mistermann

> It determines a method of record keeping which I audit every week to hone the process

I would like to hear more details of what it ended up with for a structure

I joined it about 6 months ago and absolutely love the ~uncensored free for all nature of it!

And while the format and content varies in many ways from other sites, one thing they all have in common is millions of humans who cannot distinguish facts from personal opinions. I do not know why but I am absolutely fascinated by the phenomenon, and on Twitter/X you can discuss such things fairly seriously, at least with some people.

You are not aware of all evidence in existence, and what "is evidence for" something is a subjective matter, downstream from your conditioned biases.

These conversations are a train wreck, I don't understand how people expect to stop war if you can't be bothered to even try to speak truthfully.

Out of curiosity: in your model, can something be kind and unkind simultaneously?

It is very funny how humans experience reality eh? Like, the literal assignment of a word to something can cause the representation of it in a person's mind (aka the reality) to change. Also weird: it is essentially not possible to talk about the phenomenon in a serious way (participants range of possible actions become highly constrained, and therefore highly predictable).

I really wonder if this normative phenomenon will be able to survive in the age of AI.

A more parsimonious explanation: consciousness is generative, like an LLM. And, according to cultural conditioning, this generated scenario is referred to as reality.

I like this version for at least two reasons:

1. It is 100% compliant with large quantities of scientific findings (psychology and neuroscience), whreas I believe yours has a conservation of mass problem at least

2. Everyone dislikes it at least in certain scenarios (say, when reference is made to it during an object level disagreement)

When someone is hired into a professional job, is there something in the laws of physics that prevent them from doing wrong?

Rare is the individual who does not make numerous errors while engaging in fact checking, in no small part because of our cultural norms of cognition.

"Now" is a point in time.

I used a very unpopular meme though, so unpopular you may not be able to see it.

As a fan of irony, many thanks!

You seem to realize you are making a prediction, at least to some degree, now.

However, that one has the capability sometimes is no guarantee that they can do it at all times, or even on demand.

Consciousness is generally not considered to be a part of the stack, despite it being the majority of it.

Have you considered the interpretation process within reading?

>Arguing about the meaning of what Damore wrote, and what he thought/intended, is a huge waste of time. Just about everybody who read it comes to a different interpretation of what he meant to imply.

Studying the literal fundamental nature of reality doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.

This = hallucinating reality.

Now: in what way will you avoid addressing the point (if you do reply)....will it be in the heart of the distribution as usual, or can you generate an anomaly....

It may have been in the form of a joke, but I certainly wasn't joking.

I think it is interesting what actions cannot be done by humans.

>Your post added nothing to the conversation except insults though.

You are describing your experience, but stating it as if it is a universal fact.

A relevant post from this morning:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946854

Is this a clever rhetorical trick to make it appear that your prior claim was correct?

If not: what am I intended to take away from this? What is its relevance to my comment?

It isn't possible for you to know this.

The paper "is pedantic" and rejected by everyone except "pedants".

"...there’s no reasoning involved...wait, could I just be succumbing to my heuristic intuitions of what is (seems to be) true....let's reconsider using System 2 thinking..."

Just now: "Perception is reality".

Now, can you transfer some of that impressive courage toward the task of answering the question I posed to you?

>So, back to the old "white guys only" astronaut hiring policy of the moon landings era?

Do you have any control over this?

Is this based on a quote from management?

How did they measure who didn't want to work with him, did they survey the entire company?

>As things get worse, theres going to be even more incitement with utterly fabricated content.

Speaking of fabricated content, are you describing the actual future or a simulation of it?

Have you something even remotely resembling a proof for this set of rather interesting claims of fact?

Have you some impressive evidence for that?

This is a similar but different statistic.

I suspect "close enough" is adequate here though :)

How many believe that?

>Journalism as a well-funded, independent, competitive market for news is the cornerstone of any democracy.

A cornerstone. Another cornerstone is popular memes like this, our culture is composed of thousands of them, and they control how we think.

And most people "choose" which of the two they will use depending on which best serves them under the given circumstances.