enord

Social media is yet another aspect of the atomization of the individual.

We are engaged in a great un-meaningfying of human interaction driven by a philosophication of empirically established human propensities. We are what we do, and the value of what we do is eatablished by market forces.

You are your friends and likes. You are your upvotes and replies. You are your retweets and followers. These are truths when you are too young to establish your own moral footing. And we pulled the rug out from under them; religion is out, atheism is uncool (they can tell), spiritual self discovery is illegal(usually involves drugs) and The Internet, well, thats where they get depressed, innit?

We are ill equipped for the marketisation of identity.

Is it alluring? Does it fit within some nice narrative? Can it be explained inside a one-page newspaper article? Then it has enough going for it that it doesn't necessairly need to be true in order to propagate.

I never mentioned limits, and the reasoning is purely inductive, based on previous events.

We are far away from understanding intelligence in all directions. Top down, bottom up, neurologically, psychologically, logically, mathematically and last but not least philosophically.

There's optimism at the moment, because we are doing more stuff with more annotated data (the annotations providing the semantic grounding, as in "Not hot dog" vs. "Not in category 339492-883764-399274"). The key difference this time being access to (and processing power for-) sufficiently large "training sets" (read "samples") for deep-learning algorithms (read "statistical models"). From an AGI point of view, this is nothing but an expensive parlor trick, because the "intelligent" part is the annotation, not the categorization after the fact.

Winter is coming.

This is the high water mark, the summer solstice if you will, of the current wave.

Buckle up, Serious People are going to rediscover the fundamental Hard Problems and relocate the current Hot Topics into their appropriate ontologies.

Also known colloqually as the "stuck-up-prude fallacy", "bloody-internet-atheists fallacy" and most famously the "you're-not-wrong-walter-you're-just-an-asshole fallacy".

Indeed, we have to be confident that the mechanism of intervention will have the desired effect, and in time before we run out of antibiotic alternatives.

I say that anything less than that is worse than useless, because we're spending wasted effort (mindshare, attention) when time is, to the best of our knowledge, running out.

Now i don't know that personal activism and moral campaigning will be insufficient in this case, it just smells that way to me. It also has a certain fragrance of moral superiority and virtue signalling about it, which i guess triggers me, or something.

I dispute that encouraging people to eat less meat will make enough of a difference in this case to, well, make a difference. It's not wrong, it's just too much self-congratulatory blame-shifting with a moral message as the end itself.

These kinds of problems need results, not feel-good activist sentiment woo. People are dying.

Or paying more taxes to fund epa, fda and unilateral trade agreements to adress challenges so numerous that no mortal man can be expected to grok half of it in two lifetimes.

In order to do that though, you have to vote vith your er... vote.

The salmon that you eat is not harmful to you (probably less so with antibiotics). The multiresistent bacteria are harmful to everyone. Antibiotics are the shared resource, and the incentives are misaligned precisely because more antibiotics in livestock = cheaper and healthier (in a veterinarian sense) meat, but more resistant bacterial strains that can find a way into the populace.

I'm afraid GP literally stated his proposal as related to the general situation (thread topic), and if not then his post would be a non-sequitur making my reply a non-non-sequitur or just a regular old sequitur.

And yes, I used his proposal of individual virtue as an "excuse" to raise a point about the role and reason of individual virtue in the topic at hand, it's called "having a discussion." Why should I leave virtuous people alone on the internet? Is he some kind of unassailable saint of meat-moderation who must be protected from non-sequiturs and sequiturs alike?

Whose toes are sore here?

I don't know how you define "scale", but if you do define it to encompass externalities then I agree with you.

My point is that some types of problems are more amenable to personal activism (participation in wars come to mind) while other types of problems (shared-resources/commons) have different effective solutions (taxes, legislation, democracy et. al.)

I'm not disputing that, but sometimes when we weigh our actions, significant (but limited) alternatives will not cut it, and if the effect is limited enough (and the problem severe enough), even deliberating on them will waste precious time to enact direct and (hopefully) effective action.

Hmm, I think you're giving me short shrift here. I'm not taking the piss on purpose at least, and (since you seem to hold personal responsibility dearly) I really feel it's important to raise the point of whether we are constructively addressing important issues or not.

I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.

I did interpret it as a solution proposal in order to address a specific issue: The effectiveness of voluntary activism to address shared-resource problems(specifically).

Of course people should do good things, but in some cases this can lead to a false sense of security ("I'm doing the Right Thing and spreading the good word. Next issue, please!")

Where I live, we used to have signs inside the buses that read "Wait until the buss has left the station to cross the road". This was an effort to prevent accidents, but had no measurable effect other than to take the problem of the agenda for public transport officials.

With shared resource-problems, voluntary action can lead to a prisoners dilemma, where you can get ahead by _not_ doing the right thing, even though everyone is individually better off by doing the right thing.

Yes, but farmed salmon is making a killing. How many documentaries before you quit sushi?

Can you be a conscious consumer on all aspects of your consumption, can anyone?

Fair enough, if you fear karmic retribution that makes sense. I don't, so for me the shoe remains on the same foot. Other people are more valuable to me than animals, and also more dangerous. The stakes are higher and therefore the moral considerations are more prudent (or karmic, if that's your bag).

I believe you're reading something else out of my analogy than what I tried to say; I was making a point about the effectiveness of the method, not the message as such.

Everybody agrees we should drive carefully, and everybody agrees we should not revert to pre-antibiotic treatment of infections. How did we address the former? Through moral admonition and personal prudence? (That was a rhetorical question)

They're not people. Concentration camps are for people. At least we don't eat them alive, like their other natural predators.

We do that, but with laws and signs and police and stuff. Not with stern admonition.

Or otherwise "inconvenience yourself at will, to a degree you can afford or find comfortable, to address some issue you have heard about and believe you understand, on your own time."

10 points for griffindor.

When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.

In an age of increasing nationalistic sentiments and military escalation, it's become a common trope that there's almost no one left to remember the tragedies of WWII. Coincidentally there's certainly nobody alive who remembers the previous pandemic, Spanish Flu.

(I say "previous" - there's an ongoing pandemic of HIV/aids, albeit a more gradual affair, but that's happening to Other People (TM))

Sound (as we perceive it) is 2d by the time it reaches the brain. The cochlea works as a "discrete" fourier transformer, with little hairs that resonate around certain frequencies. It is the fact that sound could be encoded in 1d that was, at one time, astounding.

We perceive sound two-dimensionally by spectral decomposition in the cochlea, so theres that...

You're making a moral judgement here, which is both unproductive and hinges on a convenient separation between "ability to concentrate" and "proper discipline and priorities" as if they were orthogonal.

A premise for Adhd is that, for some reason, developement of the latter is delayed causing an apparent lack of the former. The inpairment is in executive control itself, which is why your argument actually is in favour of diagnosis.

"Fair" does not mean "increases entropy" in this context. We can split hairs about what exactly "fair" is supposed to be, it's probably central to this whole nebulous disagreement, but a lowest common denominator would be something like "has higher value than opportunity cost". This may even increase entropy in aggregate. A fair die does not make a fair game.

This does not follow. Please elaborate. Theory allows a brute force attack on aes-256, no?

Hindsight will tell how much cynicism was warranted, but given the historic exponential volatility anybody who invested and liquidated at opportune moments were probably just lucky.

Nothing wrong with taking risk, but dont pretend you're not gambling.

Christmas comes early for the cynic.