Windex007
@Windex007@lemmy.world
- Comment on Tesseract Dev (AdmiralPatrick) RageQuits Lemmy with Final Goodbye Message 5 hours ago:
As a former administrator of a top 100 sub, I’ve seen the absolute unhinged mod power tripping. My a large margin, mods were at least an equal threat to a community as the bad actors in the community.
For this reason, I’ve been a major proponent of a model where groups of users can generate and curate thier OWN collaboratively maintained ban lists, and users can with full visibility OPT IN to different filters.
As well, I think being able to “opt in” to users to see mod removed comments, or “opt out” of a mods comment removals would be cool. I think removed comments remain in the modlog and could be re-injected into what users see given appropriate “opt in” configuration.
Having a decentralized mechanism to manage and opt in to such lists would provide a way to combat power tripping at a grassroots level, as well as allowing broad filtering to let people choose thier experience.
This is all entirely predicated on it being:
A) with full auditable transparency
B) a clear opt-in mechanic
Hard disagreements between curators can easily be handled by forking the lists.
Long story short, I really like the idea of managed content suppression (and ideally un-supression) lists curated by regular users available in an opt-in manner because they act as a counterbalance mechanic to the outsized power that mods hold an INEVITABLY abuse.
But it’s so fucking far from ethical to try and just sneak one in. I genuinely can not understand how much contempt for the agency of other human beings one must have to be able to rationalize such a thing.
- Comment on Carenheit 13 hours ago:
An Australian family moved to my town on some kind of exchange and yah, the one kid was still wearing a jacket at 30. Literally never wasn’t cold.
Taught us how to play cricket, he was a cool kid.
- Comment on Fuck your friends 3 days ago:
At first I thought it was going to be some kind of play on whatever the hell this trope is, but his was better
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
I appreciated it too! You weren’t obnoxious, very much the opposite. Curious, patient, thoughtful, well reasoned. It’s obvious to me yours IS a mind that I would want to exercise against. And any discussion rooted in pragmatic outcomes would just be agreement. I think we want the world to be the same.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
Ok. I think I need to tap out. I don’t think we can have the same conversation.
There are two conversations: one about morality, and one about how a hospital should be run. They’re both great conversations.
I keep trying to talk about morality and ethics. To me, it’s the much more interesting conversation. It’s extremely rare to actually get the opportunity to get into moral philosophy, so even fucking roadkill is great.
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you’re saying. It’s just that you’re not at all talking about morals and ethics, and each attempt i make to pull you back in is met in failure. Now you’re talking about “fault” which is a completely distinct philosophical concept and “failure of the hospital system” which is not really anything.
Yeah hospitals should treat everyone. I have universal Healthcare. How to run a hospital or a health system is a tedious conversation for me. The moral and ethical discussion and examination of right and wrong of actions when a moral agent is part of a social collective with health support and limited resources is interesting.
But that’s OK. Im not saying you’re necessarily wrong about anything.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
Kinda, I think we’re in the same zone, but I feel you’re kinda glancing off some important points, and also bringing in unrelated concepts.
What if the money spent on the mri could have been spent on alzheimers?
Well, if at the time it was reasonable to expect that the investment in MRIs was the most effective thing to do for society that’s fine. That’s just a choice made with reasonable expectations of a positive outcome that ultimately turned out to be suboptimal. It isn’t reasonable to expect that smoking won’t statistically be detrimental to your health. It’s a self-inflicted wound, done knowing this was a likly outcome. This is the critical difference there.
Now, as for unrelated topics, you’ve muddled two distinct ideas: “moral evaluation of actions”, and “evaluation of worthiness to recieve care”.
If you need an ER doctor to pull a dildo out of your ass, but didn’t reasonably expect to demand society to end up having to pay for it, then I see no moral issue, just like if someone forgets thier hair straightener on and thier house lights on fire and the firefighters risk thier lives to rescue you.
If you fully expected to require an ER doctor beforehand, yah, morality issue there. If you light your own house on fire on purpose because you wanted to get carried down a ladder, same deal.
Doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to be helped. Doesn’t imply that you must not, may, or are obligated to feel contempt or whatever. Evaluating the STATE of a moral agent RESPONDING to a moral transgression of another is several steps removed from the ideas of the morality of self-harm in a social collective with finite support resources.
Anyways, long story short… I don’t mean to say that the two cases are morally identical. They’re both actions that needlessly risk degrading the overall health of your society.
There are OTHER moral considerations around fucking roadkill. I’m not saying being obese and fucking roadkill are somehow GENERALLY morally equivalent.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
Yeah, that’s basically it.
Harm is harm. If my recklessness gives you covid, that’s harm. I harmed you. If my wanton habits strain the Healthcare system such that they’re expending money on my emphasima instead of more MRIs, and the lack of MRIs mean the diagnostic delays kept you from finding a brain tumor before it became inoperable, that’s harm too. I harmed you.
It’s comfortable to hide behind layers of abstraction. That’s just morality laundering.
If I give you covid, and you die, that’s bad.
If I give you covid, and you spread it to your grandma and she dies, that’s bad.
If I give you covid, and you give someone else covid, and THEY give it to THIER grandma and she dies, that’s bad.
And if I give… etc etc etc etc. How far down this chain do I gotta go before you say “ah ok, no morality issue there”?
Does it matter if you expose people but none actually get it? Does it matter if people get it, but as a result of the chain reaction nobody dies?
Probably not, right? The irresponsibility of the act has already established that it was wrong, regardless of the dilution along a chain and regardless of the actual outcome. You don’t KNOW what will happen, you just have statistical models.
You might never know WHICH bean made you fart. It doesn’t matter. The collective effect produced a result.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.
The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I’m extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare… wouldn’t it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?
Just because they’re abstract, doesn’t make it any less of a question of morality. I don’t see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 1 week ago:
The idea that you’re morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn’t stand up well to follow up questions.
Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.
There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it’s pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don’t know a real formulation which doesn’t introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.
- Comment on Is it reasonable to tell a person you once loved about the fact years later? 1 week ago:
I think there are a lot of things at play here. Ultimately I don’t think you should, though.
The fact that you still want to tell them is suspicious. I think you’re not being honest with yourself. Your ulterior end game is a hope of some type of reciprocation. You haven’t moved on.
Just because (assuming it’s even true) a statistical model of a gender says “they probably would like it” is irrelevant. Would this individual like to hear it? It sounds like you don’t know. If you don’t know them well enough to anticipate how they would react, then I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t know you well enough to receive the message “I used to love you” in a way that could ever come out as a net benefit to them.
I empathize immensely regarding your position. But as a 3rd party observer, don’t do it.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Lol party all you want. I’m not OP. I don’t hold absolutist views on the morality of celebrating a death.
But the moral evaluation of an agent celebrating the death of another has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with the “Paradox of Tolerance”. At the first whisper of critical thought applied to the concept, you’ll find that people will always motte-and-bailey to “It is a descriptive paradox and prescribes nothing”. So even if it was conceptually relevant, suggesting the the paradox of tolerance actually “suggests” any action is already a misapplication.
You are free. You don’t need to appeal to anything. The guy was hurting people and now he can’t anymore. You don’t need any to reference any philosopher to give yourself permission to accept 1+1=2.
We cheer when the firefighters extinguish a blaze. We don’t mourn the loss of a jagged edge on a hand railing after a craftsman sands it smooth. I’m pretty comfortable with feeling relief when I land at a toilet when I rreeaallyy have to take a shit. The hangup that you can’t be happy that something that was hurting you is gone is the weird thing.** It’s incumbent on anyone to explain why you shouldn’t celebrate, not to justify why you can.**
- Comment on hockey team owner selfishly engraves his whole family on the Stanley Cup 2 weeks ago:
Minors can legally own shares of a private company.
I’m not saying THIS child does… and out of EVERYONE on the list that kid is entirely morally absolved anyways by virtue of being a little kid.
But, they can own shares.
- Comment on my brain when 5 weeks ago:
- Comment on A world full of wonders 1 month ago:
Close enough to the UFO landing pad too
- Comment on Scary indeed. 1 month ago:
Yeah maybe. My nephews are absolutely obsessed w/ Mario 64 despite having basically every console.
Honestly, Mario 64 never resonated with me.
I’m not saying kids will like it, I’m just not as certain as you that they won’t. People went bananas for stardew valley, which is at it’s core SNES harvest moon. The right game in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.
- Comment on Scary indeed. 1 month ago:
It came out in '98. There is over an entire generation of gamers now who have never played it.
I don’t know the plan. If they’re angling to just milk nostalgia, probably no big deal. If the game stands on its own merit and people under 35 see it as just “the new Zelda game”, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a remake or not. That’s a big slice of the market.
- Comment on Well damn. Glad he's dead. 1 month ago:
Boss: I hav a nu idea
Gilbert: No don’t u realize how stoopid that
Boss: oh well I stil say do
Garfeel: oh boy Monday… NOT
- Comment on Patricia Bath 1 month ago:
Are you threatening me?
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
I am appalled by the number of people who took the bait given the first 8 words were “I wake up to my usual gooning session”
- Comment on Didgeridoo playing as alternative treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: randomised controlled trial 1 month ago:
- Comment on Anyone get this? 2 months ago:
Used to work with a dude who took great delight in belittling others. He was quite Sr.
I thought I was taking crazy pills. “Oh, he’s actually a sweetheart once you get to know him”, “He doesn’t mean to be that way”. “He actually really likes me”
People were bending over backwards to defend a guy who was literally getting off on abusing his position of authority. Everyone seemed to think they were the special one who he liked and respected… they just wanted everyone else to “earn it” like they had.
It was scary! This guy had essentially formed a cult!
Anyways, our company got acquired and he was let go during HR vetting. The company doing the acquisition obviously had better due diligence then there was when this guy had been hired: sex crimes against a minor.
Everyone was shocked (STILL DEFENDING HIM). I was like “oh wow it’s actually crazy how perfectly that tracks”.
- Comment on Vibe management 2 months ago:
It’s actually crazy how incredibly wrong that is.
What is the CEOs job? To make profit? To select winning products? To chart a long term course?
Nope.
Nope Nope Nope.
Thier job is to increase the value of their outstanding stock. That’s it.
Now, given the fact that the stock market is a fucking casino… sure. Making profit is A way to TRY and increase your stock price. Making wise product decisions is A way to do that. This is a Warren Buffet type of CEO.
You also need to “read the room” (the room being investors) understand what they want to hear, and start saying it. No matter how stupid it is. No matter if you know full well it’s stupid.
If the whims of investors are convinced using AI is what is valuable, they will spend more on AI than humans for as long as it’s the case that the market will reward them for doing so… despite it being objectively inefficient.
You gotta remember that company stock is like a currency they can print at will. As nice as it is to have a profitable business… it’s even nicer to have the luxury of being able to just print money.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
It’s right-wing onion. That’s why they’re spitting at universities.
- Comment on They probably disable it first thing 2 months ago:
Relatively light gouges/scrapes in the road can pack with snow. Voila, new white line. Constantly sets off the lane departure. In the winter. When things are slippery. On mountain roads.
My vehicle JUST keeps. If it tried to “correct” the steering it could very easily get someone killed.
I don’t mind the beeps, but no fucking way I’m letting a computer take the wheel.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
Really hate it when people ask questions, eh? Ngl, kinda ableist to bring “capability” into it, you utter buffoon. Bike racks. Noon.
- Comment on DNAddy 2 months ago:
I hate the generalized concept of “AI”, but I love the concept of “Machine Learning”
If you think LLMs are good at anything, I am almost 100% certain to disagree with you about pretty much everything, to help you understand this distinction.
Anyhow, some computer scientists found that a machine learning algorithm could predict beyond a null hypothesis that A fingerprint belonged to a person given a different fingerprint.
“Criminology” expers were just like “no, it’s settled science”
This is the state of discourse.
-
why do I even feel the compulsion to preface by saying my bit about ai and llms?
-
how tf is “settled science” even a concept in a science
-
- Comment on Times have changes sadly 2 months ago:
I mean, it was a fantasy.
In the fantasy, AI would be doing the stuff you DIDN’T want to do. Any time it freed up meant you’d get paid the same, just work less.
Obviously the second point was obviously not how it’d pan out… but in the fantasy it did.
When the rubber hits the road, the reality crushes the fantasy. A lot of the work it’s doing is stuff people were passionate about doing. And obviously the tooling is being used to buttfuck everyone on the planet to enrich like 1000 people.
For a great many things and people, the fantasy is better than the reality. It’s the same general concept of life lessons like “Don’t meet your heros” and “You can never go home”. I’m frankly envious of people who are confused by this.
- Comment on Immaculate 2 months ago:
They heard and absorbed the hard truth that politicians get to where they are by fucking people, but just completely misunderstood it.
- Comment on How worried should we be about hantavirus right now? 2 months ago:
Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare.
You get it from mouse shit. It’s significantly more likely that the people who got it were all exposed to the same mouse shit than it is that they gave it to each other.
You should be way more worried about the mice on that ship coming off and shutting.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
This is a concise and correct answer to a significant percentage of questions I hear.
