Unfortunately that's true. Can't possibly happen until another crisis forces their hand like what happened in the 1990s. Could happen mind you.
From where I'm standing, it doesn't matter what things that were called conspiracy theories get wrong if particularly lately they are also routinely getting things right.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.
Next fediverse is just chain letters. N towers are a serious success in such a system, what with all the stamps.
All I know is that he posts more than I would if I had his kind of money, and I'd be posting a *lot* if I had his kind of money.
lol imagine on an instance limited to 500 characters!
[7 usernames being replied to] I tell you there’s something I have to say a(out of characters)
[7 usernames being replied to] I tell you there’s something I have to say a(out of characters)
ngl, sorta seems like it's a reverse trap. Looks like it's supposed to be against Trump trying to say he didn't really win, actually ends up being a way to ditch never trumpers after he wins.
Big daddy mountain man said it's good so everyone is piling in.
Hopped in, it exists, but it doesn't look that fun.
Hopped in, it exists, but it doesn't look that fun.
Depends. How much do you want to talk about bitcoin?
Because if you want to talk about stuff that isn't bitcoin, dark fedi. If you want to talk about bitcoin, nostr every hour of the day.
Because if you want to talk about stuff that isn't bitcoin, dark fedi. If you want to talk about bitcoin, nostr every hour of the day.
The Internet always should have been decentralized. The centralization we've seen has been a huge mistake. The good thing is how amazing the tools we have available to us are. Stepping away from social media, I've got a lot of great things to say about Nextcloud, and that can be self-hosted by any size organization.
ChatGPT is like a smart person who pretends to be smarter than they really are. Really great for getting information, but you have to double check everything because it doesn't give a crap if the information is true if it looks like a good answer.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
Fully agreed that companies have way too much influence in politics in general where they should have none.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
I don't disagree.
The thing is, we're doing it out of order. First we produce the viable alternative, then we can look at eliminating the thing. What we're doing instead of taxing the thing out of existence and all poor people are allowed to do is die.
A lot of the technologies we need don't need to be developed, they've existed for 100 years and we just need to use them. Hydroelectricity and lots of street cars could change everything.
The thing is, we're doing it out of order. First we produce the viable alternative, then we can look at eliminating the thing. What we're doing instead of taxing the thing out of existence and all poor people are allowed to do is die.
A lot of the technologies we need don't need to be developed, they've existed for 100 years and we just need to use them. Hydroelectricity and lots of street cars could change everything.
These people think they would have been part of la resistance in Germany in 1938, but in reality they'd be in line to throw the first stone at whoever Hitler told them was the cause of Germany losing World War 1.
It's not a popular view, but I didn't mind Chretien, Martin, or Harper. In fact, realizing what his government was doing and how it lined up Chretien for success, it seems like Mulroney did what he had to do as well (The GST is shit, but it's shit the country required in order to balance the budget and one of my criticisms of Harper was lowering it when the budget was balanced and the federal debt was going to be paid off in my lifetime)
From here though, we're going to need a handbrake turn to get back to sanity.
From here though, we're going to need a handbrake turn to get back to sanity.
Purple is just fine.
Won't win ever, but nobody else stood up for what's right when it wasn't politically expedient to do so.
Won't win ever, but nobody else stood up for what's right when it wasn't politically expedient to do so.
I don't know what winter is like in NZ, but up here in Canada, the moronic climate initiatives we see cause predictable outcomes like it becoming outrageously expensive to just do luxurious things like not dying of cold in -40C winters. The current proposals are genocidal.
The problem is that we're childish, and think we can have our cake and eat it too -- there's no way to produce enough energy without an environmental impact. We need to pick between multiple options that all have positives and negatives, and certain lobbies have people telling us to ignore the negatives of their current big and shiny proposals that will cost more money than exists on earth, while doubling down on the negatives of far more practical options that aren't big and sexy.
That isn't to say that there aren't viable options. In Canada, half the provinces rely on carbon neutral energy sources, and most of those rely entirely on hydroelectric. In Quebec and Manitoba, the plentiful hydroelectric power costs low enough that people can heat their homes with that instead of burning fossil fuels. If Manitoba can do it, then the other provinces can too. The problem is that there's an immediate environmental impact to large scale hydroelectric projects, and a cost that doesn't make anyone immediately rich (especially if the project becomes part of a crown corporation to distribute the benefits of a public good instead of going to some private company).
Without becoming wiser, all we'll do is waste energy and materials making lobbyist's masters rich instead of actually doing anything to make anything better.
The problem is that we're childish, and think we can have our cake and eat it too -- there's no way to produce enough energy without an environmental impact. We need to pick between multiple options that all have positives and negatives, and certain lobbies have people telling us to ignore the negatives of their current big and shiny proposals that will cost more money than exists on earth, while doubling down on the negatives of far more practical options that aren't big and sexy.
That isn't to say that there aren't viable options. In Canada, half the provinces rely on carbon neutral energy sources, and most of those rely entirely on hydroelectric. In Quebec and Manitoba, the plentiful hydroelectric power costs low enough that people can heat their homes with that instead of burning fossil fuels. If Manitoba can do it, then the other provinces can too. The problem is that there's an immediate environmental impact to large scale hydroelectric projects, and a cost that doesn't make anyone immediately rich (especially if the project becomes part of a crown corporation to distribute the benefits of a public good instead of going to some private company).
Without becoming wiser, all we'll do is waste energy and materials making lobbyist's masters rich instead of actually doing anything to make anything better.
