mfed1122
@mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
- Comment on Why does the GOP think “ANTIFA” is bad? 18 hours ago:
Thank you for saying it so I didn’t have to. It’s so disappointing to see people on “my side” say dumb crap like “wait so if ur anti antifa that means ur calling urself fascist haha 🕵️♂️🕵️♂️🧠 Q.E.D republikkkan”. Like fuck me. Just like you said it’s the same shit as Republicans saying “oh you’re socialist??? Google what Nazi stands for sweaty 🤭🤗”
You’d think people would learn not to use shitty reasoning when it’s used against them. But it seems like instead people only care that the reasoning is bad if it contradicts them. And as soon as they want to throw things at their enemy they’ll pick up whatever flawed garbage they can, not worried about how it reflects on them or how if undermines the state of reasonable public discourse. Any weapon is valid as long as it’s used against the Enemy. So disappointing.
- Comment on wax on 1 day ago:
Yeah it looks really disgusting, like it’s shitting soft teeth
- Comment on Experts raise privacy concerns over Michigan bill targeting pornography and VPNs 1 day ago:
Don’t think the fact that corporations use VPNs will protect us. There are all sorts of products that are legal for corporate purchase but not for individuals. Typically dangerous equipment, chemicals, tools, etc. The precedent is there as long as you can establish that a VPN is dangerous or unfit for the public. I’m very sure this will be the angle taken for Phase 2 of the “finally fuck up the internet for everyone” plan.
- Comment on I Quit 4 days ago:
I feel ya, I also generally am very against “it’s just common sense!” type reasoning. But have you ever spent time with, like special education students? Like someone who will need to live with their parents forever because they can’t learn to do things like read or write? It’s nice to believe that maybe if only they had been given the right environment, they wouldn’t have those problems - it’s also just not true. Or perhaps we can take a more extremely example of someone who suffered a major brain injury. It sucks, and it’s unfair, but at the end of the day some people really are definitively less smart than others. And by that same token, those others are definitively more smart than them. Of course, once people are at a certain level, it gets a lot harder to tell, but that dynamic is still in play. Likewise, if you’ve ever had the experience of interacting with a gifted kid, it’s pretty clear that they’re smarter than others.
That’s a good distinction about intelligence being generally advantageous. That is why I said generally - it has some clear disadvantages like loneliness or a deeper awareness of the world’s problems, etc. But most of the time, being smart is advantageous, don’t you think? I mean, what is intelligence other than an ability to correctly understand reality? I do agree that sometimes having a false understanding of reality can coincidentally help you out, but knowing how things really are is certainly the superior strategy. If you think otherwise, it’s always easy to make yourself dumber and reap the rewards. I don’t mean that sarcastically or cruelly. I just mean, there’s a reason we don’t see intelligent people lobotomizing themselves to have better lives.
Agreed the chart only shows correlation and not causation in either direction.
- Comment on I Quit 4 days ago:
I mean, look. While it’s true that IQ tests aren’t a great measure of intelligence, it’s not like all humans are equally intelligent. We all know some people who are clearly smart and some people who are clearly dumb. And I think it’s completely expected that being smarter gives you some advantage at getting money. I don’t think anyone can reasonably deny that being smart is generally advantageous in life. This chart seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me…there is a slight correlation, moreso on the low end (how can severely mentally retarded people do most jobs or even have incomes?), and less so on the high end. It makes a mistake in talking about income rather than net worth, which is really the more pertinent thing in “being rich”. I bet we would see a much lower correlation there, because you can be born into having a high net worth. But the correlation isn’t too high, because, as everyone reasonable already suspected, being rich is almost entirely about being lucky. I don’t think this chart really has any import to the many social discussions about meritocracy or wealth or intelligence, except for maybe to disprove someone who believes that we live in a fair world where “if you’re smart and work hard you can make it”. But even then, that would rely on a misunderstanding of what the chart tells us.
- Comment on Anon is exploited 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, that particular article is a serious more historical one and then most of the others on the site are satire written in a cheesy old English style and medieval setting and it’s killing me
- Comment on Anon is exploited 2 weeks ago:
Beautiful, thank you so much! Will read momentarily
- Comment on It's depressing, man 2 weeks ago:
My very rough very compressed minimal definition is something like:
“Ability to determine truths from falsehoods within the confines of available information”
- Comment on It's depressing, man 2 weeks ago:
Probably true, but I don’t think that warrants the stupidity being put in scare quotes like that. Regardless of whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic stupidity, stupidity by nature or by nurture, the result is genuine stupidity all the same
- Comment on Anon is exploited 2 weeks ago:
Do we actually archaeologically/anthropologically know that this is the amount of time that people spent working in those different periods?? Would love to see sources because I always think this is one of the most valuable things those fields can bring to us, but I’ve had trouble finding clear answers.
- Comment on Lies, all lies 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on rawr xD 3 weeks ago:
Sun bears are definitely justifiably cursed.
So when she first said this. It was long ago, a time when red pandas were much less popular. So many in the group did not know what they looked like, I among them. From her fear, I inferred it must be something like, well, a panda, but red, and maybe skinnier and freakier. Then she pulled up a picture, and everybody lost it
- Comment on rawr xD 3 weeks ago:
This was asked of her. The answer was no, and the reasoning was that they won’t walk like that. She knew it was irrational lol
- Comment on rawr xD 3 weeks ago:
I once knew a lady who was terrified of red pandas for exactly this reason, the fact they would stand on two legs “like a human” despite not being human just freaked her out. So maybe there’s something to it.
- Comment on Kinky 3 weeks ago:
Dolphins stay freaky
- Comment on Margot Robbie makes a bold statement with ‘naked’ dress postpartum 3 weeks ago:
Fair enough. As long as you don’t want laws passed on that basis, I figure differences can be differences. Otherwise I may be inclined for us both to try some further mutual persuasion.
- Comment on Margot Robbie makes a bold statement with ‘naked’ dress postpartum 3 weeks ago:
- What is problematic about being scantily clad?
- It may be odd, but at some point a white person dating a black person was odd. That didn’t make it wrong to do.
- There are many tribal cultures where women do not cover their breasts, and children in those cultures don’t seem bothered by it. There are cultures where nude beaches are acceptable. Is it possible that adults only project their own socially-induced discomforts with the sight on breasts onto children? Not every human feels the same supposedly intrinsic wrongness at nudity as you do.
- Note that you are conflating nudity with sexuality. Surely nudity and sexuality are not identical, so we should be careful to make sure we’re not using them as synonyms.
- Comment on Margot Robbie makes a bold statement with ‘naked’ dress postpartum 3 weeks ago:
The comments on NY Post articles always make me want to board the next rocket launch off Earth. People are soooo sex negative. People ask “why” to this shit, but the real question is why not? What’s so horrible about a naked person? And the dress is really ornate and pretty. But we have to make it about her being egomaniacal, or slutty, or shameless, or a trend follower, blah blah blah. Maybe it’s just a cool dress and she doesn’t think a body is intrinsically sexual, or that sexuality is intrinsically shameful, or so many other preconceptions that these commenter morons would never even think of. “I respect my husband too much to wear a dress like this” - yuuuuck! I could write a whole essay about all the things wrong with that comment alone.
- Comment on Kmart broke privacy laws by using facial recognition technology, commissioner finds 3 weeks ago:
Crazy how when a huge company breaks a law and wrongs thousands of people, the “punishment” is being asked not to do it again. Can I get that punishment next time I commit a crime? Rob a bank and…oh well, just don’t do it a second time buddy!
Now wait. Let me really be fair here. There is an actual difference. Robbing a bank is known to be illegal, whereas the way in which Kmart broke the law was arguably not known to be illegal. I’m not being facetious here, this is an actual important difference.
But…let’s say then that I did something like that. I break some law unknowingly, or by mistake. Will I then merely be asked not to do it again? I doubt it…and so the point stands.
- Comment on You donkey 4 weeks ago:
This has gotta already be a popular kink within the restaurant industry
- Comment on No I'm really not sorry. George Floyd was a father too, and before old Charlie had his personal turning point he called him a scumbag. 4 weeks ago:
Better, but not ultimately valid :)
- Comment on No I'm really not sorry. George Floyd was a father too, and before old Charlie had his personal turning point he called him a scumbag. 4 weeks ago:
The “he’s a father” line has got to be the most slave-morality, don’t-ask-questions, get back to work and serve the Economy, don’t make trouble for the system, obvious bullshit I’ve ever heard.
One can make plenty of better arguments for why not to make fun of him posthumously, so why pick such a bad one? Oh right, because the vast majority of our society has never been educated to care about the logical validity of an argument, but only its emotional gut-feeling truthiness.
- Comment on gun, nuts 4 weeks ago:
The Black Panthers got a lot out of theirs. It’s very likely that African Americans wouldn’t have rights in America today if not for those guns.
- Comment on Has Charlie Kirk ever changed his views on a subject during a debate? 4 weeks ago:
Fair, fair
- Comment on Has Charlie Kirk ever changed his views on a subject during a debate? 4 weeks ago:
The best thing that could possibly come of his death is if nobody ever spoke of him or thought of him again
- Comment on Anon doesn't enjoy anything 4 weeks ago:
I’m so full of purpose I don’t even notice the need to masturbate which gnaws at my consciousness every moment, which always sings its endless siren’s song of sin, I go the entire day without paying a single thought to my aching cock which throbs urgently for release by any means. It’s so great bros
- Comment on Anon doesn't enjoy anything 4 weeks ago:
The feel-good (and still very fake and gay) greentexts were always the worst, and largely because of these cringe messages. Implying becoming Christian was the first step. I wouldn’t be surprised if these types of posts are just grassroots conversion attempts from various evangelists.
- Comment on Doubting Your Favorite Web Search Engine 5 weeks ago:
Took me awhile to get back to this, but yeah I agree that it seems at least conceptually solid. The big barrier is that, like jarfil mentioned, you’d need at least 200 million sites indexed, so you’d need a good amount of users for it to work. And the users would need to consent to running some software that basically logs all the pages they visit. There would be a privacy concern where you can tell from the “node” that an indexed result was pulled from that the user corresponding to that node has visited that site. This could maybe be fixed by each user also downloading indexed site data from others aside from what they personally use, thus mixing in their own activity with others indistinguishably? Probably clever vulnerabilities in that too though.
Structurally it seems a lot like DNS. If only DNS servers were fine storing embeddings of site content and making those queryable, it would seemingly accomplish the same idea, aside from it being in the hands of DNS operators. Of course, that massively multiplies the amount of data these servers need to an impossible degree.
I still need to read up on what primitive indexing really looks like and how much space it takes to store per site.
- Comment on Choose wisely lemmings 5 weeks ago:
Stolen from GeneralSam:
Chairdolf Sitler
- Comment on I may swear like a pirate, but I'm a fucking PRINCIPLED pirate 1 month ago:
Asking if people could spot the antichrist has always seemed paradoxical to me. Isn’t the antichrist’s defining thing that he will deceive people into following him? Lost cause imo