halperter

Could you point out a reason why education, which can be standardized at least to a state scale¹, cannot be standardized to the state scale utilizing oral defenses? Also, can be ≠ is. Not everything is a startup lol

¹https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/

I mean, economics is pretty important for a business, no? The issue with the idealistic "do everything we can" is that we have limits. Money is one of the most, if not _the_ most important parts. When clinical trials take tens of millions to do, it is economically infeasible to try things at random; there needs to be an informed approach. I can see why you call my argument about cancer a strawman, and I'd like to clarify that as a general concept, just because humanity could survive for a few more centuries (paraphrased), we can't just be trying randomly. The person who randomly creates protiens that have a _miniscule_ chance to cure an important disease would be much better off putting their efforts into not just guessing and checking.

TLDR: I just have an issue with their "we should try every combination with no regards to constraining factors" approach

Huh, haven't looked at it that way. I'm just not sure about the leap from a lack of craving allows us to truly experience the world. As a general rule, I think humans want more. We usually aren't satisfied with "okay enough" and is what led us to do basically everything we have done. Nobody does something if they don't have a motivation to do it. I think that desire is so fundamental to life that to lead life without desire is empty, but I can definitely see how chasing your desires can blind yourself to everything else.

At least for me, the idea of giving up the craving for _everything_ seems to be rather...undesireable. I'd argue that a futile existence, with full knowledge that it is futile but living anyways, is much more "life-affirming" than giving up all desire. I want to feel, to touch, to yearn. Even if those don't mean anything, I think it's much better to do rather than to not do. And I think that humans, more than anything, want to feel alive. That's why we can never abandon that craving, why we must live with it and surpass it rather than retreating from it.

Your analogy of divine justice struck me as rather fitting! Before the trial, the magistrate brandishes the cross to Meursault and demands that Meursault believe that he will be forgiven, lest the magistrate's life lack meaning. Meursault, although "forced" into saying that such a god exists, denies that such a god, a divine judgment, could give life meaning. His position reflects Camus' as Camus believes that hope of finding meaning (god) is ultimately just a way to postpone nihilism, not to overcome it. The point of the trial wasn't to be logical or make sense, as the irrational instinctual human response to the absurd is what characterizes the trial. There's a shift in the jury when Meursault states that he shot the attacker a few times, then a few times again when they were on the ground. Again, Meursault's trial is a reflection of the human struggle against the absurd. Some bring god, others bring human ethics and emotions, but it is ultimately humans dealing with the absurd irrationally. For the execution point, I find that it actually doesn't matter whether the execution has gone through or not. Meursault already denies any sense of hope (reflecting his position as the absurd hero), rather, embracing the absurd. It is a bit weird if there would be a focus on the end result, which I don't really think matters, to the reader nor Meursault. Addressing the juxtoposition of the first and second parts, I think the first part was an exploration of the absurd hero's life, and the second part was more of the reaction to the absurd hero by society. I'm not the smartest, so I find it hard to fit the distinction. At least, I enjoyed reading the novel :D

Again, maybe this is just cope for bad writing but the fundamental absurdity of the trial, which you have clearly shown, is one of the points of the novel. It's more a philosophical treatise disguised as a novel really. The prose is supposed to reflect someone who is a stranger to us, and the plot is supposed to evoke feelings of incredulity into the reader!

P.S. -> thanks for the critiques!

At least from my perspective, the trial is meant to be contrived and a farce. From Meursault's perspective (which I agree that he can be an unreliable narrator) everything happening around him is inconsequential; he reflects that death-even of someone so "close" to him as his mother-doesn't matter as the end would always come. Meursault is on trial for his disposition, rather than the actual murder. The prosecution argues that Meursault is guilty due to his aloofness rather than any discussion of the murder (the defense openly questions whether Meursault is on trial for the murder of the arab or the murder of his mother!). At least for me, this difference was what _The Stranger_ was about; this inherent clash between indifference and the human rejection of the "gentle indifference of the universe". The fact that Meursault's unreliable narrator aspect comes about of the confrontation between the priest(?) and himself makes me think that Meursault too was hiding under this coating of lucidity, where he (and others who pretend to be stoics in the face of the absurd) will eventually break down. I reccomend reading _The Myth of Sisyphus_, especially the third and fourth parts, for Camus' explanation of the absurd hero.

Also, could you link the critiques? They sound interesting and I'd like to read them.

Rather notably, companies are profit-driven, not good-for-society driven. If 99% of your attempts which cost millions to do fail, the company either has to raise the prices of the drug insanely high or not work as a company. In addition, most drugs aren't humanity saving or crucial for humans to live. You could solve all forms of cancer tomorrow, which would be a great thing, but you aren't "saving humanity". You add less than a decade or so, maximum, to the average human lifespan. This isn't critical to humanity's existence, so this "try or die" mentality doesn't work.

If this try or die mentality does work, why don't we try every possible amino acid chain in every configuration possible? It's an infinitesimally small chance but try or die "outweighs". This is evidently absurd.

I think what people find "spiritual" about mathematics is the process, with its creativity and brilliance, ratjer than the final answer. I'd also think it's rather incomparable to a vegetable garden as the amount of effort required and complexity, which drive "spirituality", are of much grander scales. The author believes that llms make mathematics so trivial that mathematicians will no longer be the ones proving but the ones teaching and commentating, taking the "fun" part away in service of money. People will still do what they wabt to do, but one can no longer get by by indulging in what they like to do (math).

I would think that it's reasonable not to blame a person for terrorist attacks just because of their ethnicity/nationality and not because of any evidenced involvement if that's what you're implying.

From a Stanford study on the application of LLMs to warfare:

>Our findings show that LLMs exhibit difficult-to-predict, escalatory behavior, which underscores the importance of understanding when, how, and why LLMs may fail in these contexts.

https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/2024-05/Escalation-Ris...

Camus does talk about this in I believe part 3. He doesn't have a problem with killing someone who would cause harm to you. His problem is that the framing of the justification of death by the state is after the case, preventing no harm, and in fact creating harm-see comments above and the article. Secondly, assuming the innocence of the victim is put on society so that allows for execution by the state is just incorrect. It is not justice for a victim but a show for an undeserving audience. I don't think I explained it well, so if you have time, I really encourage reading Camus's article. Even if you don't agree, I still find his reasoning and viewpoints interesting.

I know that the belief in the majority is a core part of our democracy, but I'd like to challenge it for a moment here. First, does common belief make sonething right? Lets say society A has a majority vote that says people who murder are horrible and should be executed. Society B says no, murder is okay, because the majority say its okay. So, is murder right or wrong? The point is that a crowd doesn't always have a right answer. Second, opinions are not homogenous, and popular opinion can be wrong (think geocentric systems, newtonian laws, disease, etc.). A morality by plurality is arbitrary and non-universal which seems to defy the point of moral frameworks.

Clearly not capital punishment? A lack of capital punishment ≠ lack of punishment. Boycotts, protests, new supply chains, political pressure, etc? The bourgeoisie still need the proletariat, thus, the proletariat can influence the bourgeoisie through solidarity. Commentator above said nothing about not punishing the bourgeoisie anyways.

This may sound harsh, but I believe that anyone who fantasizes about cruelly murdering anyone has something wrong with them. Have you seen a death, saw someone dying in all the glory of their guts splayed around you? If that is something you desire to see, perhaps this death drive of yours requires some introspective.

Camus also writes that these morbid events essentially harden the people who need to be softened, trivializing violence and thus perpetuating it. He uses the example of pickpockets, where a large majority of pickpockets convicted had atteneded an execution of another pickpocjet, sometimes stealing from others while the execution was ongoing.

What criteria would allow for someone to "deserve" death? Is it as a form of revenge, like most "deserved" punishments?

Camus believes that state sanctioned revenge just breeds more violence. The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is something that offends the senses, and it is ultimately served on the platter as a criminal getting their just punishment in revenge.

Either such a revenge is public, to declare that justice has occured, or it does not happen at all. What revenge is a secret and supressed lethal injection? By all accounts, revenge should be public and furious, it should be there for the victims to see.

>Indeed, one must kill publicly or confess that one does. not feel authorized to kill. If society justifies the death penalty by the necessity of the example, it must justify itself by making the publicity necessary (Camus).

Thus, revenge is not a sufficient reason for capital punishment due to the abhorence we have to see death in public. Camus adds that such public exetions only harden the ones who need to be softened and offend the soft. He uses the example of pickpockets. A large majority of pickpockets who were sentenced had viewed the execution of a pickpocket before. Revenge only perpetuates violence.

Camus doesn't think that a muderer _doesn't_ deserve a punishment, but rather that a murder in any case cannot be accepted.

Definitely one of the alt accounts of all time. Regards.

>account created: 15 mins ago

Comments on: One singular post

>Calls people pedophiles(?), calls for homicide(?)

0/8 bait, best regards.

All EU members have now voted affimative according to the EU document: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11513-2026-...

Quicker link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Programm...

Pretty sure caveat intended for the former definition.

Did you create an account _just_ so you could comment? lol.

Anyways, footnotes seem to work or are in-text. Links work as well so IDK the problem?

Then you talk about the claim of notability? Wikipedia's terms for notability are different than just a lot of people using the product. It's not the best, and should be reworked, but you're confusing wiki policies for general terms.

Then, we summarize that the article, author, and wikipedia are trash. Definitely one of the non-sequiturs of all time, lol. You don't even have an issue that the article is deleted, showing that you have no knowledge or at the very least don't care about adding substance to the discussion.

To summarize:

Please articulate your thoughts in a understandable, neutral manner that adds to the discourse.

I think the sentiment here isn't very bad. I do agree that the status quo has issues and corporations extract value from undervaluing the labor of the proletariat. However, the article's solution to the capitalist system's woes is to essentially monopolize distribution under the state. We replace private capitalism with state capitalism. This doesn't really solve for the staus quo.

First, they have something about how corporations in distribution soley act as uneeded middlemen. I can see the angle but I think that if consumers didn't need the middlemen how come the exist in the first place? There must be some sort of demand.

Second, repsonding to solvency, monopolies in _any_ entity is dangerous because they lead to profit gouging and corruption because greed is far more powerful than virtue. Ex: Uzbek cotton scandal [1]. But let's say that the goverment happens to be virtuous, which they have an _incredible_ track record of.

Then, the next step is to... tax the producer to fund the govt? This stifles free competition by lowering possible profit margins and creating an enviroment where bulk products still reign supreme, so the status quo doesn't really shift.

And do you know how we're going to take the spot as the distributor? We're going to...

>tell Amazon they have to unionise and...take their premises.

I see no possible way that this rushed takeover of an international corporation could go well. If anything, the status quo shifts negatively---workers get laid off by amazon and have to get rehired by the govt, which adds overhead to the nation's supply chains which most likely is detrimental to overall wellbeing.

So let's assume that all of the above consequences don't happen and state capitalism is achieved. What now? We are just shifting inequality from outside our nation to internationally. Who do you think will be exploited in this brave new world of ours? Not us, but someone else. Capitalism necessitates the undervaluement of labor for profit. Our capitialist machine can't stop, so others will inevitably become oppressed. Hey, at least it's not "us" ;)

The final part of the proposal is essentially a buy now pay 20 years later for everything you have. 800 dollar washing machine? Now that's just 40 dollars a year! This reminds me of those buy now, pay later kinds of deals where you are lured in by a cheap sticker price, over consume, and are then crushed for the next few years. I don't think that this is a great policy.

They have this whole section about open source, which I think is a pretty good idea and also think is urealistic.

Then to really screw over the rich we steal intellectual property and make cheap clones of everything magically! Alienate the US! Go and work with India and China who totally aren't also problematic and have oligrarchs! Scotland prosperity! UBI! Yay!

>You can imagine it quite easily The issue is that it's just one set of unlikely circumstances and bad consequences piled one on top of another. This is nigh impossible to make happen.

I think this whole "screw oligarchs" thing and replacing oligarchs with state capitalism is masking the fact that capitalism and greed is the root of the evil, not the wealth disparity. In no world does greed provide a solution to inequality (see the wealth disparity between nations in the Global South and the nations that exploit them).

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

Dupe of [https://github.com/rmit-wgbowley/hercules_challenge]

As a suggestion, if you need to include that this project is indeed safe for work in the title, it may be a good idea to change the project name.

Discussion of study related to screen time's effects on children: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48699778]

Either they are

a) buffoons who have surface level comprehesion of LoTR,

b) impulsively decided on a famous fantasy name for their tech (surprisingly common), or

c) playing up the "morally ambiguous" trope. Palantir serves evil as a service to whoever is willing to pay (USFG).

My money is on c.

Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48701802]

True, I'd agree that my wellbeing today (as a member of a rich western country) is far more preferable to someone who lacks modern innovations. However, these innovations continue and will continue to help the rich far more than the poor. For example, medical treatments for life threatening conditions are still incredibly expensive. Even insulin, something so cheap to manufacture, is being gouged to eyewatering prices. The danger is that the disparity becomes so large that the rich become the only people who can afford these innovations, thus leading the innovations becoming only avalible to the rich and not the poor. Structural violence ensues and pretty bad things happen.

I think that wealth is pretty much comparative, as you said, but I think that money (which I'm interpreting as an indentifier of worth, tell me if that's wrong) isn't zero sum. Price is (generally) proportional to value, measured in how much you stand to benefit by owning/selling/using an asset as compared to doing nothing. The physical dollar bill may have limited circulation at a moment in time, but value fluctuates. Supply up, value---and then price---down, assuming all other factors are constant. Value can be created and dissolve in weeks as it is intriniscally subjective---think fads and trends. One pair of jeans could be worth a couple hundred one day and be worthless the other. Thus, value and thus money is not zero sum.