injeolmi_love

Slovakia has a gdp per capita of around $21k and has stagnated with low growth since 2008. It has relatively high hdi ratings but these have also begun to decline. Both of those things are really not good for a country that hasn’t climbed out of the middle income trap yet. It’s a beautiful place, and there are certainly worse countries, but calling it one of the most developed countries is stretching the facts beyond breaking.

No system, just stop using force to protect the interests of capitalists.

Exactly this. It’s not even a secret, quite a few intelligence and defense agencies have published reports in this issue. These agencies even intentionally using this process to destabilize target countries first. Based on what I’ve read the agencies haven’t fully recognized that it will eventually come for everyone, though I have seen that written as a scenario. It’s likely effective state agencies will continue to develop novel funding sources in preparation, and the transition will be cleaner in countries where they’re successful. Your local district paying a monthly fee for the FBI’s security plan would be a better choice than a gang style security startup.

Just because fascism works by its own definitions does not mean that fascism is good. Neither Hungary nor Slovakia are great places to live by most metrics, even for native born citizens.

This is a story about how a yet another state is failing to provide security, so private actors - gangs - are filling the role the state is not. Yet instead of blaming the security monopoly for the lack of security, the interviewees are blaming the gang members for “not integrating”. To be fair to the state, As migration flows increase alongside technological radicalization, states are increasingly struggling to fill their traditional roles. People should prepare themselves.

The supply for labor depends on the marginal benefits versus the marginal costs. If leisure gets cheaper, taxes go up, or jobs get worse, people on the margin will choose to work fewer hours or exit the workforce. There’s nothing wrong about this! It’s how a free market is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, in our capitalist system, people are demonized for choosing to work less or not at all. It’s viewed as immoral not to work, because the institutions view humans as cattle that must be milked to the maximum. I expect new policies will be created beyond the ones already in place to force people to work. We should resist this, so I support the sentiment of the blogpost even though it’s misleading on a factual basis.

Emergency situations. For instance someone has a stroke, no ambulance, and driving to hospital. Happens frequently in rural areas.

No, you shouldn’t. When someone sounds smart, that means they are an effective communicator and have good media presence. Those are valuable skills but don’t indicate whether the underlying ideas are accurate.

Eliezer is filling the traditional doomsday prophet archetype, of which there have been thousands in history. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but should immediately raise questions.

A deeper analysis of his ideas shows there are fundamental problems in his reasoning.

First, He’s been consistently wrong about the future development and results in AI research so his understanding of AI is proven to be superficial.

Second, His doomsday scenarios are based on a fundamental fallacy; that a GAI smarter than humans would be insanely stupid, unable to self reflect or solve moral quandaries. That’s not to say AI cannot be dangerous, but the types of doomsday scenarios he presents are unlikely. For instance because of acausal trade, Rokos Basilisk is a serious risk that should be treated properly, but Elizer denies it.

Why is Biden opposing the warrant requirement? Shouldn’t he be careful regarding 2024? Or is the hope that the alternative is so bad people will still come out to vote for someone who supports warrantless searches? Maybe most people don’t care, but at least in my circle this is a big deal.

What a fun exploration of algorithmic procedural generation with using simple algorithms to produce outstanding effects. It’s inspirational to my own work; how to find straightforward algorithms that are easy to think about but can produce outstanding experiences for users.

Its dangerous to think that committing crimes and violating rights is ok as long as the other side loses. A healthy response would have been internal reforms to the party and the abolishment of secret police. Punishing free speech just increases political cynicism in the general public, which can just as easily be taken advantage of by the other side.

The campaign against Wikileaks and Assange comes to mind in particular.

The price of crypto isn’t the same in every jurisdiction due to restrictions on capital flows. If the price of crypto is lower in a jurisdiction, then crypto generating activities such as mining or freelancing become more profitable. If the price is higher inside the jurisdiction, then smugglers are incentivized to sell goods for crypto. These activities will find a balance within the jurisdiction.

I don’t know enough about the Gaza crypto market to know which state it’s in. But generally, if people are desperate they will try to earn crypto online, and if smugglers can’t get cash out they’ll prefer crypto.

The term capitalism was invented as a prejorative, and in its original meaning had nothing to do with free markets. Instead it referred to a system of oppression where industrialists partnered with the state to create an underclass of cheap labor. Various policies were used to impoverish peasants, force them off their traditional lands, and legally require them to get a job in a factory or face prison.

Something similar happening now is where only big tech companies are able to afford compliance with censorship, money laundering, and other state regulations. This allows big tech to abuse their relationships with their customers, who are a wide group of industrialists, consumers, and labor.

Criticism of capitalism is fundamentally criticism of the state.

Generally speaking, defense prefers older, reliable, and well understood technology rather than the cutting edge stuff. It’s cheaper, easier to mass produce, and less likely to fail under extreme conditions.

It’s quite unlikely for the state enterprises to prove profitable, because political motivations will supersede profits when handling managerial decisions.

I cannot get into specifics because I don’t want to get banned on hacker news. I will generally wave in the direction of authorities that are violating human rights.

Many different areas and topics. The most concerning to me is bans and shutdowns of public forums where there is discussion of how authorities are disregarding human rights as defined by the UN in the UDHR.

If that’s the case, then why did these platforms exist in the past and don’t exist now? I’m not just talking about virtual platforms, but also physical public forums and meetups. I agree with what you’re saying about admins, but the “who” that is shooting the bullet seems to be a growing bipartisan antiliberal movement. It’s not just my personal experience; globally there’s been a decrease in freedom of speech metrics with the US experiencing less of a decline than the average but still a significant one.

And where exactly is free speech left? Every public platform I’ve used over the last 20 years that had freedom of speech was shut down. Currently if you want to discuss ideas or issues that are outside of the publicly approved consensus, the only choice left is private chats. Even there the options are continually shrinking.

You’re right, the President isn’t in charge the attorney general is. So Merrick B. Garland is the person allowing this injustice to go unpunished. Can’t he be impeached for violating his oath to the constitution or something like that?

https://www.justice.gov/ag/staff-profile/meet-attorney-gener...

The US President is in charge of the executive branch, isn’t he? So why doesn’t he order the justice department to arrest the criminals? There’s enough evidence to get a warrant surely.

Why aren’t the people responsible in prison? Surely this is more serious than possession of weed.

He is saying don’t build anything.

I am aware I cannot think of every bad way a service could be misused . I also am aware that there is always a way to misuse a service. Therefore, in order to prevent a service I use from being misused, I must not build anything.

Obviously that conclusion is wrong, so one of the premises must be wrong. Specifically, liability should be on the abuser not on the service.

What makes you think the universe bends towards justice? For the last 10 years, every metric of personal and economic freedom has declined. Most countries peaked in 2007. Its starting to look like personal freedom was an anomaly and we’re now retiring to the historic norm.

States have been actively shutting down p2p fiat to crypto trades, but they cannot shut down all of them. Currently if you don’t have an exchange account, the most popular platform is Bisq for secure p2p fiat/crypto trades. And if you’re more oldschool there’s always localmonero or irc.

Just a reminder- modern democracies are a set of democratic institutions such as civil service, independent courts, free media, and some elected representatives. Rule by the people has not meant democracy for over a hundred years.

No, I’m contrasting utilitarianism with deontology and explaining why deontological ethics are preferable. Utilitarianism is concerned with effects while deontology is concerned with actions and/or intents.

That said there are several arguments from within utilitarianism that support deontology. For instance Bentham mugging indicates a utilitarian should pretend to support a deontology.

For most utilitarians, refusal to do good is evil because they view actions as having a certain number of positive or negative utils based on their outcomes.

For many other ethical systems, good and evil aren’t weighed against each other. Instead evil deeds may be forbidden flat out. Good deeds are optional but commendable. Since evil is forbidden and good is optional, you cannot justify good with evil - you cannot justify the unjustifiable.

Why is deontology a better system than utilitarianism? There’s a lot of reasons, but here’s two.

First deontology solves a lot of thought puzzles much more cleanly than utilitarianism does, and avoids the weirdness such as that torturing one person is ok if it makes everyone else happy (see the short fiction story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” for a empathetic example). Deontology has a strong philosophical basis outside of theology, especially beginning with Kant.

Second it prevents those in power from justifying evil deeds because of the good outcome. Take politics, where politicians will justify evil actions to their followers by arguing it’s necessary to prevent the other side from winning. If people accept a better theory of ethics, those types of arguments won’t take and politics will be forced to a higher standard.

Because humans have a natural right to movement, helping slaves is not theft even if an evil social institution falsely claims it is theft. Similarly regarding eugenics, humans have a natural right to reproduce and to live, so someone assisting someone to escape that situation is in the right no matter what society they live in.

Extreme moral relativism like you’re mentioning here is just as wrong as utilitarianism.

It’s not preferable to steal than to lose the planet. Some things really are worse than death, and committing an evil action is wrong no matter what the justification the evildoer makes.