Takei is a hypocrite and has been for a long time. He's the exact sort of person who would have supported the Japanese internment camps as long as he wasn't Japanese, and this sort of shit proves it.
It's something that I often mention, one of the reasons why all of these organizations can go so big is that they have the protection of the government.
If you or I killed someone by negligently making a mistake, we could be held personally responsible. Spend $900 on incorporation and suddenly you can negligently poison people all day and unless they can pierce the corporate veil the only thing they can take from you is the corporation at worst.
Eventually, without the protections of government capitalist enterprises become far too large to not collapse under their own weight. It's that protection that is the reason everything can be centralized.
So my extremist idea is to abolish the corporation. If you want to run a business, you better take personal responsibility for whatever happens.
If you or I killed someone by negligently making a mistake, we could be held personally responsible. Spend $900 on incorporation and suddenly you can negligently poison people all day and unless they can pierce the corporate veil the only thing they can take from you is the corporation at worst.
Eventually, without the protections of government capitalist enterprises become far too large to not collapse under their own weight. It's that protection that is the reason everything can be centralized.
So my extremist idea is to abolish the corporation. If you want to run a business, you better take personal responsibility for whatever happens.
Not to mention I'm sure that upvotes in downvotes would be used in any algorithm. I'm sure that they would notice that certain viewpoints get thousands of upvotes, and opposing viewpoints often get hundreds or thousands of down votes even if they are perfectly legitimate opinions stated in a perfectly legitimate way.
The whole site became damaged goods after 2008, but by 2018 it's just a hive mind.
The whole site became damaged goods after 2008, but by 2018 it's just a hive mind.
Anyone with a brain in two eyes can see that the market is heading for a crash, the only two questions are when and what is it going to look like?
If you are trying to grow your wealth you want to hang on to the rising market until the very last moment, but if you're already a multi-billionaire, and pulling out now just means you'll be liquid to snatch up everything for pennies on the dollar in a few months.
If you are trying to grow your wealth you want to hang on to the rising market until the very last moment, but if you're already a multi-billionaire, and pulling out now just means you'll be liquid to snatch up everything for pennies on the dollar in a few months.
https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/emergency-brake
Great post.
Do you need a credentialed expert to tell you that you need to take a shit? Or can you figure it out on your own? How about a cadrentialed expert to tell you that you're hungry, or that you're not hungry? "Well, I don't have a government job at the hunger department so I can't really tell you whether I'm hungry or not"
Look, as an expert in a certain field myself, I do recognize that there's a lot of details that are complicated and often need someone who knows what they're doing. The thing is, it's also very easy for an expert in a field to deny reality because their limited worldview has flaws that incorrectly predict reality. A good expert would then open their eyes to the fact that they were wrong, figure out why they were wrong, and integrate the two so that your expert knowledge is reinforced by contact with reality. Unfortunately, we often see that people who are in positions of authority aren't necessarily very good experts.
Great post.
Do you need a credentialed expert to tell you that you need to take a shit? Or can you figure it out on your own? How about a cadrentialed expert to tell you that you're hungry, or that you're not hungry? "Well, I don't have a government job at the hunger department so I can't really tell you whether I'm hungry or not"
Look, as an expert in a certain field myself, I do recognize that there's a lot of details that are complicated and often need someone who knows what they're doing. The thing is, it's also very easy for an expert in a field to deny reality because their limited worldview has flaws that incorrectly predict reality. A good expert would then open their eyes to the fact that they were wrong, figure out why they were wrong, and integrate the two so that your expert knowledge is reinforced by contact with reality. Unfortunately, we often see that people who are in positions of authority aren't necessarily very good experts.
I keep on coming back to a very basic element of medical ethics: it's extremely hard to run experiments on pregnant women or little children and not be unethical. For this reason, there is only a tiny number of drugs that are accepted for use on little children or expecting mothers, and even among those many were just grandfathered in based on previous work from time before we realized the potential impacts.
So how did they know all the things they claimed to know, all the things they claimed to know to be true?
So how did they know all the things they claimed to know, all the things they claimed to know to be true?
People don't know that stores that have all the merchandise are relatively new historically speaking. In the past, you'd have to walk up to the counter and ask for what you were shopping for and pay for it, then the clerk would go behind a locked door and get the stuff you ordered.
It was worse for everyone involved. Having the social trust to keep the merchandise out to sell was better for customers and better for shops, and moving backwards isn't better for anyone... Maybe politicians?
It was worse for everyone involved. Having the social trust to keep the merchandise out to sell was better for customers and better for shops, and moving backwards isn't better for anyone... Maybe politicians?
One of the most important phrases I use when it comes to the "immigration is great for the economy" narrative is this:
"Do you get paid in GDP? Also, what happens if a bunch of new people are trying to get the same houses, food, and energy you are?"
Because we don't get paid in GDP, we get paid in wages, and wages go down as the number of workers goes up.
"Do you get paid in GDP? Also, what happens if a bunch of new people are trying to get the same houses, food, and energy you are?"
Because we don't get paid in GDP, we get paid in wages, and wages go down as the number of workers goes up.
Come on guys, it's pretty unfair comparing Biden to Hitler. It isn't like Joe gave a firey speech surrounded by soldiers against a blood red backdrop about how we must use state violence against his political enemies.
So the academic racial studies crowd is now publishing "how I sleep knowing I'm white" memes but in academic form?
Shameful. I almost couldn't laugh at it.
Shameful. I almost couldn't laugh at it.
I have two entire chapters of The Graysonian Ethic dedicated to pointing out how fleeting your 20s (and maybe your 30s) are and the need to build something with your natural gifts while you can. Life is awfully long past that, and your god given gifts will fade and need to be replaced with something you've built for yourself, whether that be knowledge, wisdom, cultivated relationships, even personal infrastructure.
Writing about dying alone in squalor and nobody cares was one of the hardest things I've ever written, and it's still one of the hardest things out there for me to read. On the other hand, I'm already starting to see it regarding some acquaintances of mine who are heading down that road.
People think humans evolutionary advantage is our intelligence, but that came later. Our first advantage is we have the highest endurance of any creature out there. We can chase down most animals long after they're exhausted and when they collapse. That carries into the modern day where nothing has more determination than a human and even someone who isn't strong, isn't smart, isn't beautiful can fight for a long time to have something meaningful in their lives and achieve it, but they need to choose to, and do so with faith that if you fight long enough you'll win at least sometimes.
Writing about dying alone in squalor and nobody cares was one of the hardest things I've ever written, and it's still one of the hardest things out there for me to read. On the other hand, I'm already starting to see it regarding some acquaintances of mine who are heading down that road.
People think humans evolutionary advantage is our intelligence, but that came later. Our first advantage is we have the highest endurance of any creature out there. We can chase down most animals long after they're exhausted and when they collapse. That carries into the modern day where nothing has more determination than a human and even someone who isn't strong, isn't smart, isn't beautiful can fight for a long time to have something meaningful in their lives and achieve it, but they need to choose to, and do so with faith that if you fight long enough you'll win at least sometimes.
tl;dr: You're mostly right with some clarification about the potential impacts
Here it's not just a matter of us seeing what we want and not what we don't want, but other people choose to see what they want and not what they don't want as well.
I think it's pretty important in both ways. It means that if you engage it's more satisfying, but less addictive.
Without an algorithm specifically going "We think you'll like this and we think you won't like this", you're going to see everything from the people you follow, which can have 4 effects: First, you can end up seeing posts nobody could have predicted you'd like that you like. Second, it means you see a lot of noise from people that you neither like nor dislike, which I think may actually have a slightly positive effect because it lets the dopamine drop off and sometimes you go "ah, there's nothing interesting on the TL right now, I'll go do something else". Third, it means that sometimes you see posts you absolutely categorically hate and they'll get displayed from the people posting it whether you like it or not which means you might unfollow certain people who occasionally say things that are good but occasionally say things you absolutely cannot allow.
Then there's the effect on your own posts. You get interaction not because an algorithm likes what you wrote and sends it to a bunch of randos, but because people who follow you liked your post and chose to interact with them among the different posts they see (or alternatively because they see your post on the instance timeline which is made up of local users and remote users that local users are following). Then people following you might share your post and through networking someone might see it and decide to either interact with the post or to follow you.
For mastodon (which isn't what everyone uses), I'm aware you can follow hashtags too, meaning that you get the portion of your instance timeline that tags a certain thing.
For completeness you also would need to recognize that each instance has its own defederation policy so there's potentially a block of the fediverse you'll never see at all.
Overall then, it's somewhat more granular what you see and don't see, but it's also broader that you'll see stuff that isn't so stimulating to you, and you'll see the stuff you like from people you like but also stuff you're ambivalent to and stuff you hate from people you like (and the people they follow and repost)
Contrasting the flat chronological view of mastodon and its alternatives, is the algorithm of big tech sites.
The algorithm often seeks out stuff it thinks you'll love and is often justified as cutting through the chaff to get to all the stuff you like. Even people on the fediverse often express disappointment that there's posts they might like but can't immediately see because there's a lot of posts they don't particularly care about, and express that an algorithm could help with that.
The algorithm doesn't just show you stuff you love, however. It also actively seeks out stuff that is tuned so you hate it just enough to leave a dislike or a comment saying "I hate this you're an asshole" it but it isn't so bad you close the app. Whereas organic growth certainly can surround you with people who believe exactly what you believe, I feel like being specifically shown stuff you hate on this level is almost worse, because whereas if you're surrounded by people you agree with then the fact people who disagree with you doesn't affect your life, an algorithm bringing people who hate each other together on one platform means you can't just quietly coexist because the platform itself will be constantly shoving you in their face.
Here it's not just a matter of us seeing what we want and not what we don't want, but other people choose to see what they want and not what they don't want as well.
I think it's pretty important in both ways. It means that if you engage it's more satisfying, but less addictive.
Without an algorithm specifically going "We think you'll like this and we think you won't like this", you're going to see everything from the people you follow, which can have 4 effects: First, you can end up seeing posts nobody could have predicted you'd like that you like. Second, it means you see a lot of noise from people that you neither like nor dislike, which I think may actually have a slightly positive effect because it lets the dopamine drop off and sometimes you go "ah, there's nothing interesting on the TL right now, I'll go do something else". Third, it means that sometimes you see posts you absolutely categorically hate and they'll get displayed from the people posting it whether you like it or not which means you might unfollow certain people who occasionally say things that are good but occasionally say things you absolutely cannot allow.
Then there's the effect on your own posts. You get interaction not because an algorithm likes what you wrote and sends it to a bunch of randos, but because people who follow you liked your post and chose to interact with them among the different posts they see (or alternatively because they see your post on the instance timeline which is made up of local users and remote users that local users are following). Then people following you might share your post and through networking someone might see it and decide to either interact with the post or to follow you.
For mastodon (which isn't what everyone uses), I'm aware you can follow hashtags too, meaning that you get the portion of your instance timeline that tags a certain thing.
For completeness you also would need to recognize that each instance has its own defederation policy so there's potentially a block of the fediverse you'll never see at all.
Overall then, it's somewhat more granular what you see and don't see, but it's also broader that you'll see stuff that isn't so stimulating to you, and you'll see the stuff you like from people you like but also stuff you're ambivalent to and stuff you hate from people you like (and the people they follow and repost)
Contrasting the flat chronological view of mastodon and its alternatives, is the algorithm of big tech sites.
The algorithm often seeks out stuff it thinks you'll love and is often justified as cutting through the chaff to get to all the stuff you like. Even people on the fediverse often express disappointment that there's posts they might like but can't immediately see because there's a lot of posts they don't particularly care about, and express that an algorithm could help with that.
The algorithm doesn't just show you stuff you love, however. It also actively seeks out stuff that is tuned so you hate it just enough to leave a dislike or a comment saying "I hate this you're an asshole" it but it isn't so bad you close the app. Whereas organic growth certainly can surround you with people who believe exactly what you believe, I feel like being specifically shown stuff you hate on this level is almost worse, because whereas if you're surrounded by people you agree with then the fact people who disagree with you doesn't affect your life, an algorithm bringing people who hate each other together on one platform means you can't just quietly coexist because the platform itself will be constantly shoving you in their face.
Never had a gf, has kids, mommas boy is a scary combo and is say that's actually a red flag.