2
points
Dracophoenix
Joined 1,705 karma
- > I've heard others say this (and was a "loyal advocate" of Windows for around 2 decades myself), but the reality is they simply do not care. You are merely a single user out of several billion.
What changed your outlook? Did you get burned by Microsoft?
- > This is the exact kind of thinking that leads to this in the first place. The idea that a human relationship is, in the end, just about what YOU can get from it. That it's just simply a black box with an input and output, and if it can provide the right outputs for your needs, then it's sufficient. This materialistic thinking of other people is a fundamentally catastrophic worldview.
> A meaningful relationship necessarily requires some element of giving, not just getting. The meaning comes from the exchange between two people, the feedback loop of give and take that leads to trust.
This part seems all over the place. Firstly, why would an individual do something he/she has no expectation to benefit from or control in any way? Why would he/she cast away his/her agency for unpredictable outcomes and exposure to unnecessary and unconstrained risk?
Secondly, for exchange to occur there must a measure of inputs, outputs, and the assessment of their relative values. Any less effort or thought amounts to an unnecessary gamble. Both the giver and the intended beneficiary can only speak for their respective interests. They have no immediate knowledge of the other person's desires and few individuals ever make their expectations clear and simple to account for.
> Not everyone needs a romantic relationship, but to think a chatbot could ever fulfill even 1% of the very fundamental human need of close relationships is dangerous thinking. At best, a chatbot can be a therapist or a sex toy. A one-way provider of some service, but never a relationship. If that's what is needed, then fine, but anything else is a slippery slope to self destruction.
A relationship is an expectation. And like all expectations, it is a conception of the mind. People can be in a relationship with anything, even figments of their imaginations, so long as they believe it and no contrary evidence arises to disprove it.
- A few questions:
How much did you pay for the house? How much rennovation did it need? Are you working remotely there? How did you acquire a house in an area that's less accommodating to English than Tokyo? Did you need/use a real estate agent?
- "Bad" people can still have good ideas or well-thought arguments. It happens often enough to have become became a clichéd meme.
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...
- > People who don't have kids, or only limited experience with kids, declaring that parents are neglecting or abusing their children because they don't behave the way the hypothetical ideologically pure parent would.
From what I've witnessed, the most common complainants were authoritarian mothers who treat their own child(ren) as helpless irrespective of biological age, and teachers, usually with families of their own, who treat non-violent "quirks" beyond their comprehension as a sign of malfeasance. In both cases, lack of familiarity with children is not the issue. Instead, their previous "successes" with raising/teaching children cement a narrow and selective expectation for how children must or must be made to behave. The motivation in either case is a desire for control. The ideological/cultural angle is, at best, a sincerely held rationalization, but is more likely an instinctual employment of thought-terminating cliches/kafkatraps to justify getting their way or make dissenters look/feel unreasonable.
- Lax zoning regulations, relatively cheap labor, low cost of materials, and depreciating home values incentivize building new real estate. That is what separates Tokyo from New York City.
- The protocols were made open by necessity, not by design. The motive was to connect academic , government, and commercial institutions across the country, all of which operated on incompatible operating systems and data networks. However, the common man would not have benefited from this before 1993, as the government effectively operated as a semi-competent firewall against commercial content and the broader public. They even sued ISPs that permitted legitimate accounts from remotely accessing the net through PPP or SLIP protocols. Not even commercial news feeds were permitted until the late 80s.
The only Internet the common man interacted with is the one that began to flourish as the government relinquished control. The Internet since the mid-90s is and has been a purely commercial achievement.
- Are there any new developments on the technical side of microscopy such as new materials or techniques? What journals or trade papers are reliable in researching this information?
How does one become a microscopist as a profession? It seems like a specialized field with a narrow entry point and a lot of hoops.
- How does a corporation fight back when previous administrations have neutered its ability to do so? The Patriot Act (Bush), mass spying on Americans via gag orders (Bush/Obama), proactive anti-trust litigation as a government cudgel (Biden/Trump), jawboning (all of them). Trump's second term is certainly the most brazen and nakedly transparent attempt at control, but the groundwork had been laid decades earlier.
The erosion you speak of happened long before anyone paid attention and the solution people and politicians sought was a further weakening of companies grip on their own assets (more taxes, more regulations, more interference in the market). As an earlier commenter pointed out, the popular political solution to thugs in government has been voting for more thugs in government. In such a circumstance, what does a company owe to those didn't have its interests in mind when it mattered? Even if it can, why should Apple risk becoming a political target against the current administration for the sake of a fickle electorate?
- There's a robot mafioso character named Clamps. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?
- This circumstance is more commonly known as the Jevons Paradox
- Like homosexuality, atheism, blasphemy, miscegenation, witchcraft, vagrancy, and a whole host of other "anti- social" behaviors, right? After all, who polices the morality police?
- Thank you for the clarification.
- Even if Section 230 is written out, the First Amendment still defends app makers from prior restraint. As demonstrated in Snyder v Phelps, It's not illegal to embarrass private individuals or provide a service/platform that permits such an outcome.
- > This should also come as a lesson to all the people that base their rationale in "government icky" moronic arguments. Corporations are all too happy to abuse consumers in the lack of proper regulations. While the government should not get blind faith, there are multiple avenues to scrutinize and question the government. Corporations on the other hand can and will fuck over everyone mercilessly without proper regulations.
Whoever said governments oppose this development? What makes you they're not ones holding the cards?
- Gesamtkunstwerk
- > "Wait, this is a fake castle made by a crazy dude?"
They're in no short supply even today.
https://www.ctinsider.com/realestate/article/chris-mark-cast...
It has a moat and a dungeon in case anyone's interest.
What's the solution? The alternative, where we can't criticize our governments on account of their hypocrisies and imperfections, robs citizens of their check against an institution with a monopoly on violence.
> Americans can never call out human rights abuses because of slavery. The British can never because of colonialism. Period. Forever.
There's certainly a difference between holding countries responsible for events that have long since ceased and holding a government responsible for double standards practiced presently. The UK lacks credibility on Hong Kong when its own citizens are being jailed on the basis of overbroad hate speech regulations and when its government agencies attempt to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over the operation of foreign social media companies. Westminister can't be so empty-headed as to believe that its actions will go unnoticed by other governments.