Your response seems to have completely missed the subject.
Did you accidentally hit reply under the wrong comment?
842 karma · joined August 22, 2019
Did you accidentally hit reply under the wrong comment?
Can you imagine watching your parents flame war over politics and social issues on fucking Facebook? I feel like the only way to rebel would be to act like an adult.
Why? It seems like they should have read/write but no execute. What goes wrong?
All the fighting: it's fucking stupid.
That social credit, and money, and everything we hold dear and true is just narrative we've crafted around ourselves to cope with the uncaring void that is the cosmos.
So -- my guess -- people are probably going to keep thinking that things are valuable so long as everyone else around them does. And technically everything can be reduced to nothing more than a set worthless human brain farts.
Edit: except for your values of course. Whoever you are, your values are certainly meaningful, and your life is a story that really matters.
Given my experience in Alt Space thus far, I think there's a really good chance you're right.
It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean.
Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough that there will be no going back.
I think both parties are talking passed each-other, having missed a very, very important statement:
> You recommended people read GG&S with a grain of salt, but the vast majority of casual readers lack that salt when it comes to understanding the flaws in the book.
Whether or not this salt is there seems like the addition / omission from which each side argues. With salt, it's a fine enough book. The broad strokes are close enough. Without salt -- as in "I'm a professional because I read this book" -- it probably gets really, really annoying.
I definitely agree that nuance is important, and the book should put more effort into not presenting itself as fact. But it's pop-history. It wouldn't be pop if it didn't, and what would be pop would be even worse IMO.
They do negate some of the spurious theories, but the central theory (IMO) is that there's a whole lot of luck involved in global domination, and that luck is not evenly spread.
The one about germs being less of a killer is definitely very interesting though. That's totally central, though -- if not germs doing the killing -- it'd just fall back onto guns. If you happen to dig up the link, I'd love to read through it.
There's definitely plenty of holes in the theories of GG&S, if that's what you mean by "academics have problems with it" === "it is not a perfect theory."
But overall, it seems most of the points hold more than enough water to be worth merit. None of them perfect, but vastly better than throwing the whole thing out.
-----
Also, holy crap I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but the first few threads I went into were... blatantly far left (as Reddit tends to be). Seriously though: spiraling into tangents of communism, your classic woke/sassy "dunk" lingo, clearly had some external bias bone to pick. I'm not sure r/badhistory is a community worth considering the acme of academia, only based off my short interactions with it. But maybe the worst just came up first?
The far left says it's a cop out on racism, blaming white evil on natural conditions. The far right says that it's too PC, that plenty of other places had the right conditions and gives no credit to culture or innovation.
So both the far left and far right want to take credit from chaos and put it on the people: either to hate them, or to take pride.
This in and of itself is not proof of anything. But if something pisses off far left and right at the same time, I tend to think of it as a green flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
In short, you need cities to develop these types of viruses. Cities where the virus can just keep killing, without ever hitting a dead end.
Whether this is cultural or biological is questionable, but given the natural duties of the common sexes (male/female)... it's definitely not unfeasible that the critic with options (and children) would multi-task, while the performer would be more focused on a single task.
And it weirds me out that everything people truly value: community, love, relationships, romance, heritage, adventure, friends, family... none of these factor in. Just money and power; which are ultimately just more responsibilities if you aren't selfish.
You can enable/disable whatever you want. The point is to get rid of lame content.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sober-media/hfjclo...
I wasn't even done with High School by the time I figured out that any dichotomy of two evils is a dead end, and that there is always a better place to focus energy upstream.
In this case, AI algorithms are the core problem. Their metrics for success (view time) appear to often lead to extremes. Nothing needs to be banned, it definitely needs to stop being suggested though.
It's based off something I call "source derivation"....
It has data sources where things get stored, repos that handle syncing and pulling data, and ents which represent the data but add functions to it.
Anything they do passed this point is just them trying to cover up the fact that they pushed extremism onto the world.
The best way to combat this is not invest billions of dollars in infrastructure meant to do exactly the thing it just did.
Bad actors didn't poison the system, youtube covered itself in lacerations and jumped into sewer water. They stand back watching their algorithm divide and extremize everyone on every side of every debate, and now that the flame wars are starting to turn into mass graves they're hoping they can stop the whole thing by banning a few extremes here and there.
> Just a no win situation
I think there is a clear win here: AI should not be allowed to do what it is doing. Humans can't handle it. And the cost of lives is on Facebook and YouTube, plenty of employees took a stand to say exactly what was/is happening and were ignored.
My bet is some real-world tie, one which is time consuming and expensive to create. From there it should be possible to create moderation tools that keep the rest going.
An example of a real world tie would be a trust network that requires status with in-person communities and local businesses. And not just "accept the hot chick friend request," but an explicit "I'm staking my reputation by saying this person is real."
But once you let bots in, it's over.
There's still a ton of offenders, but only so many super prolific ones.
They rolled out a feature where you can filter out political posts, and it's become the only place I can go to just enjoy some mindless scrolling.
There's still a ton of political posters who never tag, but you can mute them. And then there's the "look how dumb those people are" circle jerks, that aren't actually political. But all in all, I have a pretty decent quality to circle jerk ratio.
Take it back!
Seriously though, I remember MC before it was a kids game. It was already becoming one by the time Microsoft bought it, but since then almost every update has been gimmicks for kids. The world generation is still ridiculous (jungles next to arctics), the weather patterns are binary (hard rain, or nothing), and proximity chat is practically impossible.
They've made a lot of money off making it into a kids game, but I personally haven't been delighted by any updates since they took it over.
Would you mind pointing me in the way? Even if there is a cap, as long as the current price is below it, there's a market.
You can trade them! Like a stock market!
If /wallstreetbets started buying all these up (not sure of the supply right now), they could fleece dirty industries.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13...
So, if these carbon credits exist, is it possible to coinify them and boost their value? Because it would seem the more valuable they are, the more financial incentive there would be to reduce carbon emissions.