polarix

http://mindingourway.com/how-we-will-be-measured/ seems relevant

Freedom is vague, here, but I think what you want will still be possible (at least theoretically) given causality and physical distance.

Deeper freedom (that is, infinite potential) is inherent to being itself, but if what you're looking for is something more like diversity or novelty, then yes, that's contingent on perceptual subject-object duality.

Isn't another huge thing that Slack solves the need to set up a local client? Why is that not addressed in this article, I wonder if the author really doesn't see it as a problem?

That's really bad news if true. His perspective is crucial.

Since the one in the article has been removed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTjtXswrKso

Also the site seems designed specifically to frustrate quickly running through the test.

30 tweets makes 30 times the claim on attention of your followers, regardless of content. A single tweet is 30 times less likely to be read. This is a structural inefficiency of the twitter platform.

And nothing done entirely in consensual privacy should be a crime.

Well!

> For most people (the asexual population and the abstaining Japanese youth notwithstanding), sex with another person, especially in the context of meaningful intimacy, is a source of joy.

> Watching porn by yourself all the time, although physically stimulating, is spiritually the opposite of this.

Participating in autosexual intercourse can absolutely be both meaningful and a powerful source of joy. It consists in the appreciation of one's own body, mind, and spirit as a full and complete flowering of the universe. Consensual sensory experiences allow that being to approach its own devotion fully.

On a less metaphysical note, this is really a marvelous denouement to the sexual brinksmanship that's infested society over the past few millenia.

From an individual perspective, I love having sex with myself. When partners I find attractive want to share, so much the better. It's not as much fun trying to convince them to, though, that part pretty much sucks, and this provides the best BATNA ever in that negotiation.

I presume you don't intend to suggest that the freedom is the problem? I would propose we attempt to fix the stifling antisexuality of everyday social life, rather than the newfound capacity to meet bodily desires individually.

That is the right question.

They might be given that kind of control without their will.

Sorry to get all Jed-McKenna-Theory-Of-Everything here, but no being has proof that they are not in such a situation. In fact it is arguably the only consistent possibility.

Expect that pure power would eventually (partially) allow itself to experience a situation without the ability to recall its own construction of that situation. (Imagining temporal bounds for that situation can be a helpful way of thinking about it from the human perspective, but of course temporality is a construction within the limited frame rather than something inherent.)

That sounds insanely dystopian to me, for the fact that any member of that society is viscerally dependent on others -- anyone who claims to value freedom needs to think again.

Being needed is crucially instrumental toward controlling one's own experience in the current environment. But why would it ever be a terminal value?

In the present and future, whenever there is a human need for an integration point between multiple services, those humans will need to invest in producing a human-level intelligence to integrate the information. We are compelled to build secretaries for everything that was nominally built for us, but without our best interests in mind.

Citation for Audible's business tactics? How could it be done better, given the labor outlay and legal coordination required to record an audiobook?

Here's another possibility, the first one that occurred to me: the "no" is a rejection of the implicit alternative to what was stated.

The author ends up at a fairly convincing alternative explanation, though.

> unable to tell...

Really? Might it be that we purify memetic procreation of its inefficient dependency on support systems engineered for DNA-genetic procreation?

If this were actually doing as the title suggests, it would demolish the possibility for any personal DIY projects that require heavy equipment/materials. Indeed, bulk home goods and appliance sales companies should be up in arms.

Luckily, they're just trying to make it possible to get around without cars, not illegal to use cars, which is likely to dramatically increase the possibility for lightweight cooperative social interactions.

This might have to do with the accelerating human perception of time. Can't 5 years really feel like eons? If the author were 25, that would be a significant chunk of life, and I'm hoping you're not intending to imply that all 25 year olds should be dismissed out of hand.

But it's interesting -- people who have worked in tech during M$FT's heyday probably do want to dismiss this argument without consideration. Is the real story here that peoples' unconscious attitudinal memory is long enough that some companies' prior actions can never be forgiven?

Oh, that depends on framing. In some situations employees are asked explicitly to approach HR at the emergence of a relationship in order to prevent conflict of interest.

Something is twisted in all these discussions of gender in tech, it really seems like we're just going around in circles over and over again. I've never read anything that felt like a particularly insightful explication of the cause here.

Is it possible there's something more fundamental in society that this phenomenon is merely a symptom of, and that the fix is not going to be something like "just challenge yourself to detect and resist unconscious bias"? Could there be something inherent in the structure of our framework of social interaction that incentivizes this kind of behavior?

Perhaps people who are driving could consider not driving around the railroad gate (which was working when the idiot in that article decided to commit suicide).

There are remarkably few good ways out for humans in our society, so this kind of spectacle is often what they end up resorting to.

There is a reason to hate "trains" when it's fucking Caltrain with at-grade crossings and retarded federal rules about fucking horns all night long. Half the fucking Peninsula is unusable for sleeping as it is.

Fascinating. Note to potential commenters: the same article just had a discussion thread which was flagkilled. Don't invest any energy or thought in your comment, as it's likely at risk of removal again.

But this is just a property of acceleration. If languages had started to change at the same speed as file formats have, or we had started to miniaturize in other ways, those millenia old letters might no longer have been usable either. It's definitely worth being conscious of the value of interpreted artifacts, but this is a continuation of a very old tension.

It might be practically necessary, though, if they need to have a huge corpus of data in memory in order to perform their voice recognition.

More that we've undergone a pretty significant state change in the past couple decades, and much of how we understand the world now has dependencies on full information access; inflicting variable negative reinforcement on those thought patterns by removing that dependency restricts the smooth transition to a more inclusive and durable self.

I'm struggling to identify what it is about this nostalgia that infuriates me so deeply. Perhaps it's just fascinating to me that so many people find it fun to be in stupid situations. I find it barbaric and twisted.

More productively, I wonder how people would respond to this after having grown up with the boundary of their 30s knowledge horizon roughly equivalent to that of humanity's experts 10yr prior. Anyone born since ~2000 perhaps is in this situation. Will they have eliminated this kind of "fun" "bullshit" from their behavior completely?

This was perhaps too optimistic: time will tell.

Sure. But no dozens of mathematicians are stepping up to take the roughly half a year (and novice-like zen) he anticipates it requiring to understand the proof. So if he wants it to happen: do a lecture series, or programmatize the proof, or write an expanded walkthrough book series to explain it in less condensed form. Or just complain to new scientist and see if any new folks decide to pick up the torch, I guess.