Another contributing factor to the loss of records that future internet historians will have to deal with.

I’m using Obsidian. The minimal size makes syncing faster, and I enjoy the mobile interface.

I’m also using Syncthing to sync up my notes between my laptop and phone. It’s been great! Less Google doc use.

Since I’m a little embarrassed by the mistake, what do you look for in an incremental game? I can look through the ones I’ve played for Android and see if any could work?

Oh, right, so I was so excited to mention it I forgot it’s not a mobile game >.<

It’s on steam, but yeah, my bad.

Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed getting to play Magic again thanks to Forge, and Anuto is a really solid tower defense.

Hey, it’s a paid game (non-freemium) but you could try Orb of Creation. I think there’s a free demo on itch. One of the most fascinating incremental games I’ve played. I actually played all the way up to the current content’s end.

Eagerly awaiting updates.

My b, I think we’re actually on the same page?

I understand. I grew up a fundamentalist Pentecostal. It’s taken a lot of time and growth to move past that, and I’ve been an ass and had to make up for it.

My problem is mostly that celebrities have a lot of influence and power that they don’t treat with the proper level of respect. If you have an audience of millions, you should consider the example you set. It’s part of the price of choosing to be a celebrity as your job.

This guy is responsible for contributing to a lot of cultural miasma- making up for that takes more effort than apologizing. It requires actual growth and an effort to make amends. You have to not just change, but try to fix the things you broke and help the people you hurt.

A lot of celebrities will performatively apologize, but not do anything and that’s really annoying.

Do you have any evidence that he’s made an effort to make up for his behavior that goes beyond words? This is an honest question, I never followed him because of random happenstance, so I don’t know.

Bruh, he literally paid some people to wave a sign that said, “Death to all Jews.” Link to Vox

“Subtle bigotry,” my ass.

Yeah, see, I am on your side but the focus on “destroying books is bad,” is kind of irrelevant to the actual harm being done.

It’s that they’re devouring the contents of people’s brains for the ability to replace them that’s concerning. If they chose to do this in a completely different way that preserved the books, I would not say it changes the moral valence of their actions.

By centering the argument on the destruction of the books, it shifts it away from the actual concern.

Your empathy is in a good place, but the problem isn’t how humans are broken, it’s what is breaking them.

Western society* is built in a really dumb and alienating way. Humans are reduced to a labor commodity, places where people can mingle socially are being commercialized out of existence, the internet has evolved into a machine that actively profits from outrage and alienation, our governmental institutions are primarily driven by forces no regular person has any power over and we can’t even feel pride in our work because it’s profitable to convince us that we are replaceable and disposable.

Where’s the social incentive to connect to other people? The powers that be benefit from a disorganized and isolated population, so they will do nothing to change that. Market incentives mean that media which focused on things that provoke fear, rage and anxiety are more profitable than ones that promote community, happiness or hope.

It’s permeated so deeply into our culture that some older kids movies seem completely insane now. Like, think about ET and consider how wild it would be nowadays for you to just let your children vanish for hours doing whatever and wandering around wherever.

The fear and anxiety determines our actions, and there are multiple incentives on a macro-social level for that to continue.

Hell, I have watched this happen in real time during my 10+ year time on the web, where the communities of excited weirdos sharing their thoughts and feelings have been so thoroughly dominated by this that it is hard to engage with any social media without someone shoving a headline into your face that is intended to upset you.

On Tumblr, for example, the trend was so strong that the idea that you weren’t constantly upset was a sign of being a bad person. You know, on the Superwholock site? Yeah, the one that wanted to fuck the Onceler.

If you want to reverse this trend, it’s going to require changing how our political, economic and media environments act by changing their incentives. Otherwise, any change will be superficial and fail to produce meaningful results.

It’s pretty depressing, but that’s the situation as I see it.

*I’m not qualified to comment on other cultural spheres.

This reminds me of when I shadowed a librarian in high school and they talked to me about how people got really upset with them throwing away books that had multiple reprintings and were in awful condition.

Because people as a whole lack the capacity for nuance, I guess.

Bad focus on the news article.

Preach. I’m so bad at selling myself!

I just want a job with a living wage now, and it’s agonizingly, dehumanizingly hard to look online. Especially if you have the extreme rejection sensitivity aspect of ADHD.

It’s increasingly hard to find things that are like that for everyone. It’s an unfortunate trend that means I have to very aggressively curate my feeds to keep from being dragged into it.

Yeah, typo on my part 😅 Pasdechance has it right, I meant news company.

Europol’s Deputy Executive Director of Operations Jean-Philippe Lecouffe said in a statement. “By dismantling its infrastructure and arresting its key players, we are sending a clear message: there is no safe haven for those who profit from harm.”

(Looks at the camera)

Just as an aside, the person who owns this new company donated millions to the Trump campaign.

Do you have any idea how deeply it undermines your argument when you just openly say, “You’re writing oo much for me to read, please write less.”

Don’t respond if you don’t have the common courtesy to read what the person person wrote.

Hi!

So most people build their value system upwards from foundational axioms that they accept a priori. You know, someone might begin with a moral principle like, “Happiness is good,” or “I should act with compassion.”

Then, they construct outwards from there, using their foundational moral touchstones to judge if an action, philosophy or moral principle is worth following, or what compromises must be made with it in order for it to be worth following.

Like, I wouldn’t expect someone who believes “Happiness is good,” to follow a moral law that causes suffering, because they think happiness is a good thing and should be aspired to.

If there’s a conflict between two foundational axioms on something, then you have to create a compromise on an area or subject, or create a system of priority for yourself.

In my case, I think the highest virtue is compassion for other people. Because of this, I think society should be structured to benefit people.

That’s why I support the idea of public information sources. The spread of accumulated human knowledge, culture and wisdom can benefit everyone by allowing ideas to mix, spread and be worked on by many people. It allows for an incredible richness to people’s lives and I think that it’s a wonderful example of why society should exist.

Now, there’s a compromise I have to make here, because I don’t place “Publicly available information should be universally and uniformly available to all potential patrons,” as my highest virtue. I support it because of an expression of my values, but not for its own sake.

Companies are not people. They’re build out of people, but they are not. They’re organizations that are not build with human life as a core value.

You may leap to saying that I’m calling them murderers or something, if you’re willing to not absorb or consider my words there, because I’m being very precise here- companies have an incentive to make money. Companies which fail to make money cease to exist. Therefore, the companies that are most successful and most likely to exist are those which place profit above all other values in their decision making architecture.

This is an emergent property of how they are structured, and not a product of any individual person’s desire. The system is built in a way that rewards a behavior, and so it will be organized to optimize that behavior.

Human life and happiness does not directly lead to companies being successful. It is a secondary concern- companies will pursue it if, and only if, it does not conflict with profit motives. If the cost of ignoring human suffering is below the cost of caring, they will not care. It becomes a public relations issue.

Because of this, I oppose the existence of for-profit companies because they violate my fundamental philosophical values by driving towards the creation of human suffering. It’s an inevitability of their construction, and rectifying it would require completely reworking how our economic system is built.

Now, you could say that this is a minor example of this issue, and that I am acting out of proportion. This isn’t hurting anyone in any legally actionable way, and ultimately is a transitory concern. A small restructuring of how things are organized would smooth things over and produce a satisfactory base state of affairs.

That’s, however, not the point. The point is that a corporation will push as far as they can into consuming public resources, even if this does cause real harm. Allowing them to act in this way, even on a minor issue, would be a break from my moral values. I must oppose them because they do not have the right to cause any amount of harm for the abstract notion of economic progress, especially when they are using it to feed a wrong-headed venture that is consuming other, vitally important resources which humans need to survive in direct and unquestionable ways.

Massive server farms require electricity, which we have not implemented a widespread way to acquire without causing ecological damage. They require water, which humans need to live.

LLMs have uses as tools, but they are far outstripped by the way in which corporations wish to use them, which is to reduce the amount of economic support they have to give to other humans because it doesn’t matter to them if you die. It doesn’t even matter to them if it works to replace people, so long as it allows them to increase their profits for even a infinitesimal amount of time.

They are killing people, and I do not wish to extend any benefit to them. I do not want them to have any additional power, no matter how small or insignificant.

Of course, with regards to you, there’s only two options I see.

Either you knew all of this already, and were intentionally playing the fool for, I don’t know, your amusement?

Or, you somehow entered this discussion with an awe-inspiring lack of awareness of how values and moral systems work and your only method of not being deeply embarrassed by your conduct is to cling to the notion that the simplistic binary you present is somehow relevant.