chordalkeyboard

the difference is that the person in control would be attesting to their state of mind, versus the person out of control attesting to their understanding of the relevant circumstances.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Picasso

All art is derivative.

The chance of a machine being held accountable is zero as the concept is inapplicable.

D&G are a bad place to start with philosophy. I recommend watching these lectures by the late Professor Rick Roderick for a more accessible introduction: http://rickroderick.org/101-socrates-and-the-life-of-inquiry...

> They won't even help the U.S government make autonomous weapons.

This is a good thing.

inflation is not scale-independent, the first goods to be bid up are the ones purchased by the people who receive the freshly minted funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_the...

> What about quinoa made it associated with rich yuppies?

poor people use wheat etc.

> I also grew up in a dysfunctional family environment (toxic parent relationship, some narcissistic/borderline traits in them) and have been struggling with the consequences of that on my development and mental health.

I know what you mean here. Victims of narcissistic abuse often become vulnerable narcissists and codependents, deferring their own needs for those of others until the damage becomes too great to ignore.

You didn't mention what psych books you read so I will suggest Games People Play by Eric Berne.

> I'm thinking of the union busting efforts of the railroad and mining companies in the late 1800s and early 1900s where the corporations straight up murdered folks.

my favorite examples of corporate union busting from that era all involve the US Army being deployed against workers.

feeling older than your body's age in calendar years is a symptom of ptsd (not in every case)

(yes I feel older and yes in my case it is a symptom of ptsd)

Can you explain or share what research is being done on getting machines to understand the meaning and intent of the data and prompts they are given?

here is a website which addresses this: https://defetter.com

I'd be interested in the citations, I thought your post was a joke (although I didn't downvote).

semantic pedantry here: "bodybuilder" refers to a sport/discipline where they literally do lift for looks or aesthetics; not performance.

> It's incredibly rare for someone to be "perfect" genetically speaking

its actually impossible because the only objective measure of gene quality is the performance of the organism and the performance of the organism depends on the environment.

> We discriminate like that based on genetics now. It's just that it comes from random chance at birth rather than human modification, but really what's the difference?

What are you alluding to here?

> Does it make sense, in a world like the one in Gattaca, for a person that is part of a discriminated class, to go into space, instead of trying to change the society around him to be less discriminatory?

Yes, it absolutely makes sense for one lone individual to pursue self-actualization against the odds rather than embark on a crusade to remake the world around him against even greater odds.

> Therefore the statistical estimates issued by genetic experts have to be true; otherwise, there is simply no story to tell.

(from your first link)

The movie obliquely addresses this when Vincent experiences a non-fatal heart attack on the treadmill. The scientific predictions are not infallible but some people seem to have forgotten that.

it depends on a number of factors including the individual's age and health, and the environment. Skin infections are a possibility.

The article alleges that eggs are not free from killing because only females lay eggs and therefore half the chickens hatched to produce egg-laying chickens are killed because they are male.

it is impossible to have journalism without an agenda.

> Truth might as well be synonymous with common consensus, it has nothing to do with facts.

this isn't what normal people mean when they say 'truth', usually they mean what you're referring to as 'facts.'

> he meant that truths and facts do not care for the other. The Church and the world-at-large might say the truth is the Sun orbits the Earth, but the fact is the Earth orbits the Sun.

Galileo meant that the truth of the matter doesn't care for public opinion.

> The truth changes according to what the majority believes is true at a given point in time.

benchmarking 'truth' to majority opinion is quite problematic. For one thing, you'd be asserting that a minority in possession of accurate facts had failed to grasp the truth of the matter, until their facts became common knowledge, meaning they weren't 'true' until they were believed.

> Unlimited companies prove my point. They’re rare. And they’re overwhelmingly levered.

if you say so, but your point is hard to grasp because here are examples of people owning capital without a liability shield. And plenty of liability limited companies are also levered.

> The actual counter-example you seek is partnerships.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090214/limit...

> The difference between stock and partnership is limited liability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company

it seems as though you are making a semantic claim around the word 'equity' which is fine but you also seem to be simultaneously claiming that people would either make/take loans or operate the business themselves. I almost didn't reply because I don't want to argue but you ought to be informed that this implication I have attributed to you based on your replies is not true [1].

if I've misunderstood the thrust of your replies then I apologize.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_company

as an investor, it is your responsibility to be informed as to what people are doing with your money. the entire purpose of liability limitations is to make it so people don't need to do that because all they have risked is money.

they shield the shareholders from criminal and civil liability for the actions of their employees. if the shareholder committed a liable act personally then the existence of an LLC would not shield them. The LLC/corporation shields them from liability for the actions of the (agents of the) corporation that they own.

> It simply makes equity impossible. Instead, you have proprietors who get loans--all investment is debt.

this is not true. investors are merely incentivized to be more careful about who they trust with their money.

> corporations have free will

disagree. corporations have no will at all. a corporation is a liability-limiting legal structure, it is merely a social convention that is designed to shield ownership from the liability associated with the actions of their employees.

> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars.

no great loss there.