Dudeman112

Which is correct and a big reason for why early flight machines had no chance at all of working

Of course, that doesn't tell you whether the machine understanding will be useful or not

Non aerodynamic vehicles would have bugs squashed in them if aerodynamics was the main reason for lack of bugs

Danger: possible infohazard

I think it would just make people more likely to click it, however :)

>in fiction then uncontrolled/unlimited contradiction should be fine

I'm not saying it's fine in general. I'm saying it doesn't matter for pop fiction

Popular fiction gets retconned all the time. I'm fundamentally disagreeing with "not contradicting yourself too much" mattering at all for fiction that's successful with the masses

If you ever feel tempted to think that quality writing matters for popular success, just remember that lewd Twilight fanfic has sold more than a hundred million copies

I mean, George Lucas transformed his magic into counting magical mitochondria while people looked away and that universe is still as successful as ever

Popular fiction doesn't give a shit about contradicting itself

That's not what I meant

It seems like your position is "natural rights should guide or at least influence societal rights", and you consider that to be self-evident or maybe axiomatic

I don't see why natural rights would be part of the discussion altogether

>The consequence is that you should never prohibit someone from making a choice "for their own good" because the chances are better that they understand and act in their own best interest than you do

Say that to all the OSHA regulations that were written in blood with a straight face

I don't see how what man can do away from everything and everyone should have any relevance to what man should be allowed to do in a society

What's the logic there?

>if we follow the path of assuming everyone is a moron, we very quickly reach The Nanny State

What if everyone actually was a moron? In that hypothetical, would we just pretend it's not the case to not get the nanny state?

Sound like you're defining "rights" along the lines of "what you can do in isolation, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else". Does that seem correct?

How can a right possibly be innate and natural?

As in, what mechanisms binds what you think rights are (what do you think rights are?) to the laws that govern the natural world?

>personally believe that most people are smarter than this

Every single time someone's uttered those words they were eventually proven wrong

Not that I think we should be banning speech, mind you. Just figured a reminder on that tiny bit was warranted. Assuming people aren't morons is the doom of many endeavours

To be fair with them, cars do kill a fair bit more than guns in the USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...

>many countries have no such restrictions and yet they don't seem to have a stabbing epidemic

Are you implying there's a stabbing epidemic in Britain? (apologies if I'm misunderstanding that)

Britain doesn't have a stabbing epidemic[1]. It's a meme

Media attention made the obsession, not whatever actually happens in the real world. Ah, if only people cared as much about heart and brain diseases :(

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-... (click on Rate per 100k on the last table)

Ffxiv players get along fine because of the higher global cooldown and streamlined button press sequences, with very few procs that change what you have to press

1 sec GCD + proc fest wouldn't work well with the same control scheme, and the community would have a meltdown if they changed that

I always find it amusing just how conservative gamers are

>the average family in the developed world nowadays is more impoverished than their grandparents?

The "resource" for raising multiple children in their grandparents' world was a stay-at-home mother

The resource for raising multiple children now is tons of cash

>At he time the Mudjahedeen were very much in the "good guys" book

At the time the dictatorship back home was also very much in the "good guys" book according to the USA

Starting to think they are just shit a selecting who to put in that book

Fuck Operation Condor

Wages have gone up with inflation where you live?

I agree

I'm not sure if it's always been there and I just didn't notice it, but it looks like there's been an increase of people who have an ego/spine that's as solid as your average jellyfish

How the heck do these people go about life if even small things like that are sufficient to faze them? Do they just have a breakdown or shut down if anything actually taxing happens?

If someone would feel bad for writing i_suck as part of a method call... I don't think they'll last in the real world anyway

What's the upper bound on ego fragility that we ought to consider?

Metaphors don't have to apply to every conceivable perspective of looking at the subject. They are there to simplify transfer of knowledge

I'm sure there's some way the shed and skyscraper metaphor fails too

To be fair, that's valid for anyone that doesn't have "absolute pacifism" as a cornerstone of their morality (which I reckon is almost everyone)

Heck, I think even the absolute pacifists engage in some harming of others every once in a while, even if simply because existence is pain

It's funny how people set a far higher performance/level of ethics bar to AI than they do to other people

>If you are financially in a situation where you can buy a new flagship phone at any time you might not even think about this viewpoint.

You might even feel attacked for being privileged enough when someone points that possibility

No, really. Just what is it with that fragility? Did people get all defensive back in the day when someone said "that's only valid if you are sufficiently rich"?

Might be that I just never noticed it, but it's getting real annoying just how often people get all defensive about what they said only applying to people who have it good enough

Just to add to your point, I would like to say that I was, in fact, taught C and assembly and I wouldn't have had it any other way

People that never go low level usually don't feel it in their guts how computers work. Which is OK most of the time, but it bites you back often enough that it's annoying having to explain the actual fundamentals when your colleagues haven't had that experience

>You're pigeon holing engineering to only the practice performed by licenced professionals

It's a joke that most of us heard in one form or another back in Uni. I'm sure it's been repeated for centuries before the word "software" was first uttered

But then we all were studying some kind of Engineering, and only a very specific subset of us expected not to need a license after graduation... funnily enough, only that same subset didn't have to learn the core subjects that "all" engineers have to learn (tee hee)

>which is not true for the meaning of "engineering" as a whole so I don't agree with your premise a priori

As long as you are happy to call duct taping some damaged mechanical part "engineering" too, at which point why bother with the expression?

>I agree that it isn't hard engineering but... Is it needed for these cases?

I agree. But then I don't feel the need to call it engineering when it has very little to do with everything else goes by the same name

>a lot of smaller companies are still in the tinkering phase

A lot of big companies are still in the tinkering phase too - I've briefly worked for a certain big bank, and I live with someone that works for a certain health org that moves tens of billions of dollars every year. Their level of engineering is a joke too

The discipline itself isn't mature enough to warrant the name engineering. Additionally, it's incredibly amusing how much resistance the actual practicing professionals have against changes that would nudge the discipline towards warranting the name

We live in the wild west, act like cowboys, want to continue acting like cowboys, have the responsibility level of cowboys, and expect to be called engineers. Presumably because being called an "engineer" makes you sound legit

>I find it somewhat fun to refactor those

I don't. I like to feel productive instead of having to do laundry before getting to the actual work because someone just went ahead without any regard for quality control

>YAGNI + KISS > SOLID

Agreed

Monster architectures are monster architectures, and yet going from Enterprise(tm) architecture to chaos architecture so you can't know anything about the system without carefully going over hundreds of lines of code isn't any better

Do you know the difference between an engineer and a tinkerer? The engineer can lose his license for negligence

Every engineer I know has heard something like that, and knows that it applies to them. Except for a specific kind of engineer, and I bet you can figure what job title those engineers have

We do apply scientific knowledge to practical problems. The discipline isn't there, however, for the vast majority of us. In fact, most companies prefer it that way because proper design creation/validation takes a lot of time

Changing a tyre does not make you an engineer. I mean, half of us consider the idea of having written requirements bollocks that only exists to make managers happy, and half of the rest are happy to trudge along without knowing what actually needs to happen

Calling what most of us do "engineering" cheapens the meaning of the word

As in not making a 10k lines function that does everything because you didn't read any books about architecture

I get it, you've been burned out by Enterprise(tm) code. Going to the very edge of the other side isn't any better

Huh, TIL you can refer to what I think about free will as "Hard incompatibilism"

Thanks for your comment :)

>So here is my another attempt: the sensation that appears in your "minds eye" when you see or imagine a red color. The awareness of this color is what consciousness is about

The problem with that is the bucket was just kicked further away: what does it mean for something to be aware of something else? Bacteria react to their environment (as such there has to be something at least loosely similar to awareness to them), but most people don't think they are conscious

What I dislike a little about the subject is how lots of people act so sure there's a special sauce to their minds, except they never manage to narrow to anything more precise than "it's a feeling that you'll know what it is if you pay attention to it"

For most other topics, saying "you'll get what I'm talking about with some instrospection" would be immediately rejected

Also, how does it work for people with aphantasia and without inner monologue?

>The fact that you are having a conscious experience of something cannot be doubted

Only if you are sure of the loose / hand-wavey definition of consciousness. I'm sure a hypothetical organism that's vastly more intelligent than us, but with the same loose definition, would consider us barely conscious