nocoolnametom

You hit on the head something that I've been trying to put into words for a while now: it seems that the benefit of technology to increase learning appears to be a bell-shaped graph where for each combination of subject matter there is a sweet spot where the level of technological assistance becomes helpful but after which it replaces too much of your own internal neuron-connecting processes and inhibits learning.

For many years I often wondered why wealthy American capitalists (except for the ones in insurance, obviously) didn't actively promote socialized medicine that would free their companies from having to provide health insurance to their employees: it'd be better for their bottom line, wouldn't it? Healthier workforce, lower expenses per headcount, etc. I figured it must just be a generational thing from those who grew up during the Red Scare to distrust anything "socialized."

It's been in recent years, though, that I have come to see that it's still _very_ much in their interest to have employees who already have a job to feel _scared_ to leave it. I don't think this is an organized operation, there's no annual meeting of US company HR departments who scheme about it, I doubt it's something actively thought about by many people very often, but all the same the loss of corporate-provided insurance would do _so much_ to loosen the fears that keep people working for jobs that it would no doubt have a _large_ effect on the economy and every company. The biggest effect would be that it'd be extremely simple to leave a low-paying job to seek a higher wage if you have just enough saved up to cover rent and living expenses for the interim.

As such, it finally makes sense to me why so many of the wealthy choose not to lobby for socialized medicine or even to actively fund lobbying against it even if they're not involved in the insanely-powerful for-profit health industry themselves or to lobby in other countries to weaken/dismantle/destroy their existing systems (yes, I know that with an aging population costs of care are getting higher everywhere, but a lot of the funding issues with UK NHS and Canada Medicare are also political in origin): it weakens labor and wages more than they ever have to spend on insurance.

This is what REALLY pains me about this discussion: I am 100% about personal digital freedom, but I am also 100% opposed to promoting political violence and promoting theft and grift using generative AI. If C2PA is going to work towards one goal by being diametrically opposed to the other then it _cannot_ be a useful tool and we need an _actual_ solution. I was extremely excited by C2PA until today and now am only disappointed that there isn't already some better solution.

Edit: Thinking through this a bit more, I think the goal of _authenticating_ a photo using C2PA is still useful. If the goal is to remove them to get a "naked" image, that's fine, such an image is then inherently no more or less trustworthy than any other image. If the goal is to figure out how to reproduce a valid provenance chain on top of an altered image then I have problems with that.

One way to possibly get the cameras taken down: insist on requesting the data as it's public data and should be publicly accessible.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/wa-cit...

Perhaps, but the entire ecosystem of associated buzzwords/ideas is pretty popular in our culture today: "job creator" C-suite executives magically "create" jobs and/or raise pay because their budget for taxes goes down and they just don't know where else to put the cash, thus everyone benefits. Is it a straw man? Sure. Is it the same pablum often delivered by the evening news and politicians? Yes. Is reality a TON more complicated and often counter-intuitive? Yep. (Raising wages doesn't seem to have a _direct_ correlation to inflation, it's correlated but often lagging and muted in response; job creation seems to be mostly a market effect not corporate decision; the modern definition of "fiduciary duty" means extra cash should go toward immediate stockholder benefit so stock buybacks are always FAR more likely than employee benefits; etc; etc).

The one area I'd push back strong on is that nobody is "advocating" for it. Many stockholding orgs/individuals are. They don't care if its a straw man, they know what the real-world systemic effects are of lower taxation rates.

The fact that it is private equity that is going to evaporate when the bubble bursts is the only silver lining I can see. However, my natual cynicism makes me bet they'll spend whatever they've got left over on their pet politicians to use government (ie, public funding) to bail themselves back out.

You've got three tools, mutes, blocks, and lists. Yeah, there's no centralized algorithm that does it for you, it'll take a couple days of actual effort, but it's extremely easy to prune your main feed into looking how you want it to look. Which is pretty much like how it was to use Twitter a few years ago before everything got algorithmed.

Indeed, source very much still matters. "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

"Qui bono," who benefits, is a great question to ask about the organization and the story when reading it, especially when combined with Hanlon's Razor. Tend not to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. And when malice is reasonable, then make sure to ask Who Benefits from the malice. If that's difficult to determine or the benefit seems small in comparison to likelihood of human stupidity, assume human stupidity.

Is the organization historically trustworthy? (MSNBC and Fox News, when not being talking heads and not talking about the current culture war buzzwords, tend to do good reporting.) If the story is wrong, is it reasonable to assume it's because someone somewhere misread something, mistyped something, misstated something, or otherwise made a mistake? (Perhaps the story breaking or otherwise too recent for slow, quality research. Perhaps the reporter, while trained in research, is not expert enough to come to the correct conclusions of their research, or is not researching or can't find nonexistent peer criticism to the research, both big problems in science reporting, especially when the reporting is of initial findings that haven't been peer reviewed.) If the story is not accidentally wrong through human stupidity, then qui bono, who benefits from malice? (Does it present a politician as unhinged or out of control? Does it ? And especially, would the story impact wealth, either to hurt it or protect it?) Sources like PBS, which (while they are NOT immune) are impacted far less by click-through ad rates and through funding partially derived from donations and public funding have less incentive to push narratives that benefit particular monied and/or political interests, or foreign sources like BBC or AJ don't get as much benefit when it comes to stories about US events that don't tie directly back to their organizational/political benefits. (When these are NOT the case, of course, then malice become far more easy to assume for these sources!)

So is it more likely that Governor Whitmer targeted gardening supply stores during the early pandemic because she was testing/pushing the limits of government power to limit the freedom of citizens to go where they wished or to expand government's economic control over the American marketplace, or is it more likely that there was political power to be derived from presenting the image of the governor as petty, tyrranical, and nonsensical? Or is it more likely that everything, both the initial EO's presentation, the angry response to it, and the fact-checking of the response, were victims of our human foibles?

Personally, I think it's far more likely a mix of human stupidity in writing the EO in a way where it was easy to misread the EO as specifically targeting gardening stores, combined with a malice decision to push hard on what was probably originally a misreading because it presented a view of the governor that worked to politically tear down her trustworthiness as she was taking actions that were having an economic impact on monied interests in the state (the EO essentially tried to turn big box stores into grocery-only stores to limit gathering, which during the Fog of War of the early pandemic was a reasonable health goal even if years of hindsight have given us a far better view of how impactful that actually was or not). Plus some stupidity on pushing back far too hard on the fact-checking response to give the impression that the EO didn't even mention gardening (it completely did, very clearly, in the list of attempts to pre-empt loopholes to the EO's attempt to limit the uses of large stores in order to minimize the reasons for people to gather in them to limit crowd sizes). Also, the Facebook/Twitter viral news sources get their money from clicks, so their stories tend to be far more about pathos than ethos or logos and truth is all-too-often a casuality for them.

I'm sorry about the length of my thoughts here. Bevity is the soul of wit, and I'm a rather witless man.

s/Democrat nominee/Democratic nominee/g

or

s/Democrat nominee/nominee for the Democrats/g

"Democrat" is a long-used general US political slang to refer to an individual member of the Democratic Party (or to refer to a collective of individual members if used as the plural "Democrats"). In the past few decades right-wing commentators have made frequent improper use of the slang to refer to the official party, partly due to its easy association with negative words such as "autocrat" and "plutocrat", resulting in the common misuse of the slang. However, there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" or "Democrat nominee".

And it'll be pretty easy to keep track of how many crimes they _do_ discover, because the first one will be trumpeted loudly everywhere, and then after that they'll use the entire list of people as though it's a partial example: "How do we know that this individual is not associated with <crimes>, as we've already seen with _countless_ examples, like <the unspoken entirety of the list of examples>?"

Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.

The problem comes with "Extend."

"We've got this new awesome feature, and we asked nicely if it could be put into the ActivityPub docs but they turned us down/didn't act fast enough. So we're proud to announce MetaPub, a superset of ActivityPub that will still communicate with regular ActivityPub, but to get the best and latest features you'll have to implement MetaPub in your clients. Or just use Threads, where it's already present for all users!" Repeat until you gain enough influence that ActivityPub is seen as inferior.

Then comes "Extinguish." Breaking changes to MetaPub reducing federation to only MetaPub clients or give up entirely and turn off federation anyways.

I know, right? It's like, I don't even want to HEAR about your ideas on how to fix a broken system unless you've taken the personal responsibility to try and reorient your personal life to adhere to your proposed ideas while continuing to try living in the still-broken system even if that personal transition, without any systemic changes to the surrounding culture and community, make your new life impossible to live.

That's the way we _always_ implement change in America!

*Also, do you not like that the socialist merely _has_ two homes, or do you not agree with the reasoning behind _why_ they have two homes?

> "Even if you have whistleblowers come forward, they're ignored."

Do you have any sources for this? I'm rather disbelieving of it, but would love to be proven wrong. I can't imagine that _some_ major news outlet wouldn't love to stick it to the status quo with a whistleblower, unless the "whisteblower" made false claims about their proximity in the company to the dangerous/illegal actions they are trying to bring attention to.

That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. Their methodology was inherently flawed. Even if the conclusions they came to have been "validated" their position was still built upon this same flimsy scaffolding. It's not like the "do your own research" blogs and videos somehow gathered the same evidence used by this paper. This also does not indicate that other positions held by the same crowd, which are similarly based upon "anecdata" and rumor, are somehow made more evident by this paper in Nature.

When you say superdeterminism are you referring to something like Pilot Wave theory, where what appear to our measurements as probabilistic yet random interactions are merely expressions of a more complex yet non-random underlying system that we cannot, as yet, measure? (I don't even know if that's the proper description of the hypothesis.)

Speaking for the US, but as long as Monsanto and Tyson make money selling the food their farms grow in the cities I'm not worried about a John Galt-style "strike" of agriculture. Doesn't make the existing system fair or right (it's honestly disturbing to me how much agribusiness is centralized), but I honestly have no concerns about the rural food going away because the rural population is upset with the urban population.

Prevented from flying anywhere outside of Russia during a layover != defected. He's not there by choice as long as the choice is: stay in Russia and use political optics to safely criticize Putin's regime, or leave Russia and rot in prison away from his family for the rest of his life.

Also, the SLC branch of the LDS movement hasn't performed polygamist marriages (for the living) since 1904[1], but they never annulled existing marriages from before then, so it's still less than a century since the prohibition against living polygamous marriages has been fully in effect by not having any existing within the membership. It's also still 100% part of the doctrine when it comes to the next life, and D&C 132 has never been officially repudiated or removed from the open canon. The current President/Prophet is sealed to two women for time and all eternity. This is an option only available to the men of the church, no such thing as polyandry (even though Joseph Smith himself was married to married women).

As for the Respect for Marriage Act, they were pretty open about supporting it because it carves out exceptions against employment discrimination for religions (and they're certainly not the only religion to support it because of this). They're still pretty dead-set against having to support an employee's paycheck when that employee does everything else required for the job but is LGBTQ+. But I'd agree that the situation is getting better. SLC has a thriving LGBTQ population and social scene.

[1]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...

It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works.

Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice.

Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items:

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism

3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro...

4: https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

> Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations

Um, I think you're confusing MormonThink and MormonR for "FAIR" or the "BoM Foundation". They're two "middle-way" sources that try to balance the knife's edge of giving just enough of the negative-yet-factual information that faith is still possible, as opposed to something like the CES Letter which is a compendium of pretty much every negative-yet-factual piece of information that, in total, make faith in the organization pretty much impossible for the average member who reads it. But they're definitely not apologetic sites, they're just more of a "shallow water" approach than a "throw you in the deep end of the pool" approach.

There's a restaurant in the Salt Lake city airport, White Horse Spirits and Kitchen, that features a large logo on their wall written in Deseret. Though, as you pointed out, it's technically a phonetic alphabet so the restaurant's sign technically says "W'hitey Horsey" which cracks me up every time I walk past it.

It comes from a letter written by Thomas Halman or Holman, Jr, one of the guards, to a George Weston on 30 July 1844 (about a month later). The letter is in the Special Collections of the Newberry Library in Chicago. I have been unable to find a digitized copy of this letter anywhere online, with the only quotation from it being that when Halman was concerned about the approaching mob, Joseph said "Don't trouble yourself ... they have come to rescue me." Nothing else of the letter seems to be easily available, and most of the references to it are erroneously citing the wrong book by Dr. D. Michael Quinn with the wrong date (it comes from his "Origins of Power" book, page 141).

So, it seems reasonable to accept the source as it is a first-hand account written within a short time frame of the event. However, all we have currently (until someone decides to digitize the letter) is these few words from it.

(Link to a 1966 bibliography that lists the letter's existence and location in the Newberry Library: https://www.siue.edu/lovejoy-library/tas/Kimball_Sources.pdf page 20)

Edit: I was incorrect with my assumption that the author of the letter was one of the guards. I've been unable to determine the names of the guards at Carthage that day, so the letter does not represent a first-hand account, as I thought, but instead represents what was being commonly relayed by local residents of Carthage at the time. I found a larger quotation in an article from the 1995 JWHA journal (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sv9HIDgATUM7tPxlbd-UcX7uvIV... page 26). It seems the author of the letter is trying to simply relay all of the known information about the attack and murder of the Smiths.

That "massively deep philosophy/corpus" doesn't help things, though. With nearly 200 years of a leadership that teaches that whatever is spoken by God's servants (the highest church leadership) is to be equated as similar to the word of God (with a normal human distribution of those leaders who approach this view with a cautious humility through those who speak their musings with confidence) there's a HUGE of collection of some pretty odd beliefs. Since the church leadership almost never repudiates these past statements, preferring to have them quietly fade from the collective memory and consciousness of the membership over time, chances are that there's still some few members who are aware of these weird beliefs and can back them up with some sort of statement by a modern LDS prophet or apostle. This makes any "actual truth value" of an odd teaching or belief really difficult to gauge, and chances are there's some actual statement behind many of that unreliable information.

That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.

I'm guessing you've gotten some downvotes for this probably because this is recognized as a pretty bizarre belief, and one most modern Mormons do not follow or aren't even aware of. Since Mormonism almost never repudiates the teachings of their past leadership, it merely stops reinforcing old and odd teachings, you'll always be able to find at least a few members who still know about and hold beliefs that the rest of the membership has either forgotten or have never been taught.

The particular belief in question here arises from modern LDS scripture (D&C 61) where God says to a group of early LDS missionaries that "there are many dangers upon the waters." These dangers are from Satan being given power over the waters as the world approaches Armageddon, and while faithful LDS missionaries will be preserved while traveling over any water (canal, lake, sea, etc) they're encouraged not to risk it if their faith is not strong enough.

This used to be a pretty common teaching from leadership, but in recent decades it's fallen out of fashion. Missionaries are still forbidden from going swimming at any point during their missions, but usually it's presented as a result of insurance dangers facing unsupervised 18 year olds (which, let's be honest, is an entirely reasonable and accurate concern).

For almost every weird or odd belief you've heard that at least some Mormons believe, there are usually a combination of scriptures and old leadership quotes behind it, but the modern teachings have left them behind with the hope that if these odd teachings are ignored they'll go away (which works out pretty well, for the most part).

The caffeine thing is a long-standing internal debate that arises from:

1. Unclear doctrinal specifics

2. An orthopraxic rather than an orthodoxic culture

The first item is that the only doctrine possibly relating to caffeine is a single verse in modern scripture that says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly". Long-standing teaching by leadership has merely narrowed down "hot drinks" to mean tea and coffee.

The second item is by far more important in the debate: Mormons are _highly_ orthopraxic, meaning that you're usually free to hold heterodox doctrinal beliefs as long as your public life and behavior reflects the common orthopraxy. Or, to put it simply, the public appearance of righteousness is culturally far more important than internal doctrinal beliefs (this is, ironically enough, not technically doctrinal). The same chapter that defines "hot drinks" (coffee/tea) as not good for the belly defines beer ("barley... for mild drinks") as entirely appropriate, but since the orthopraxic behavior is to be seen as avoiding coffee, tea, hard liquor (which is specifically called out in the same scripture) then avoiding anything above and beyond those is often seen as an increased sign of righteousness.

So you'll often have arguments between Mormons who follow the letter of the law and others who follow what they define as the spirit of the law. And since coffee and tea both contain caffeine then many Mormons will avoid caffeine as well.

You'll find this same argument about following just the doctrine defined in the open canon versus following behavioral practices above and beyond it in other aspects of Mormon life, such as: not calling members of the church or the church "Mormon," payment of 10% of monthly income (though the scriptures call for 10% of an annual "increase"), women only wearing at most one set of earrings, no dating for youth below the age of 16, men applying to serve missions the instant their 18th birthday arrives (though the window for honorable service is many years wide), no clapping in meetings, no drums or brass in meetings, and so on for many other cultural practices.

This is, as you can probably recognize from some of the items in that list, in no way a phenomenon isolated to the LDS religion, but it does inform the inevitable debate you'll hear if you ever bring up caffeine in a group of Mormons.

Cool, it's a false attribution or at the very least a very mangled quote. The fact that the popular version of the quote has staying power isn't because of the authorship, it's because people recognize the truth in what the popular version of the quote is saying. It's kind of like the false attribution of "America is great because America is good. If America ever stops being good, it will stop being great," to Tocqueville. The quote continues to be shared not because most of those sharing it give two cents about Tocqueville, they share it because it speaks to them (well, that and in the case of the "good/great" quote you can fill in the blank for what "good" and "great" mean with whatever you want).

"Unionized truckers earn less than owner-operator truckers." I'd be very interested in how this is spun as by all measurements unionized truckers overwhelmingly have a much higher hourly wage than contractors. Are you talking take-home pay at the end of the year because the contractors work more hours? Or that there are more contractors so the expenditures of trucking companies go more towards contractors than unionized truckers?

You do know that those "executives" are almost always your coworkers, right? There are extremely few "labor union executives" because there are extremely few unions that have grown so large that they require managerial training to administer them. The vast majority of American unions are small and composed of your fellow coworkers. For all that talk radio likes to rant about the Teamsters and other giant unions, most unions are composed of people who know the job intimately.

I think that's because in those countries a loss of employment doesn't have the potential to cause gigantic disruptions to life through the loss of health insurance and often housing. There are much more robust systems in place to help an individual worker handle life while between jobs. So the union isn't as incentivized to try to prevent any and all layoffs even when the company needs to respond to changing economic factors that might require scaling back.