to be proud of yourself tomorrow is to use your brain and your heart today.
This world is never so black and white that you can assume that because you're talking about something good that it can't be quickly twisted into something evil. Literally anything can be twisted into pure evil if you shut off your brain and mindlessly follow it, especially since people who yearn power to do evil will assemble around things that are powerful and good.
There were people who, despite the world around them shutting off their minds, kept using theirs and become stories of heroism out of places like Nazi Germany. There are stories of people who decided to flee, or people who decided to help the designated enemies of society in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform, or people who tried to do the right thing despite being punished continually for it.
This world is never so black and white that you can assume that because you're talking about something good that it can't be quickly twisted into something evil. Literally anything can be twisted into pure evil if you shut off your brain and mindlessly follow it, especially since people who yearn power to do evil will assemble around things that are powerful and good.
There were people who, despite the world around them shutting off their minds, kept using theirs and become stories of heroism out of places like Nazi Germany. There are stories of people who decided to flee, or people who decided to help the designated enemies of society in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform, or people who tried to do the right thing despite being punished continually for it.
Sometimes, I see people saying that you can't compare lockdowns and vaccine mandates to genocide because one was evil and the other was a public health measure.
That's sort of absurd to say based on history. The entire Nazi society was based on disgust and purity, fear of and hatred of disease.
Nobody was more public health minded than the Nazis. At that time, Eugenics was a public health measure that was thought out to protect people. Racial purity was a public health measure. Propaganda directly tied the existence of the Jews to disease, so genocide was a public health measure. You might not agree with it, but join the club not everyone agrees with public health measures if they violate morals.
Eugenics was considered scientific consensus at the time and many people you might not think fully supported it. It is well established that Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian universal healthcare, was a proponent of eugenics as an example.
This world is never so black and white that you can assume that because you're talking about something good that it is good. Turn off your brain and even the most benevolent things can be changed into something completely different
That's sort of absurd to say based on history. The entire Nazi society was based on disgust and purity, fear of and hatred of disease.
Nobody was more public health minded than the Nazis. At that time, Eugenics was a public health measure that was thought out to protect people. Racial purity was a public health measure. Propaganda directly tied the existence of the Jews to disease, so genocide was a public health measure. You might not agree with it, but join the club not everyone agrees with public health measures if they violate morals.
Eugenics was considered scientific consensus at the time and many people you might not think fully supported it. It is well established that Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian universal healthcare, was a proponent of eugenics as an example.
This world is never so black and white that you can assume that because you're talking about something good that it is good. Turn off your brain and even the most benevolent things can be changed into something completely different
Something just occurred to me. Specifically, the difference between science and engineering and how that relates to our current moment in society.
One time, there was a propane fired kiln I was in charge of. It wasn't coming up to temperature.
I had a number of men of science look at it, and they all said the same thing: We needed more gas. We needed more gas, we definitely needed more gas. Problem was, there was no more gas to give, the gas was maxxed out. They wrote papers and all sorts of things saying we needed to give more gas regardless. The kiln needed more heat so it was self-evident that we needed to add more gas to get more heat. The scientists had a consensus and wouldn't accept any other answer.
Later on, I had an engineer look at it, and he said something completely different: We needed less air.
When we reduced the air, we also reduced the gas at the same time because there was way too much gas, and something incredible happened: The kiln was suddenly easily coming up to temperature.
I've been thinking about the difference between science and engineering. They're adjacent, but not the same. Science describes the world and makes predictions about the world based on prior data. Engineering is about trade-offs between different choices and their impact on different elements of the whole, about looking at what's happening to entire systems, and managing risks beyond the narrow thing you're looking at.
It seems to me that many of the obvious policy mistakes we see fit if we're mistaking scientists for engineers and letting them design things. They'd solve the problem, but without regard for the systems they'd be breaking along the way because that's not how that discipline necessarily works.
One time, there was a propane fired kiln I was in charge of. It wasn't coming up to temperature.
I had a number of men of science look at it, and they all said the same thing: We needed more gas. We needed more gas, we definitely needed more gas. Problem was, there was no more gas to give, the gas was maxxed out. They wrote papers and all sorts of things saying we needed to give more gas regardless. The kiln needed more heat so it was self-evident that we needed to add more gas to get more heat. The scientists had a consensus and wouldn't accept any other answer.
Later on, I had an engineer look at it, and he said something completely different: We needed less air.
When we reduced the air, we also reduced the gas at the same time because there was way too much gas, and something incredible happened: The kiln was suddenly easily coming up to temperature.
I've been thinking about the difference between science and engineering. They're adjacent, but not the same. Science describes the world and makes predictions about the world based on prior data. Engineering is about trade-offs between different choices and their impact on different elements of the whole, about looking at what's happening to entire systems, and managing risks beyond the narrow thing you're looking at.
It seems to me that many of the obvious policy mistakes we see fit if we're mistaking scientists for engineers and letting them design things. They'd solve the problem, but without regard for the systems they'd be breaking along the way because that's not how that discipline necessarily works.
No, I'm pretty sure that babies come from women singing "baby shark". It seems like women who sing baby shark always end up with babies.
Focusing on vote counts is missing the big picture. There didn't need to be voter fraud, they broke the law constantly to steal the election before a single ballot was cast.
I think I dated this girl but this must be a shoop because she didn't own a computer.
3do ended up killing cirrus logic. They licensed the 3do 3d technology for their leguna video chips and it turned out to be hot garbage compared to pretty much anything else of the era.
That being said, it was still as I recall far ahead of the curve technologically, if they used it right I agree it should have been the top dog.
That being said, it was still as I recall far ahead of the curve technologically, if they used it right I agree it should have been the top dog.
In retrospect, nintendo just had the games and sega just didn't.
I guess sega had....like those shitty fmv games.... that was something unique.
I guess sega had....like those shitty fmv games.... that was something unique.
Fediverse was always the superior option. One government-created oligarch isn't much different than any other government-created oligarch.
I think sjw posted this the first time I saw it before that instance got nuked, but it was delightful so when I saw it on youtube I had to repost it.
They just assume that they're the brilliant ones who came up with all the talking points in their heads.
It's fine to agree with ideas someone else came up with, but first you need to see a variety of sources so you're not just marching in lockstep with someone else, and agreeing with one element of what someone says doesn't mean you become them and have to fully agree with everything they say.
It's fine to agree with ideas someone else came up with, but first you need to see a variety of sources so you're not just marching in lockstep with someone else, and agreeing with one element of what someone says doesn't mean you become them and have to fully agree with everything they say.