belviewreview

"is subjective" if you are saying that it varies from person to person, I agree. What is am saying is that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can predict that certain materials will produce sexual feelings in a certain existing class of people, namely pedophiles. The fact that you have not directly denied this indicates that you know I am right but don't want to admit it.

As far as an argument for why this is bad, I produced it in my first comment, and you have not responded to it.

I think that we have both made our positions clear to anyone who has been reading this comment thread, so I am not going to reply to any future comments you might make, and I will just leave it up to people to dedide for themselves which of us is right.

So your saying that people who use ai to generate videos of children having sex with adults don't realize it would sexually stimulate a certain class of viewers?

Someone who produces materials that produce sexual feelings in a large proportion of people but didn't realize that would happen is an idiot. There is no way to protect idiots from negative consequences for their actions.

Certain materials are designed to produce sexual feelings. And I am not saying that having the thoughts is or should be a crime, though I think that having them is morally wrong.

Outlawing materials that are designed to produce pedophilic thoughts and consistently do so for some people is a way for society to say that such thoughts are wrong. I think part of being a responsible human being is controlling ones own thoughts to some ways.

Outlawing AI CSAM is basically outlawing people from having certain types of sexual thoughts and feeling. In the case of materials that produce pedophilic sexual thoughts and feelings, I think it is legitimate to outlaw them.

A problem with long articles is there are so many important topics to be informed about today, and if I spend an hour on one, then I don't have time for others.

Ok, that makes more sense.

You don't deny that if a donor is ideologically oriented, then there is a danger that it will pressure Tor to engage in censorship. I assume that is because you know you don't have any good arguments that this would not happen, just that it is difficult to avoid having ideologically-oriented donors.

Human general intelligence is physically based on cells that have a sort of cellular intelligence, due to their anatomical and chemical construction.

This is on contrast with artificial intelligence, which down at the atomic and microscopic level has a radically different design. The question is if artificial general intelligence is possible with that sort of atomic and microscopic design. I say no.

Some people here are defending Mullvad's political position. But the point is that a project devoted to free speech as such shouldn't be associated with a political, ideological group that favors one set of publicly presented ideas and strongly condemns another set.

The danger is that if the Tor network gets very dependent on Mullvad, then Mullvad might pressure it to make the network censor ideas it doesn't like.

Correct. Books talk as if atomic theory was accepted from early on in the modern era, but actually through the 19th century many prominent physicists and chemists considered it to be unproven speculation, and one reason is the theory lacked specific sizes and masses for atoms. Einstein's analysis persuaded people because it provided these and furthermore numerical predictions that fit the observed data.

That's very interesting. But am I right that means when you start out, you don't whether you are going to end up with a big excess of left or right, just that it will be one of them?

Batteries keep getting more energy-dense, so likely one of these days electric trucks won't weight any more.

I once read an article by a fellow from China who said that for many centuries the country had a set of social norms from Confucianism and traditional Chinese culture. But he said this was all abolished during the Cultural Revolution. An example was traditional values stressed piety toward ones parents, but during the Cultural Revolution children reported their parents to the government, which often punished them harshly.

The fellow said that when the Cultural Revolution ended, the culture never went back to the old values, and didn't have anything to replace them. so since then it has been every person, or at least every family, for itself.

Fake math? Does he know that all the electric circuits in the equipment that is used to broadcast his program are designed using algebra?

Modern architecture, like modern art and modern classical music and jazz, is supposed to be ugly. That's because it is based on existentialist philosophy that believes that life is meaningless and what ordinary people consider a good life is an attempt to escape this alleged truth. The purpose of the arts is supposed to be to push the ugly truth into people's faces so they can't ignore it.

About a decade ago I became a fan of the young Japanese drum prodigy Kanade Sato. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYpFL08m5fQ This lead to me learning the amazing fact that Japanese has 4 writing systems: kanji, hiragana, katakana, and romaji. And now I am learning that there are actually several different romanization systems. What a confusing situation.

I think the people who pushed to remove Pluto's status made a mistake by focusing on new discoveries. They should have told the whole story forward, starting with the thousands of years before the telescope was invented, then the gradual evolution of understanding after it was until we arrived at the idea of 9 planets plus asteroids and comets, and then the further series of discoveries since then including the Ort cloud and the Kuiper belt, and also include Newtonian physics and how the solar system was seen as stabile, but now chaotic.

Then after you tell this whole larger story the whole idea of Pluto being something other than a planet makes a lot more sense to people since it was originally based on the idea the solar system has a lot fewer types of features than we know it has.

But the Pluto planet demoters didn't do this. The started with the present decision and just referred back to the history in bits and pieces, and out of order.

And worse than not arguing for their position as effectively as they could, they missed an opportunity to get the public interested in the whole story and how it is continuing to evolve today in various ways.

Question from a non-techy: if today someone who is a non-techy wants to store some files on ipfs, how hard is it? A few clicks, or a day reading documents and installing software, with various ways of unintentionally fouling it up, or what?

Including Tails?

The claim that medieval people did not love their children was accepted on very scanty evidence. My understanding (correct me if I am mistaken) is that this happened at least in part because of a dogmatic believe that the idea that human nature is in part biologically fixed is a falsehood created to justify the powerful oppressing the weak.

I was explaining why people believe it. I think they are often correct in their belief. So let me ask you, have you experienced this yourself, like for a subject that you have a good knowledge of, observed someone who claims they do but is wildly off track?

The reason people find the DK effect persuasive is that everyone has run into this many times in their own lives. Like with an idiot boss who thinks he knows your job better than you do, or an article by someone that gets things completely wrong about a topic that you yourself know very well, through personal experience or extensive study. And we have all been dismayed about the impact such people can have, like through their decisions or influencing each other.

If the research can't demonstrate the DK effect, then the research is bad, like poorly designed.

And is it your view that, in contrast, the news media in China is highly responsible?

So where do you go for reliable information on China? And what is your overall view of its government?

This idea is correct, but I am very puzzled it is presented as something knew. In 1964 William H. Mcneill won the National Book Award for The Rise of the West, and the first 2/3's of the book was about how for thousands of years there was an interconnected set of civilizations that spanned from the Pacific through Central Asia and the Middle East to the Mediterranean.

The authors are not saying the articles are unjustly critical of America. Their criticism is that the journal publishes only articles that are critical, and none say anything good about it.

So let me ask you, is it your view that everything about America is bad? or do you think that in some important ways it is good?

And that is not all. Spoken speech moves up and down in pitch, and in a rhythm, and no doubt that is at least much of the basis of music.

One reason the government surveillance is important is I've read there is a growing movement among the right-to-lifers to hold women who abort criminally liable.

"Humans are simply NOT designed to _be_ happy, we are designed to _search_ for happiness."

If that were true, then all humans and the people in all cultures would be equally unhappy. And everyone would be equally unhappy all the time. But they are not, partly because of people's expectation levels.