This seems interesting. What’s the context here?

I take your anti-corporate point. However, I believe pro-doping would totally work if it was a gladiatorial bloodbath decathalon within the olympics itself. And if you get caught doping in the non-doping sports, you’re forced to compete in the decathalon with the juiced up killers. Jousting, Barenuckle boxing, Pride rules MMA, Hell in a Cell, no rules water polo, shit like that.

Grow up.

I have a sense that you know all this, but, just wanted to chime in- the system in Canada where you have to take a course and pass a screening is costly & a pain in the ass. Bottom line, legally, it’s neither fast nor easy to get a firearm in Canada, and on top of that, the RCMP can deny any application that they see fit. But ultimately, I think the existing licensing system is a reasonable management of risks, and overall a good thing.

Unfortunately, gun control here is a wedge issue, and political points are easily scored by banning / confiscating guns from legal owners, who, as you mention, were never the problem in the first place. Actually fixing the gun crime issue here would be difficult, costly, and an optics minefield.

IMO, the penalties for being found with an illegal firearm or using a firearm to commit a crime should be much more severe. Surely people of all political stripes could get behind that? But, no. We’re in a situation where, on the left, any policy that doesn’t include a sweeping ban is criticized as unacceptable and weak. It sucks, because it means that the actual problem affecting citizens goes unsolved, and nobody seems to care.

all it took to convince them evolution is completely wrong is a couple paragraphs about Lamarck and giraffes and Haeckel and embryos

That’s incredibly shocking and concerning.

By proclaiming Newton is wrong, it leads to people concluding that all science is wrong, because there is always someone working on the next iteration

I’ve never had sympathy for this line of thinking. Is the average person truly too ignorant to understand that science is a constantly developing process of better understanding our universe, not some set of unimpeachable rules carved into stone tablets once and forever? The fact that science can be updated, changed, revolutionized, is what makes it powerful.

If people need to be ‘protected’ from that fact, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way science is taught in schools. I can’t accept that the average person can’t comprehend such a simple idea that would take less than an hour to convincingly communicate.

Just kind of dawned on me while looking at the number, Reddit’s licensing deal with Google is valued at $60 million per year. That’s really not very much money at all, considering the amount of data Reddit has and continues to accumulate. And chump change for Google, no doubt. Reveals how little leverage Reddit actually has at this point. This was their flagship deal, and the best they could get was $60mil per year.

Also puts the API fiasco in a new light. “Look, we need to charge for API calls, because we need to restrict public access to data as a precondition of selling all your shit in a few months to Google, for the financial equivalent of a cup of coffee.”

it’s an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions

Probably one reason why the FAA isn’t immediately shutting Boeing’s shit down, you know when doors fall off their planes mid-flight, and investigations uncover more problems.

Would also need to get a burner phone number w/ answering machine to take calls from 240 million grandmas, cheapskate businesses and cash-strapped public schools for any & all tech support questions until the end of time, because if there was an issue with system stability in any way whatsoever, or if the router went down or the printer stopped working, they’d assume it was the fault of ‘the guy who changed everything’.

Linux is great & everything, but this sounds like a recipe for utter disaster, not a way to make an easy buck.

Wouldn’t checkering itself, even in the abstract, need to reference two discernible colours or shades, and so, wavelengths of light, and so, some extension along a z axis, and position in time? Is it possible even for an abstract checkered pattern to be defined in any less than 3 dimensions + time?

Interesting. I’m curious to know more about what you think of training datasets. Seems like they could be described as a stored representation of reality that maybe checks the boxes you laid out. It’s a very different structure of representation than what we have as animals, but I’m not sure it can be brushed off as trivial. The way an AI interacts with a training dataset is mechanistic, but as you describe, human worldviews can be described in mechanistic terms as well (I do X because I believe Y).

You haven’t said it, so I might be wrong, but are you pointing to freewill and imagination as somehow tied to intelligence in some necessary way?

Thanks! I’m not clear on what you mean by a worldview simulation as a scratch pad for reasoning. What would be an example of that process at work?

For sure, defining intelligence is non trivial. What clear the bar of intelligence, and what doesn’t, is not obvious to me. So that’s why I’m engaging here, it sounds like you’ve put a lot of thought into an answer. But I’m not sure I understand your terms.

By a doctor, I very much want to be seen strictly as the biological organism that they have spent their life studying. The fact that there are very few doctors, and every person born on this earth will be a patient, means that a standard for unvarnished and concise language is morally praiseworthy in terms of its service of the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, there’s no good reason to get offended by the standard of language that the medical system operates in. There is an ocean of ill people who need help, and we’re not all special, in that sense.

A doctor who is led into a cognitive trap by seeing “diabetic” on a chart, is a bad doctor. I’m not sure small refinements of language are the remedy for that doctor’s deficits.

Not being combative or even disagreeing with you - purely out of curiosity, what do you think are the necessary and sufficient conditions of intelligence?

I’m glad to hear this and hopefully it fulfills my fantasy of having sex with Clippy.

I took a philosophy of art course once, and the prof put an image of this painting up, and polled people in the class without foreknowledge of the context of the piece to write on a piece of paper & submit what they thought the emotion being conveyed in the painting was, and he’d read a few of them. One person wrote ‘crushing defeat’, and the class chuckled. I think about that often.

Kurosawa is a good counterpoint for sure. Haven’t seen Guns Akimbo, Psycho Goreman, or Black Magic M-66. I’ll keep my eye out for those. Thanks!

TBF he got kicked out of congress for his shenanigans, is literally a national laughing stock for his idiocy, and also needed the money badly so likely would have said anything. A lot of moving pieces with this guy.

No need to pour one out, at least, not over this.

Nostalgia for what, though? It was a ‘duo go into a tower and kill everyone’ movie that happened to be called Dredd. I liked it for what it was and I didn’t go in with any nostalgia. I feel your anxiety, but, I wonder if action movies by their nature can’t really be deep meditations on the human condition. What story can be told at the muzzle of a gun or the end of a fist that hasn’t already been told?

I kind of feel like action movies are at their best when they operate in a space that is far away from the frontal cortex, invite us to a more libidinal place. Even ‘thinker’ action movies like The Matrix, kind of strike me as philosophically shallow harangues interspersed with cool fights.

I donno, maybe I’m wrong, or not steeped enough in the genre, or just have normie preferences. Out of curiosity, what action movies have a good story & are worth checking out, in your opinion?

Mmm. I grew up in a different time too. Makes me ponder how the software circumstances of that time built in us a very different idea of what an iteration actually is, when it comes to writing. The fact that we couldn’t go back and atomically dissect the history of a piece. That a draft, and an edit, were something heavier. Maybe we’d have to think a bit more slowly and carefully before irreversibly casting a previous version into the ether.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a “gen z bad” post. Just reflecting on how things are different these days, and maybe it leads to a different kind of work.