I’d agree, if it wasn’t for you having an obligation as a voting citizen to be somewhat informed of your decision. Anyone who votes for Trump has either failed to meet that basic requirement, or they’re a shitty person. The latter is actually fine, the former is not.
It isn’t hate. It’s leaving the evil, cruel, and/or misinformed alone.
But that’s what I’m saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it’s a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You’re choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.
I’m not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I’ll get to it). I’m saying that a goal post of “axiomaric universal good” isn’t all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn’t therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is “universal enough”. That’s what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.
It shouldn’t be any particular person’s understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.
I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for “good”, I don’t think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.
The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the “do unto others”, except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.
Can anyone explain the conversion from “a bottle of water” to something like kWh?
Make it have to follow the same regulations as other currencies and banks. If it looks like currency, and functions like currency, maybe it should be considered currency.
You probably ended up in the wrong confirmation bias bubble in the world of black box “news” content filtering. It’s the most dangerous thing about Facebook/Tiktok.
That, and/or another round psyops funding from Israel et al.
That whatever species ends up dominating the earth with tools and technology branches out from bonobos instead.
How many do you have now?
I’m curious. And I ask, because US politics has normalised what would be clear corruption in most other places:
Is the illegal part here spoofing Biden, or also a private company trying to manipulate the electoral process?
If its only the former, then, what an absolute shit show.
I think it’s also perfectly reasonable to say the truth instead, and replace “professional ethics” with “personal”.
If they are appreciative of you, and don’t truly want to do whatever it is that makes you the most comfortable or happy, they should be exposed to a learning opportunity.
If they get offended. Maybe they eventually figure out that, just maybe, you shouldn’t express gratitude with selfishness.
Anyways. That’s ny two cents. Say it as it is.
the car does suit the aesthetic of that comic.
It… really does not. The cybertruck looks like the sad compromise of a too low polygon budget for a 80s game. The JD aesthetic is robust (*) and thick, sure, but not minimalistic.
(*) to which I mean the extent in that the Cybertruck looks robust.
Which is just a classic musky thing to do. Say some BS that barely passes the “as long as you don’t know anything about what I’m talking about, then it might sound right!”-test, and simps abound to make the bullshit asymmetry even more asymmetric.
PS: I’m sorry. I have blocking filters for “Elon” and “Trump”. Too many fucking morons with megaphones these days.
I find this question very interesting. What does it mean to “know” a programming language. They map to certain paradigms for how to solve problems, in various degrees, with different tradeoffs there for surrounding tooling, libs, and what not.
A bunch of the most familiar ones are procedural with different sprinkles on top, and they pretty much do the same things when it comes to the “language” side. So, “knowing” one, or another, IMO, has little to do with the syntax, parsing and keywords, and is much more if you have suffered through cryptic compile errors, figured out good debugging tooling, etc.
Which is to say, if we compare these two list
I’d consider the first one much more impressive in terms of diversity in “knowing programming languages”. And, I say that as someone belonging squarely in the latter.
Is it a requirement to be Jewish, in order to have Israeli citizenship?
Is this /technology, or /laststagecapitalism?
The ones with the absolute most, are, by and large, contributing the absolute least?
To anyone who tries watching the first one, just skip ahead to 6:50 where he actually starts explaining his reasoning. I can summarizer them here
- “Volume is visible”
- “You gotta scoop your stuff out with something, so it might as well be by something that measures volume”
The third one was too dumb for me to follow. Something about if you measure stuff by weight, you end up with large portions.
The fourth one was just absurd. No one measures spices by weight… So not being able to measure 1.2g of cinnamon or what not, just isn’t a thing.
Alright. I’ll stop there. The arguments presented go from fairly bad, to dumb, to made up stuff no one does. The arguments against them are so easy to express:
One of the best shower thoughts I’ve heard.
If there is ever a legitimate use for its absurd existence, it would be in an effort to stop a literal fascist.