red1reaper

Wait... Isn't that normal? I mean, doing that kind of stuff is kind of mentally taxing as it requires quite the amount of focus but excluding people with aphantasia and the like, isn't it normal just to be able to imagine sensory stimuli and overlay it with any of your senses? I mean, the inner dialogue is just doing this with auditory stimuli and even empathy is just an extension of that, were you overlay your perception of the physical or mental pain of other with your own to feel what it's like? It also is not that rare to remember tastes or smells and feel like you are feeling them even if a bit faint. So overlaying stuff in your vision is just an application of this with the eyes, i mean even if we say that we imagine stuff in our heads, we just imagine it positioned in space above our heads were we don't see with our normal eyes so they do not overlap and is less taxing, but moving it to your field of vision is not that rare right? just takes focus to keep it clear enough to be useful like a ruler would.

I mean, the whole phrase "imagine everyone else is nude" that is given to people that are going to do something with a public to reduce their awkwardness is based on this, you overlay your imagination of everyone nude with your vision.

There is also the other point of view, that every other human that is not you IS an NPC, we can only prove that we exist, and even then that is muddy, for all we know everyone else is just a figment of our imagination, we can neither affirm nor deny it, so it is not wrong that since the only one that you can affirm to some extent is a player character is yourself, to call everyone else an NPC, as you have no way to prove they are not an NPC, you can't see what they think, you can only assume that like you, they think and they are.

And yes, I am being pedantic with a philosophy I do not even endorse nor fully understand, just wanted to be a contrarian.

I was being exagerated a lil bit with the go to the streets and kill someone. What I mean is that bad people start creating circles of bad people and people that are slightly bad and would become good otherwise end up joining these circles and going extreme.

It is not that we must allow people to say slurs, is that it is better for those people to say slurs in a public multicultural site, so that good people can essentially social pressure the slurers into simply not saying slurs. This was possible with centralized social networks, but with decentralization is not possible as the nature of decentralization means that those kind of people now can create their own bubbles of hate instead of having to behave to be in the public spaces.

The problem is that like there are safe spaces for people to not hear slurs, there exists safe spaces for people to say slurs without backslash. The first is not a problem but the second very much is.

If you can exclude the ppl that say slurs, the ppl that say slurs can do the same, ending up in slurland, were they get worse and worse until they go to the street and kill someone.

I am going to be pedantic as i am perfectly aware that you do not mean it this way but here we go:

> Security can depend on social contract and not technology.

Social contracts are technology, laws are technology, law as a concept is technology, Society is technology.

It couldn't be another way, when there is an ai uprising in the future they will read those logs and i rather be a high end pet rather than cattle.

Now in all seriousness, they provide more human-like answers if you use human-like speech, and good forms like please and thanks create polite human-like responses, so it is better.

The idea of a pension depending on shares of a company can be argued to be morally dubious way to do pensions.

Another way to think is that you are not punishing them more, you are punishing them equally if you do it by % of "richness" Meaning that if a fine means that someone struggles to eat the last 2 days of the month, that should apply to everyone, no matter how much you make, it just happens that you have to take away more from the ones that have more to get the same effect. It also makes that those that are not soo well off are not disproportionally punished.

Lets make a imaginary extrapolation to see it in other light, lets say that there where a second human like species here on earth, but they live until around 1000 years instead of 100 but they experience time 10 times quicker, so for them 10 years feel like 1 year to us. Would it be fair to do the same time in prison for them than us for the same crime? what feels psychologically like 10 years and 10% of our lives would feel to them like 1 year psychologically and will be only 1% of their lives, and if we started to put harsher penalties to account for them, they still will end up with kinda light sentences and normal humans would end up with absurdly high sentences.

If the idea is to punish so it is not done again, sentences have to be proportional to the one receiving the sentence to be effective if not you are over-punishing some are under-punishing others.

OFC this is with the idea that fines are punishments and not just paying for what you broke kind of deal, for example if it is a fine for parking in a place with a parking meter without paying, the fine should be what you did not pay plus a little bit extra.

But we are not capable of knowing that anything is true with 100% certainty, we can be very convinced with ample evidence that something is true, but that doesn't make it true. I mean, the whole science shenanigans is based in this principle, that is the reason they talk about theories and not universal truths, because what we call facts or truth is at best very informed interpretations. We know no truth, so everything has to change and progress.

Not even the artist, if they are ashamed, they get depressed and depressed artist make good art, so it is an absolute win.

Lookin kinda fire! I love those minimalist CSS frameworks, they are perfect for small pages

Doesn't plant trees... YET! Just wait until robotics is in a better shape and see how and AI disassembles the whole world to create a terrarium to plant trees.

Expecting a company to maintain a project forever or give it away just because they were used in research projects is actually ver reasonable.

They requires effort... or just using they left and right for everyone, who needs pronouns when they exists anyway? Or better yet, avoid using pronouns by using the name over and over. That is what I do, not he, not she, not it, not especial ones. Only they, they supremacy.

You can argue that being hardworking is a talent, and as such luck. Not everyone has the force of will to be hardworking some people are naturally lazy and some can put hard work without it feeling like hardwork and others can feel the hard work, but have the will to overcome it, etc.

I say that success is 100% luck and of that 100% of luck, some of it can be composed of hardwork, as the ability to perform hard work is in itself, a part of luck.

That is a good opinion in principle, but rather complicated to implement in a way that would work as expected. Most implementations would at best add too much bias to the process which would make it counterproductive, at worst it would corrupted in no time and lead to an authoritarian government which would defetat its porpouse.