FlameRobot
No I am using the terms correctly. You (from later on in your reply) aren't.
> Political labels can work if you and the other person are educated on politics (95%+ of HN isn’t) but otherwise focusing on labels mislead the convo and vibe.
These are specific political positions that are held by prominent members. Calling Ben Shapiro a white nationalist is simply idiotic. If you aren't informed about it, maybe you should not make strong claims about it.
> A lot of white nationalists love Israel. Saying they don’t is like saying a lot of fascists don’t love fascism (aka Israel). A lot don’t and a lot do.
No they don't. No white nationalist would support the Jews or Israel. I am sorry you are simply showing your ignorance.
As an aside, Fascism is a wildly misunderstood and misused term. I actually loathe ever talking about it today because like the term "Nazi" it has been totally misused by idiots. You do not understand the term fascist.
> Similarly there are plenty of people who are progressive except for Palestine/Israel (it’s a known saying). And plenty of conservative or right wing people who are not progressive except about Palestine.
Obviously there are splinter groups in any organisation that believe different things. Those people btw are referred to differently.
> Projection
No at all. I am just calling it as I see it. I also lost any good will I would have had with you in the conversation as a result of this jab.
Firstly. None of that is alt-right. It is America Republican slop rage-bait. Alt-right specifically means White Nationalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
> The alt-right (abbreviated from alternative right), or dissident right, is a far-right, white nationalist movement. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the United States during the late 2000s before increasing in popularity and establishing a presence in other countries during the mid-2010s.
White Nationalists literally hate the Jews, Israel and anyone that support them.
- Ben Shapiro is a Jewish Neocon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)/
- Jordan Peterson supports Israel and last time I checked worked for the Daily Wire. The Daily Wire was co-founded by Ben Shapiro.
- Joe Rogan is 90s style liberal who is into UFOs, Big Foot and other kooky shit. He literally named his comedy bar "The Mothership". Nothing about that is White Nationalist/Alt-right.
None of them are White Nationalists, nor would they be accepted by White Nationalists. So you are 100% incorrect on that.
Secondly, The Ben Shapiro Ownage stuff was popular circa 2015-2018. Guess what was popular before that? "Hitch Slap", which was Christopher Hitchens basically berating people are various religions.
I've not seen any of that content described in years and it fell out of favour back in 2018-2019.
> You can't deny what is right in front of everyone to see.
It isn't though.
None of the ownage videos have been popular for years and quite honestly I don't believe you have seen them unless you've specifically gone looking for them.
I have tested whether this does come up on a fresh browser profile using a VPN set to the US (as I am in the UK). I used several different locations in the US. I didn't see one of these videos.
I believe you and others are lying because they have a political axe to grind.
The UK being blocked from the outside won't happen anyway. The large tech giants will just either cut a deal (this already happen with Apple/iCloud), or they will comply with the new acts. The sites that don't comply won't be big enough for anyone to care in normie land and thus there will be no real pressure on the UK gov.
The smaller companies like 4chan are going to court to have the matter settled. If that is settled in 4chan's favour, legally the UK won't be able to do anything.
You are either lying, or have no idea what you are on about.
https://www.youtube.com/c/WatchWesWork
He fixes up a lot of different type of vehicles and actually explains in detail what he is doing. A lot of car stuff is just people like do a dyno test of like suped up car, I don't find it very interesting. I end up just blocking those channels.
I really think that people are nitpicking a system that works reasonably well for the most part.
I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.
> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.
2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".
> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.
> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.
> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.
I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.
I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.
I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.
> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.
After I quit drinking alcohol. I used to have a 4 pack of these 0% Ales/Larger that was supposed to taste similar. The packaging differs from the regular beer in that it has a silver top instead of dark blue on this particular. I picked up the alcoholic ones inadvertently as they were in the wrong place on the shelf.
When I took a sip, I thought it had gone off. It tasted terrible, like poison! Obviously once I checked the can, I realised my mistake. I gave them to my rest of the pack to one of my neighbours I think.
Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.
> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.
> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.
> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.
I don't see that at all. I use YouTube most evenings (I watch YouTube instead of TV).
I do have like traditional news media sometimes on the third or fourth row and you can dismiss that quickly.
> And if you click on one, by mistake or curiosity, now you've sent a signal that you like it and will get much more of it in the next batch of recommendations.
You fix that by simply pressing "Not Interested" a few times. It can be annoying. It isn't the end of the world.
I don't think that is the case. If I click Not Interested. Similar video don't show.
> Now you get baited with Member Only videos too. I'm already paying you $30 a month..
To members? Or to YouTube to remove ads? If it is the former, you have shown YouTube that you are willing to pay for memberships, so they going to recommend them.
That doesn't happen. Firstly you literally click on the video and say "don't recommend channel" and you will never see a JRE episode again.
Also, just by how you phrased that whole paragraph. I don't believe you are telling the truth.
None of those characters are "alt-right". "alt-right" essentially means White Nationalist.
You cannot tell me that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are White Nationalists because of their support for Israel and one of them is Jewish. White nationalists really don't like Israel and Jewish people. They however were labelled as "alt right" to smear them, by other political commentators and publications who are typically on the left and American.
You would only use that framing if you were listening to those commentators and/or publications that used similar phrasing.
Also Jordan Peterson actually talked about addiction on a Joe Rogan podcast and it was one of the things that put me on the road to dealing with my drinking issues. I stopped listening to Joe Rogan about episode 1000 after they stopped being live and were prerecorded.
I have plenty of criticisms of them now. But I Jordan Peterson did help me at least indirectly. I don't watch either of them anymore and haven't watched them for quite a number of years at this point.
You are. No ifs, not buts.
> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.
I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.
This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.
> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.
The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.
Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.
I cured my addiction by simply not buying alcohol and abstaining. That was a choice I could have made at any point in the past.
There are people that can drink responsibly. I am not one of those people. I made the responsible choice as an adult, to abstain from it. I don't miss it either BTW. I feel actually free.
> What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
I would have a lot more money, I wouldn't have got into stupid situations, some which I almost got myself killed, I wouldn't have had to spend 5 years rebuilding my career.
> Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
The comparison you are making here is asinine.
> It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
The moral judgement is often painted by some as subjective. A lot of the times it can be, but very often it simply isn't. There are good reasons it is correct for people to judge someone poorly because they abuse drugs or alcohol.
It isn't just the fact that they are making different choice that they disapprove of, it is the behaviour and consequences of that behaviour. This behaviour is frequently at best makes the person difficult to deal with, and at worst anti-social and dangerous and can often have dire consequences. That is simply a fact. Those people are correct to judge those people poorly.
I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either.
You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
What YouTube recommends to you is more of what you already watch. Removing stuff the you describe is as easy as clicking "Not interested" or "Do not recommend channel".
Also YouTube algorithm is rewarding watch time these days. So click bait isn't rewarded on platform as much. I actually watch a comedy show where they ridicule many of the click-baiters and they are all complaining about the ad-revenue and reach decreasing.
Also a lot of the political rage-bait is kinda going away. People are growing out of it. YouTube kinda has "metas" where a particular type of content will be super popular for a while and then go away.
The stuff that you mention. You can literally say "Not Interested" on the video and it will show you less of content. I see none of it.
It isn't that clear cut either way IME.
I had a big drinking problem. I was the one that choose to start drinking. I was the one chose to stop drinking. Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.
I accept for other people it isn't that simple.
> Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?
I had similar issues when I quit drink. Sleep was irregular, I went hot and cold for the first month. I had this like weird wave feeling go through me one night (it the only way I can describe it). I think that took like a month or two.
The brewery, the bar nor the bar ever made me drink. I chose to drink. I also was the one that chose to stop drinking. BTW drink is as dangerous or more dangerous as many illegal drugs IMO.
> Making tech companies answerable for having developed algorithms that serve up hours of obvious brainrot content at a time would go a long way.
You get recommended what you already watch. Most of my YouTube feed is things like old guys repairing old cars, guys writing a JSON parse in haskell and stuff about how exploits work and some music. That is because that is what I already watched on the platform.
People did this with code as well. DDG used to show you the first Stackoverflow post that was close to what you searched. However sometimes this was obviously wrong, people have just copied and pasted that wholesale.
This is nonsense. I've owned Dell Business, Thinkpads and several Apple products including an iBook g4, Macbook Pro and a Mac Mini (G4 and Intel).
The Dell Business and Thinkpads while they don't look as nice are far more rugged. My Dell 6410 could probably be used as a make shift weapon in a fight and easily survive. I have a T480 and it while it is small and pretty thin IMO, it is built pretty sturdy.
Do they look as nice? No they don't. But they are similar quality if it is business. I personally prefer No BS and strength as they are meant for work.
The thing that macs do better than other laptops is the screens are usually nicer. However these days there is less of a gap. I was surprised how good the screen is on Dell Precision work provided me with.
> Specs are one thing, how the product looks, feels, attention to detail, and most importantly: long term viability!
You have this impression due to the packaging when you first open it. They deliberately design the packaging that way so you have that impression (there is a bit of science behind this).
https://filestage.io/blog/apple-packaging/
https://www.dreamcustomboxes.com/apple-packaging/
A lot of companies ape this packaging because it works.
> even if you take away everything else, macbooks are though. I've used a couple for over a decade with no hardware repair (except when I broke a screen). Most mac users have similar experiences, so it's not survivor's bias.
This is nonsense. Macs have over the last 15-20 years have had a very mixed record on terms reliability and repair-ability. Repairs are cost prohibitive. Many of the components are proprietary and cannot be sourced easily other than removing from other dead laptops. I am fairly friendly with a Mac repair specialist in my area. He says it is basically getting harder and harder to repair them.
I have first hand experience of the Mac Pro laptops circa 2015. Battery is glue'd in on many models and when the battery is EOL it will clock the machine down to 800Mhz even on mains. Removing the battery is difficult as you have to dissolve the glue. As it was out of warranty I had to get a local repair guy to remove it. Cost about ~£200. Later the same year the official charger went bad and burned up the power traces. Same local repair guy said it was about £150, that with the cost of a new charger made replacing the Mac a no go and I decided to recycle it.
Compare this with any Dell Business model. I can for the most part just crack off the back and remove and replace a lot of parts without any specialist tools. This is deliberate because they usually have to be serviced by IT departments.
> If all you care about is specs or open hardware, obviously Apple hardware is not for you.
Apple computer hardware for the most part is bought by people that want things that look nice.
I worked in online gambling for about 10 years in the UK. I found how charities and local/national government worked far worse and I was far more frustrated with their attitudes.
e.g. I found an SQL Injection vulnerability with dynamic SQL in a large UK charity (I won't say which one). I reported this to my boss. He kinda just shrugged his shoulders. Similar attitudes were present in local government. The gambling industry was the complete opposite and took security very seriously.
What bothered me the most about charities and government was that on the outside they were giving the impression of having a virtuous purpose. Whereas the gambling sites didn't, it was simply "Try to win some cash".
As a former addict (alcohol), I don't have much sympathy for people that blame the companies for the problems of addicts. The problem ultimately lies with the individual. I was the one that choose to drink. The brewary, the bar, or the off-license never forced the drink down my throat. People choose to go to the casino, in the same way they choose to go to the bar.
> The question was: “How did professional gaming get so incredibly big so very fast?” Its quick rise seemed to me to have started well before the broad normalization and rise of gaming in mainstream pop culture, so had always seemed to me like the cart coming before the horse, and I’d never been able to figure out how or why it’d happened that way.
Many of the classic videos games were made to relieve you of change in Arcades. Nearby to where I live there are still classic seaside arcade. They still have machines similar to Sega Rally and Time Crisis there. Video gaming and quasi-gambling have been intertwined since the birth of the industry.
> The answer was gambling. Professional video gaming is all but completely a gambling industry. That’s where the money and promotion came from. Sponsorships, sure, but that’s secondary and would drop off to a large degree without the boost from gambling. And I mean gambling on the matches, not just sponsorship by gambling sites. It’s a betting industry.
This is all professional sports (even going back to long ago as the Roman Empire). There is nothing special about professional video gaming.
The industry saw that people were interested in watching matches between highly skilled people. Any form of entertainment/news/sports is bankrolled by advertising and/or gambling.
Many of these large events came out of more grass roots events like large lan parties. These were pretty big in the late 90s to early 2000s.
> (Online gambling’s also all wrapped up in right wing political money and funding right wing media[!] in, at least, the US, was another thing I learned that I hadn’t expected)
Gambling tends to attract the more profit orientated which roughly aligns with what is considered "right wing" (at least in the US). I found the industry to be pretty apolitical as a whole. Many of the C-suite and above seemed to be actually relatively left-wing at least in some view points. It was odd when the top executives were far at least on somethings far more to the left than I was.