Senal
@Senal@programming.dev
- Comment on definitely not recording! 4 hours ago:
Sure, but they’d only regulate the recording of cops
- Comment on It's always for your safety 1 day ago:
Motorcyclists are so much more likely to
hurt/kill themselvesbe hurt or killed in any accident, regardless of fault. - Comment on Suspecting AI cheating, Ivy League prof ordered an in-person final; scores fell 50% 2 days ago:
Other than this hot take
Ivy League college students are, by definition, intelligent.
It’s an interesting read.
- Comment on Finally an explanation 2 weeks ago:
The argument they were making is poor.
However, moral conviction has no bearing on objective correctness.
I’d address the other point but It doesn’t sound like you’re open to viewpoints that are not your own.
- Comment on Finally an explanation 2 weeks ago:
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
- Comment on Finally an explanation 2 weeks ago:
The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.
Good and bad are made up and subjective.
If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.
- Comment on No, you don't want to know more about KATE's spellchecker, you want to genAI slopify your writing! 2 weeks ago:
huh, i knew they used bing under the hood but for some reason it didn’t occur to me that the promotions and ads would bleed through.
- Comment on No, you don't want to know more about KATE's spellchecker, you want to genAI slopify your writing! 2 weeks ago:
I’m not promoting DDG, I don’t use it either, just saying that they do provide a no ai version (currently at least)
- Comment on Why is leadership valued so much over expertise? 3 weeks ago:
Visibility
- Comment on Tommy Robinson detained at Heathrow under counter-terrorism laws 3 weeks ago:
You mean Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon ?
- Comment on The Projected Truth 4 weeks ago:
Honestly, my argument here isn’t even about the science, gravity was just the example that was used in the response to which I was originally replying.
My point was theoretical <thing> was possible in both subjective and objective variations of <context>.
- Comment on The Projected Truth 4 weeks ago:
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
- Comment on The Projected Truth 4 weeks ago:
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth
For completeness, I should have probably said:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Agreed
As an aside:
You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
- Comment on The Projected Truth 4 weeks ago:
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.
It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off.
I’m a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
- Comment on The Projected Truth 5 weeks ago:
Subjectively?
- Comment on The Projected Truth 5 weeks ago:
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
- Comment on The Projected Truth 5 weeks ago:
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve meet anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
- Comment on Gog Promotional E-Mail Containing Nazi Symbols Goes Out to Subscribers 5 weeks ago:
They came in hot, you go at it, zero problems with that from me.
All I meant is that you should go at it with actual arguments.
Even if they are objectively incorrect, responding with deflection and fallacy makes your position look weak, like you don’t have an actual point.
- Comment on Gog Promotional E-Mail Containing Nazi Symbols Goes Out to Subscribers 5 weeks ago:
Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.
I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.
That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.
A single article doesn’t define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).
A papers’ reputation doesn’t give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.
Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.
- Comment on God of War Laufey - Official Gameplay Reveal | PS5 Games 5 weeks ago:
I really enjoyed the story and style, enough to work through the ‘meh’ gameplay.
I think I’d have enjoyed it more as a book or perhaps a TV series, movie would be too short.
- Comment on Backup 1 month ago:
Referring to the underlying software, not to moderation. Which is sort of a corollary to federation, but not entirely when you look at something like Bluesky where you can federate but don’t truly run your own “Bluesky”. Sure there’s implicit trust in what the instance is running since you aren’t auditing it, but I’m willing to see shades of grey and that this is better in that regard than corporate social media.
That’s fair.
Not really (although a number of people on Lemmy put in the effort to make clever, homebrewed shitposts, which is beside the point). Sometimes Lemmy Shitpost just has funny stuff that makes for a more well-rounded social media experience. I never said I’m only looking for thought-provoking interactions; intelligent company doesn’t have to be self-serious. The whole reason I even made my original comment is that I’m persistently disappointed that I can’t walk into a thread about an obvious fiction made as a joke and think that Lemmy collectively understands the difference. Something that is funny turns into a source of frustration when I consider user behavior I’ve seen on Lemmy before.
Perhaps people’s definition of funny differs from yours, not everyone is looking for intellectual gold in a community made specifically for shitposts.
Though i will concede that there are a lot of cases of mistaken intention, i would know, i’m like 50% mistaken intention.
- Comment on Backup 1 month ago:
2/4 ain’t bad.
I like the fact that it’s free as in freedom.
Freedom subject to the instance you are signed up to (and posting to) , unless you run your own, but if you do that why are on .world ?
I like that there are intelligent people; the collective is extremely frustrating and intellectually lazy, but there are actual thought-provoking interactions by people who put in actual effort.
If you are looking for this in a community called “Lemmy Shitpost” i have an exciting bridge based opportunity in which i think you’ll be interested.
Being a person of evident intellect, I’m sure you’ll recognise an opportunity when you see one.
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
ah, so questions about logic aren’t good questions?
or just that one ?
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
I’m…not sure how much better i can phrase that question ?
It was concise, contained all the information needed for an answer, it could even be a single yes or no.
If you have an example of how that could have been asked in a better way, I’d be interested in seeing it.
There was no reference to my thoughts on the overall theme, the question is only loosely related to that theme.
If it helps, i don’t care at all about the overpopulation classification or anything to do with it.
Is it easier if i remove all references to the theme? Let’s try this :
Doesn’t directly proportional mean both metrics being compared need to track each other?
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
Genuine question, wouldn’t a directly proportional link require that sustainability efforts go up in a direct mirror to population?
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
If you’re going to cherry pick at cherry pick from the text being mentioned.
Your whole comment was :
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.and wasn’t the comment to which i was responding.
Beef is the major factor in the amazon, by a large margin, as in my original comment. Palm Oil is not a significant part in Brazil, nor real state. Mineral is mainly in Roraima, but not as big as beef, because it’s based on small operations, there are a lot of sources on this for gold mining and the local Yanomami indigenous population that fights agains this (as this is done on their land).Cool story, still irrelevant to my point which was:
Oligarchs gonna oligarchCreate a revenue vacuum (like removing the biggest value stream in a region) and oligarchs gonna oligarch right in and expand another value stream to make up the difference.
I’m not advocating for this to happen, I’m saying that expecting beef reduction to remove oligarchs from the amazon is unrealistic.
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
i did, tool.
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
If you’re going to cherry pick at cherry pick from the text being mentioned.
Your whole comment was :
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.
and wasn’t the comment to which i was responding.
Beef is the major factor in the amazon, by a large margin, as in my original comment. Palm Oil is not a significant part in Brazil, nor real state. Mineral is mainly in Roraima, but not as big as beef, because it’s based on small operations, there are a lot of sources on this for gold mining and the local Yanomami indigenous population that fights agains this (as this is done on their land).
Cool story, still irrelevant to my point which was:
Oligarchs gonna oligarch
Create a revenue vacuum (like removing the biggest value stream in a region) and oligarchs gonna oligarch right in and expand another value stream to make up the difference.
I’m not advocating for this to happen, I’m saying that expecting beef reduction to remove oligarchs from the amazon is unrealistic.
- Comment on We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. 1 month ago:
This mix of “things that are possible/reasonable” and “things that are wildly speculative” is interesting.
Producing beef is the most inefficient way to produce food, in both use of space and water, and energy.
Reasonable/possible
We don’t need to impose things on people if humanity reduces its beef consumption.
Wild speculation / nonsensical.
This is not at all how large societies have worked, in any time period, ever.
While it might be technically true, it’s missing a whole bunch of steps in the middle for it to be a practicality.
If we cut beef consumption by half, literally oligarchs would not have an economic reason to deforest the Amazon, because of the price drops. But no one wants to do that.
- Palm Oil
- Real Estate
- Mineral Speculation
- Wood
And that was just off of the top of my head.
Oligarchs gonna oligarch, removing one revenue source isn’t going to suddenly kill interest in the amazon, with it’s abundant resources and space.
- Comment on What is a game you can’t understand why its so popular ? 1 month ago:
Life
