mikelyons

Is that where "builds character" comes from?

Independently produce creative work that is of massive value to others. I know it's very general and vague but it seems logical to me.

It would seem obvious to a layman that you must be "practicing" to be an "entity" that's allowed to "defend" against "infringement"

This has an implicit metaphysics that remains un-examined.

The easy reason is that nobody would know that name and why click on something that doesn't strike your fancy?

Whatever makes us feel better, right?

Reality is essentially unverifiable at this point, so ... nuke Russia?

It's not that that's what I want, I just can't find a way to know what's real.

Where is there to go from non-existence but back into Life?

Do you feel capable of that level of leadership?

I sure don't.

One of the chief causes of my perennial suicidal ideation is the inability to even take care of myself, let alone be a leader of an actualized life or anyone else for that matter.

Mission accomplished? (Accelerating the transition)

I'm curious about the details of how a trailer in an alley could almost kill you, were you going highway speeds down an alley?

How close did you come to colliding with it before your eyes and brain prevented this?

Doesn't every car come with a, "if you crash from not paying attention, we are not liable"

The promise of self driving isn't that you can not pay attention, at least not yet.

In fact the user experience of FSD is that you must continue to pay attention.

Having an engaged driver monitoring the FSD system is _part of how we develop this tech_ it's how it advances, from human guidance and intervention on error.

Beta users are effectively the trainers for the last-mile aspects of FSD that are still in development.

As long as Tesla makes this clear, I don't see a problem with it. The problem will always be the people who don't RTFM or who don't follow the rules and guidelines, and win Darwin awards for the hubris/negligence.

I don't mean to insult or claim you're not thinking thoroughly or clearly, but this appears to me to be gross oversimplification of several deep topics wrt developing new technologies, the mission to advance the advent of sustainable energy and transport, and founding billion-dollar companies.

Also I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim you would be incapable of your perceived level of dishonesty, because you yourself are selling the idea that it's dishonest based on these gross oversimplifications.

When someone is identified with an institution, any criticism of the institution is taken as a direct attack on their identity and so they must defend with the same righteous indignance that they would from someone assassinating their character.

Well I didn't mention programming skill, I just mean like, the ability to solve one's own computer problems. Knowing how to touch-type, or knowing keyboard shortcuts.

I don't mean at work, I just mean in my personal life I rarely meet women who even use computers in their own freetime beyond social media. Is it offensive to give an anecdote about having met thousands of woman and only a handful who are above intermediate computing skill? It's not a value judgement of them as people I'm just saying it's very rare to encounter.

I would defo be interested to find some social event or organization where I can meet more women who are. At the moment I am teaching my SO how to power use her computer, use unix, write code, and she's making incredible strides, she just never had anyone in her life who was patient and willing to teach her.

I imagine the only reason I was able to auto-didact it was because our culture fosters the initiative with technology for boys but not for girls when we're growing up.

I also realized just now that my perspective may be skewed thinking I'm average skill level when really I may be above that and dunning-kruegered.

I couldn't figure your email out, but I messaged you on twitter

I would argue that this is a perspective of someone with power in the job market, and perhaps that perspective is limited to a small portion of workers' experiences.

I also find "don't like it, leave" to be a very unaware oversimplification of the situation many American workers are in.

Using conspiracy theories, bunk science, and outright lies to influence the lower-awareness majority _is_ political action, and evidently it is currently one of the more effective strategies.

Facebook is designed to make you think that when it may not be true, you have to be skeptical of your own mind, and skeptical of your own skepticism.

Worker's incentives seem more along the "do whatever those with resources say to trade your mind and body and time for survival"

What's in a name?

Alarm from Hell === Alarm from Earth

In what way have they changed the definition of the word inclusive?

In what way is the net gain not clear here?

It seems clear to me that "even factoring in" means that there is a net gain for the employer, at a net loss to employees.

The incentive structure of unregulated capitalism is "Extract maximum value with minimum expense. As much as possible externalize the costs."

The things to extract value from: employees, environment, government policy, tax code, if I was smarter I'd think of a few others.

The wildfire smoke has brought that future that we'd feared and daydreamed (daymared?) about; where we can actually see the posibility and impetus for living in self-contained bubbles of breathable atmosphere and livable temperatures.

Now is the time that we are finally transitioning to electric vehicles and hopefully toward sustainable policies and economies, but has the collective level of consciousness risen to empower us to meet these challenges?

What incentive is there?

I feel the same way and it causes me to think about suicide all the time.

If safety and longevity weren't concerns I would say: If it's stupid and works it's not stupid. There's a difference between quality, and the perception of quality.

We need to get in the cultural habit of looking at things for their own being, rather than for how they can be used by humans.

There's a really good lens for understanding this called Spiral Dynamics, a scientific model of the evolution/development of consciousness which is the work of Clare Graves.

If you understand that Trump is at the red/orange level of consciousness, and so is a huge chunk of the American population, it's obvious why they will vote for him.

The stage red / stage orange worldview is pretty clearly what conservative Americans operate on, (and many are very on stage blue also).

The majority of liberal Americans are operating on stages orange and green.

And these are still all tier 1 of 2 tiers in the model.