adasdasdas

What kind of sesame oil are you getting...

Why do we want old growth forests over harvestable forests? Is there an ecological advantage

Cross field contamination a fantastic product of our interconnected world, but it's more fun to shit on people when they fail. I'm sure some folks here would've loved to tell davinci to stay in his lane.

This is how Lyft and Uber works too, they build their incentives to buy the marginal driver/user. So if you are a reliable Uber-only or Lyft-only driver, you get screwed out of incentives. However, if you switch around, Uber/Lyft will bid for your next ride.

> It’s just that the supposed sustainability of any single product doesn’t necessarily tell us how much progress the company is making overall toward its climate goals.

This is literally a non-article

Looks close enough to the design, ship it.

The real response to the guy is, "so what". Who cares if we used to be wrong, that's how empiricism works, we posit falsifiable claims until they're proven wrong.

Man can't get adderall in jail? Abolish prisons

Can we stop rehashing arguments for planned economies; they are terrible because they ignore the million micro signals that drive the economic engine. Instead they over and under produce just about everything because the central planners have an impossible job. Furthermore, older socialist theories still operate under the assumption that production is the biggest economy, rather than service. You can't translate the theories since the value add of service economies are rarely bound by the "means of production"(factories) and the labor value add fluctuates wildly with skill which breaks any sense of worker solidarity.

Unless you expand on why, it just sounds like a definitional game

They're not special if they affect everyone

Here, I had chatgpt generate the article so you don't have to read this one linked.

# AI: The Overhyped Phenomenon Missing Immediate Results

In recent years, there's been no shortage of hyperbolic rhetoric when it comes to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Prophets of the digital age tout it as the solution to virtually all of humanity's problems, from healthcare to climate change. But as we pause to look around, it's pretty clear: there aren't any robot butlers serving us breakfast in bed or AI doctors diagnosing diseases with unerring accuracy. So what's the deal? Is AI just overhyped?

### The Promises and The Reality

Remember when we were told AI would change the world? That the miracles of machine learning and deep neural networks would solve complex problems humanity had been grappling with for centuries? Well, it's been years since that promise, and what do we have to show for it? A few smart thermostats and chatbots that can't even understand sarcasm. Wow, revolutionary.

### The Lack of Immediate Results

Proponents of AI would argue that the technology is still in its infancy, and we need to be patient. But how long are we supposed to wait? Time is ticking, and some of the problems we face are immediate. If AI is as groundbreaking as we've been led to believe, why hasn't it delivered immediate, transformative results?

### Where Are the Breakthroughs?

You might say, "What about self-driving cars or AI in medical diagnosis?" But let's be honest. Self-driving cars are still in the testing phase, not yet a ubiquitous sight on our roads. And as for AI in healthcare, it's still largely relegated to research papers and small-scale implementations. It hasn't ushered in the medical revolution we were promised.

### Conclusion

All this isn't to say AI won't have a substantial impact in the future. However, the absence of immediate, world-changing results should give us pause. Perhaps it's time to tone down the rhetoric and acknowledge that while AI has potential, it is not the panacea we were hoping for. At least, not yet.

Pay less medicaid, pay more social security

> I think because acknowledging the pointlessness of something does not immediately or unequivocally make something else reasonable or justifiable

How can something be moral or not in the face of meaninglessness. Just to use a ridiculous example, if I poop in the woods, that poop has no meaning to me so you can light it on fire or eat for all I care. However, if I work hard and buy a car, that car has tons of meaning to me so I do care if you light it on fire, or eat it.

Why doesn't the borrower assume responsibility for taking risky loans?

To get out of the morbid tone of the thread, I do want to say that, I think we probably mostly agree. I just want to reframe the conversation from, "despite the lack of (objective) meaning, build your own meaning" to "meaning is all around us, you just need to look a little harder" because the former is a very negative perspective on life in my opinion, and it can come from a place of resentment.

You're right in that I might be callous in the way I write, but meaning/purpose is very relevant to life and death, and I really dislike when people spread a message of meaninglessness in the form of nihilism. Now there might be language challenges here, but I believe that people with narrow definitions of meaning will struggle to find meaning because a persons thinking is somewhat bound by language. My view here is largely inspired from Camus[0]

[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#SuiResAbs

That's fine if you want use your definition, but most existentialists consider nihilism the common enemy in a society without object meaning.

> Yes, to me rejecting objective meaning is nihilism, what do you call it?

The word closest to rejecting objective meaning is just non-religious because objective meaning is mostly a religious phenomenon.

What matters is that the alternative is NOT just nihilism, but also existentialism.

I'm not equivocating anything, my test for nihilism is very simple, "do you have anything meaningful in your life". What I mentioned earlier are symptoms or forms of nihilism.

What I hate is when people describe nihilism as "Well, I don't believe there is meaning but also I find satisfaction in the small things in life" or "There's no point in life, the point of life is to live". It's always the same pattern of rejecting objective meaning and thinking that's the same as having no meaning.

Fwiw, I'm in favor of Nietzsche's definition too, but I don't want to introduce a whole host of loaded words to an already confusing topic

> Let's suppose for a moment you're mistaken. How would you recognize evidence to the contrary, were you to receive it? If you met a nihilist, you'd dismiss them, right? It's an approximately unfalsifiable construction.

I think it's almost tautological. But most people are on a spectrum, there are extremely nihilistic people who still care about their mothers for example. But yea, I think that the spectrum of nihilism is just the inverse of the spectrum of willingness to live.

> presupposing that a life of suffering should be ended

I'm not prescribing action, I just think it usually ends up this way.

> An example of a line of thinking you might accept; a nihilist could decide go on living, just because they feel like it.

I believe many people live like this, but not because they are a nihilist, but because they don't do introspection and/or take meaningful things in life for granted, because just a tiny bit of introspection would reveal that there are many many things you find meaningful in life, even if its something basic like, security, health, or peace. If you take these things away from a person, they will probably contemplate their existence and try to figure out why they should go on with life.

When I think of nihilism, I think of depressed people who can't pick themselves up to do anything because of a feeling of hopelessness, or a man experiencing a mid life crisis wondering what he's worked so hard for. These people often resort unhealthy coping mechanisms or even worse, suicide.

Why are you only talking about the lender's fault when it comes to bad loans.

Well that's why I believe most nihilists aren't actually nihilists. Also, I don't think believing in meaning has anything to do with nihilism. In fact, the sentence kind of implies you are speaking of objective meaning which is what grinds my gears.

100% agree, meaning in this context can usually be used interchangeably with, purpose, reason to live, value, etc.

It goes back to the answer to the question of, "what is the meaning of life", or its darker brother of a question "why bother living when you can kill yourself and end the suffering".

A Christian might respond with, "God tells me to live and spread the gospel, raise children, and feed the needy". A Christian will tell you that this is how you ought to think too because all truth comes from the bible, which is why I call it objective meaning. There is a single source of truth.

An atheist might say, "I find meaning through living life, understanding the world, human connection, etc". This person will usually readily admit that what makes them happy might not make you happy. Hence, subjective meaning.

A real nihilist in my opinion would probably kill themself because there is not purpose in life. A fake nihilist will say, "I can make sense of my suffering" which makes them not a nihilist because they found meaning.

Can "nihilists" stop conflating rejecting objective meaning with having no meaning (nihilism).

If we are going to play this game, the driver-ful cars have been killing pedestrians at much higher rates.

It's called currying and it's awesome

It works for cigarettes.

[0]: https://web.stanford.edu/~jhain/Paper/JASA2010.pdf