yeahiknow3
@yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Behold, "the whole story of Steam's economy in one picture": the top 1% of games earn 84.5% of estimated revenue, and most games barely make anything 20 hours ago:
Exactly! The way Amazon takes 40% off the top for their incredible website features. Tech feudalism is indispensable for the 1% of folks who use “workshop” and “community” features. Which I love because I use them all the time. Because I am one of you.
- Comment on Behold, "the whole story of Steam's economy in one picture": the top 1% of games earn 84.5% of estimated revenue, and most games barely make anything 1 day ago:
Yeah. Steam totally does stuff. I don’t know what, but they’re doing it. Oh! Hosting. They’re a file hosting service.
- Comment on Behold, "the whole story of Steam's economy in one picture": the top 1% of games earn 84.5% of estimated revenue, and most games barely make anything 1 day ago:
Exactly. Fools should just make their own monopoly if they’re so jealous. I, for one, love Steam and Google. They know how to do business.
- Comment on Behold, "the whole story of Steam's economy in one picture": the top 1% of games earn 84.5% of estimated revenue, and most games barely make anything 1 day ago:
I, for one, think Steam deserves a 30% cut of game revenue for doing literally nothing.
- Comment on Housing prices 1 week ago:
Rental units are occupied. The tax would punish unoccupied rental units and drive down prices.
- Comment on Doesn't add up 2 weeks ago:
Same with universities and overworked, underpaid professors without tenure.
- Comment on How a Yale AI-cheating dispute became a 13-count federal lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
It’s an MBA program. I’m guessing the school was correct and the business bro cheated. Not only are the people enrolled in these programs untrustworthy, they’re almost universally imbecilic.
- Comment on For Taylor Swift, Madison Square Garden’s Controversial Cameras Briefly Went Dark 4 weeks ago:
Parasites.
- Comment on Hannibal was right 🔥 1 month ago:
Eh, this only works for people into popular culture, which smart and curious people of any age never are. I’ve never met or heard of anyone who isn’t braindead being obsessed with celebrities.
- Comment on WOMEN. 2 months ago:
In all seriousness, studies show that chess skill does not translate to other types of contextual intelligence (including memory and reasoning).
More to the point, what we need are people responsive to empirical and normative facts — rational people. Not logic zombies.
- Comment on Police Violated Reckless Ben's Rights [59:00] 2 months ago:
The justice system is an enormous compromise. For individuals to trust a third party to enact justice on their behalf is among the greatest achievements of human civilization. Damage to that institution doesn’t merely risk violence, it morally necessitates it.
- Comment on Major L 3 months ago:
Sometimes we use super technical precise language to say something that we later realize is fairly simple. It might be obvious in retrospect but take us literally thousands of years to figure out. I have so many examples of that phenomenon.
Anyway, other times we just need new words for all sorts of new concepts. Even the smartest humans are stupid by default and ordinary language is outstripped by our intellectual ambitions.
- Comment on Major L 3 months ago:
New concepts require new words. New concepts relate to each other in interesting ways. These also have names.
Alternatively, if I ever wanted to assert something more complicated than the weather I’d need to re-build the entire conceptual framework from scratch using small words and pictures.
- Comment on Met police arrest pensioner for ‘jury crime’ already ruled not a crime 3 months ago:
Legally speaking, jury nullification is real. Try to absorb this fact.
More importantly, when corruption is the norm, and other democratic avenues have failed, jury nullification isn’t just a legal option, it is the only rational one. Next comes vigilantism.
- Comment on Met police arrest pensioner for ‘jury crime’ already ruled not a crime 3 months ago:
What precisely is the point of a jury if you’re going to constrain how they vote? Of course jury nullification could be bad. And of course it can be good. All legal systems are made up. The whole idea is to allow people — a jury — the freedom to decide for themselves.
- Comment on Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha 4 months ago:
I wish that my world were small enough never to learn about Hassan fans, or about the worms that burrow into children’s eyeballs, or the genocides of history, or any other kind of evil.
- Comment on Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha 4 months ago:
I watched Hassan become famous and his dishonest imbecility is about the only consistent feature of his character.
- Comment on Hee Hee Ho Ho Ha Ha 4 months ago:
Performative socialism is all the rage.
- Comment on Inshallah 4 months ago:
Anyone know the source of this quote?
- Comment on I turned down MMA fighter on a night out - so he punched me 4 months ago:
His organs should be sold and the profits used for reparations.
- Comment on California union pushes work-from-home bill as Newsom calls state employees back to the office 6 months ago:
What a colossal and dumbass waste of time, traffic, and resources.
- Comment on With the ICE raids coming up at a very faster rate, do we need more self-defense (or community defense organizing) classes? 7 months ago:
Most of America has no communities at all. It’s a bunch of strangers.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
Math exists in the minds of humans, [not animals].
This is incorrect. Every animal we’ve ever researched, including insects like bees, can do basic arithmetic. The ability to do math has evolutionary advantages.
Anyway, not a single one of the examples you’ve given involves second-order reasoning. These are all prosaic interactions with the environment, which is how most animas (yes, including dumb humans) experience the world.
First-order reasoning: “What is moral?” Second-order reasoning: “Do moral beliefs constitute knowledge claims?”
First-order reasoning: “One plus one is two.” Second-order reasoning: “number theory is either inconsistent or incomplete.”
First-order reasoning: “What does this word mean?” Second-order reasoning: “How is meaning grounded in language?”
The examples I gave you are extreme, but to be fair you seem extremely confused.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
Elephants are wise in that they’re concerned with (some of) the things that matter most — social bonds and creature comforts. But, as far as we know, they can’t abstract away from those concerns to scrutinize them abstractly, or analytically, or reflect on the nature of wisdom or the metanormative conditions of their own experience.
We can do that — due to some freak accident of evolution that probably has to do with the recursivity of language and the self-referential nature of subjective experience. And again, when I say “we,” I mean some humans sometimes.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
Most humans can’t even contemplate these questions. We have a lot of depressing research showing that most people can barely engage in abstract reasoning at all, let alone willingly.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
Well, the information that aliens created us for some particular purpose would certainly be of academic interest to me. It’s empirically interesting, but normatively insignificant.
For that, I would need to learn about the aliens’ philosophical progress (if any).
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
It’s not that cats can’t ask questions. It’s that they can’t ask abstract questions. That’s quite different.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
if you wake up in a compound, catered to your every need by weird alien captors, “why am I here?” is a pretty obvious question.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
No, they don’t. Second-order questions aren’t just the prosaic things any intelligent creature would ask, such as “why am I here?” or “what do you want from me?”
but also the more esoteric, “what sort of creature are you?” And “what sort of creature am I?”
Animals (and, indeed, most humans) don’t ask second-order questions at all because that requires abstraction, which is the sort of reasoning that requires enormous amounts of education and curiosity.
- Comment on We wouldn't listen, anyway. 7 months ago:
Well, curiosity comes in different stripes. Investigating your environment is one thing. Asking second-order questions is quite another.
“Can I have food?” vs “What is food?” or “Why am I hungry?”