cf141q5325

>No second chances, ever.

I find this to be an unrealistic standard. We all have lapses given the right moment (attention, tiredness, distraction). The question is do people comprehend the problem and are willing to work on it/ adjust for it?

Differently put, the issue isnt just one of detecting problems but detecting those that cant be fixed/adjusted for. Which means putting resources into debugging how they appear for which reasons. Seeing as walking away is costly, that can often be a worth while investment.

This is less about trusting and more about valuing functioning team relationships. Benefit of the doubt is a good strategy for team building, at the very least for information gathering.

It might help you to know that a lot of people are living predominantly via creating identities through social learning with a high focus on their ego (and the resulting reactions). Joscha Bach referenced it in his recent Lex Fridman appearance (#392) if you are curious. "Stages of Life", "Identity", "Enlightenment" and "How we think" are the relevant segments if i recall correctly.

You still might have to call it quits some time. Stakes just make it more difficult.

I fail to see the distinction and its relevance.

At that point we are discussing intention (stupidity vs malice) which makes it little better then analyzing for sarcasm. Benefit of the doubt goes both ways and the most charitable take is bad enough.

Not sure why this is downvoted. Your assumption could be wrong and categorically ruling that out without giving any real reasons means you likely are. Either way its far from a respectful attitude and doing that on shaky grounds is even worse.

At best your opinion is incomplete. It overlooks that people often take faked niceties quite bad. Like the parent post. And are not free but require mental effort. With humans not really doing multi tasking. And while a positive attitude is healthier all around, we are talking work environment here. I shouldnt need to worry if somebody thinks a short and precise "Yes!" could be impolite or sarcastic. Its an accurate response and i shouldnt have to worry about babysitting your interpretation. Seeing as we are all working together give me the benefit of the doubt. Its as simple as that. And if you figure that to be misplaced, do inform me as i might be overlooking something. That wont be a difficult conversation, i will be grateful.

edit: I would also be really worried how likely difficult conversations will be in such an environment. No amount of sugarcoating makes you fine with me kicking your favorite feature. And it might need kicking, no matter how attached you are.

edit1: In case it helps, the reason people take fake niceties in the workplace so badly is because it selfishly increases the required effort from everyone else to meet the bar you already set rather high. When considering what is acceptable people now have to plan around you lying. Instead of cooperation you are getting managed because you require too much effort and dont say what you want for which reasons.

Downvotes make a lot of sense seeing as he responded to the wrong post (ketzo was the post referenced)

>Why would this ever be done on a browser level?

Because government says so. Its signaling/actionism for political/power purposes.

The problem is with their usage as mains power. I think they are considered a fire hazard in older German homes.

>We frequently use aluminum wires with a higher thickness to make up for the lower conductivity as compared to copper.

Aluminum wires even made it into residential housing when copper was expensive/rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring

>Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

I had a similar experience when reading up on the history of gyroscopes recently. Its absolutely amazing to watch the advances and miniaturization from mechanical to optical to now micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). Watching the giant machines from the space race first shrink, then get replaced by light traveling fiber optics to now vibrating bits of silicone. With the prices imploding as a result.

Still havent fully grasped the implications of older lithography systems being now usable for electro, mechanical and optical applications. Especially as they seem to be quite affordable, especially with multi-project wafers. With open source project even getting chips for free via google.

Video from 3 month ago of their platform where a language model is accessing battlefield information and proposing solutions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEM5qz__HOU

Its unlikely that you can afford to ignore this.

I already largely agreed. Yes, how we think, our models, influences how we act. And how we act influences an existing reality thats too complex to model completely. With the risk of erroneously over relying on ones model as you described.

However, any greater impact of perspective or intention on reality then through your actions gets you to magic and probability lines. https://www.specularium.org/wizardry

Which still dont disregard the existence of one reality in the moment, just the ability to act in a way to navigate the possible futures.

I only mention it because the existence of one reality unrelated to perspective comes with safety concerns unrelated to intention. Misunderstanding how you influence reality carries risks. Its how the worse in "better or worse results for your reality model" can also look. Your reality model deteriorating too far by overvaluing your perspective due to cognitive bias.

>Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?

Imho high probability its who ever is reacting to your post. Cognitive warfare today means its highly advantageous to exploit propaganda blind spots by dialing them up to 11 to create dysfunction and make your opponent look bad. Your post has all the hallmarks of being a caricature aimed at creating a reaction.

I am sorry if its your actual opinion, in that case you should consider that giving up on a functioning reality model in favor of narratives is a deeply counterproductive idea. Distortions and pollution of the information environment are ambivalent to the intention of its creation. Its just creating blindspots that get exploited by hostile entities.

Pls do give feedback about the downvotes. I have yet to find a better source on the background of the whole conflict.

Its indeed the information i care about, not the implications for any narratives. Distortions and pollution of the information environment is just shortsighted and counterproductive. If you stop looking at facts in favor of narrative you are making yourself vulnerable for the inevitable self destructive corruption. Which can easily be manufactured, which both China and Russia are aware of.

My post was indeed rather convoluted. I dont think we are disagreeing.

With idiot breaks i am talking about timeouts to artificially lengthen the reaction time and with it reduce emotional bias and excitement. Its the same idea as with "count till 10 before you start screaming at someone". I share your concern with reality models and the confidence in them, trying to determine and dictate TRUTH is a dangerous fools errand. I would also go further, that its not just a matter of annoyance, communication channels dictate our reality models. With no error correction for identity based errors (group think, tribalism, ego, fear of loosing credibility/ social capital ...) we are majorly screwed.

With proof of work i am talking purely practical necessity to operate a reputation less communication channel. Going zero moderation with one just hasnt worked so far. And its arguably less bad then the old system of IP bans. And i dont see many alternatives, there will always be a stupid person with a short fuse jamming the channel. Who has likely some interesting points but is ruining the efficiency and with it the appeal of the channel.

>You're almost, but not quite there....

Likewise. I would guess this to be an issue with vocabulary. So more of a "Yes, but ..." then a "No!" I would argue that reality isnt influenced by the existence or absence of an accurate human-friendly reality model. Thats only relevant for human interaction with reality (which you are talking about), the bias doesnt actually influence reality itself.

While you wont archive a complete model, there is a baseline reality that is indifferent to human bias and understanding. You could simplify the argument as gravity neither being being a social construct nor requiring a complete unbiased reality model to screw with you.

edit: Unless its an actual disagreement, in which case we are arguing Solipsism? So the biased perception actually creating reality. In which case we got to an impasse, if you are creating reality through biased perception, there is no reason to assume you arent also creating me the same way.

While we can only perceive subjectively, reality is more then just an agreement. Once biased perspective collides with reality, reality wins. There being no hope of getting an objective reality model doesnt change that. Looking at your last paragraph, i dont think you disagree.

She mentioned it in an interview with the ZEIT recently.

Here the article debating the interpretation of what she said. https://web.archive.org/web/20230103062022/https://www.zeit....

> Merkel sagte der ZEIT: "Das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Sie hat diese Zeit auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht."

>Also John Mearsheimer, an American, laid out the case for Ukraine as a massive NATO threat in a public talk many years ago. Available on youtube.

Russia has also been vocal about this for decades. The CIA director summarized it rather well during his time as Ambassador in his "Nyet means Nyet" cable.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

>Interestingly, they allow Tor users to post. It's an anonymous imageboard with no CAPTCHA, so I'm not sure how they intend to address spam this way.

Other sites use proof of work here

Anonymity also makes it really easy to simulate something if you want to imply something about human nature. Thats luckily something that is fixable client side. Just be less gullible.

Keep in mind that much of that is a constant struggle between moderating and Zersetzung. If somebody doesnt like free discourse, all they have to do is increase the moderation burden for such sites. Knowing full well, that the more rules you have and try to enforce, the more of an echochamber you become.

Still beats the toxic effects of curating identities in an social media echochamber. Dedicated boards also work as plumbing on chans.

edit: Totalitarians are also not shy about employing Zersetzung. For example, the CREST Research ("Mining the Chans") people are very open about attacking chans through AI generated garbage/extremism content to make them unusable. So chances are high that this is what you are seeing and reacting to.

Its a great example how democracies fail yet again to address a threat from within. They know it to be illegal, yet they keep doing it thanks to immunity from prosecution.

Impact from moderation always goes both ways. The more you insert yourself, the higher the chances that your own stupidity warps the entire communication channel for the worse leading to shrinkage and echo chambers. And people dont vanish, chances are they are already attempting the next tower in babel a few ips over and get up to who knows what.

The merits of proof of work should be discussed for the specific scenario. If it allows for reputationless discussions and throwaway accounts, how high is the cost really? In comparison to banevasion problems, moderation overhead and the resulting attack surface requiring more resources while deteriorating the channel? Otherwise impact less emergency breaks for idiots might be reasonable solution. Its not much different from timed bans.

With those shows narratives heavily influencing how we think. With some no longer available after falling through the cracks of DRM (like Malcolm in the Middle in some countries).

>That's obviously false.

That perspective is how being wrong looks here. Its an incredible shortsightedness, you have no basis for that degree of certainty. For starters, if it was so obvious you could explain how.

We are talking about a barrier to enter public discourse enforced through DDOS, not freedom to do business with whom you please. This robs you of the ability to self host. With zero checks and balances. You being certain that the likes of the daily stormer shouldnt exist in the public discourse doesnt absolve you of the responsibility for the delete function you just created. For which you have zero concern. That is how a totalitarian slope looks, totalitarians prick holes into the public discourse with no regards for the safe use of such holes. Unsurprising as there is no safe way to do this. Its building a horrific weapon with no targeting mechanism or safety.

You having made yourself a totalitarian through your flagrant disregard for the consequences of your actions. Your error lies in believing your intention matters more then the outcome. To the degree that safeguards became unnecessary. You could and should know better, reality always wants its toll for such behavior.

edit: Please check the comment a bit down starting with " Naive being the key point." on the use of the term totalitarian. I also mentioned stuff to read on the topic by people a lot more capable then me and and hopefully a lot harder to ignore.

You do realize this is pure diffusion of responsibility? Something you can paraphrase as "It could have been anyone" is not an argument for this not to be wrong. I also believe the lack of empathy comment to be uncalled for. You not valuing your personal data doesnt give you the right to disregard mine. Especially with a friend, those dont profit off each other because of a personal disregard for the cost.

Its something worth considering, seeing as it has been two days and unsurprisingly nobody could come up with an actual justification for such behavior.

They still did not have to click that button. This isnt a get out of jail free card, intention only gets you so far. There is a reason stupidity doesnt protect against punishment. You are expected to pay attention when effecting on other people.

edit: This is a lot like getting signed up for some multilevel marketing scam by a friend. They better be really sorry and you better reevaluate the spare key you gave that stupid person with low self control. Which you should have realized earlier.

Naive being the key point.

Worth mentioning that totalitarianism is often characterized by being the rule of the stupid. Shortsighted actionism and signaling in spite of reality with the resulting corruption growing like a self destructive cancer. Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity puts it great and Meerloo giving a vivid description of what kind of societies this creates.

edit: Willful naivete is not a good life choice. Staying away from darwin awards and are not accidentally creating a fourth reich both require ongoing effort, no falling asleep on the wheel. History tells you this is a valid risk if you dont consider certain things when acting. With the guys having fought the nazis advising you to be less stupid to not repeat that. Seeing how horrible that was, maybe at least try to stay away from that instead of just intending to. This is insanely bad on the severity scale and justifies some effort. Reality is clearly lacking a bright red warning sign here with technology offering ever greater levers for less and less intentioned actions.

I can not overstate how bad of an idea it is to ignore that out of group think/tribalism and ego. It simply does not work and in hindsight you could have known. Failing so badly that nobody risks a "having told you so".

I cant come up with an explanation why it wouldnt be. On the moral side, its clearly a no go to sell your friends stuff/data. On the practical side, its really hard to argue that you are not aware this is happening. Can you elaborate?