thin_carapace

perhaps it may bear fruit being mindful that some of the online audience do spectate from such regimes. citizens reporting flaws in public infrastructure is the objectively correct decision a majority of the time. concurrently, many individuals acting in both public and private interests regarding security, vastly more than surmisable as edge cases, have been prosecuted for acts that any sane individual would deem not irrational. I don't think it's fair, comparing a jaywalking fine to a criminal charge for entering a URL (but one example given here).

when you provide the respect of directly addressing me + the concerns I voice , I'm happy to read your points and acknowledge them in return. I'm here for a discussion, those things aren't directly connected to us personally if we don't want them to be. you seem to have targeted a widespread personal connection via emotive language, I understand the technique, it's just you kinda chose the emotion of insult, which tends to be reflected like other emotions. I'm not sure how to prove your final point wrong, aside from referring back to where I previously said you're probably right ... it's just the expression does not convey your point well. no offence I don't even want to address your counter arguments, they're ethereal at best, "you didn't answer my question that was posed in a rhetorical manner" and pretending an indirect response has the same impact as a direct one. trying to sway others emotively takes a really strong argumentative base. to be very clear I fully agree with the idea you're trying to convey.

you didn't have the guts to write me a response or to really acknowledge what the guy you're responding to here said. the things you say could be genuinely true , I'm not gonna absorb any of it since you're out here calling me a bitch while behaving like one yourself. was your goal to wave the finger or to inspire change in others? coz only one of those things happened today. by this point if you're an average human you'll have switched your brain off - on the off chance you're different, it's time to listen to the pot by tool

i assure u that nothing special has been accomplished by my body, most definitely i am an anybody and not a somebody. the purpose of a system is what it does, we dont have anything to disagree with outside of cheeky nit picks , so i guess this is good bye !

did u have a way to frame that idea objectively without referring to feminism ? coz feminism embodies a similar concept to the one we apply toxic masculinity to. where feminism in contemporary practice seems to have little in common with supporting women

well I read those reports and came up with my comment above instead of running away so I'm not sure I can trust a conclusion based on your 'anyone' premise when the premise doesn't apply to me personally

that guy taught me something new about glass in a snarky fashion , while you delivered pure snark. no comment to add, merely an observation

in that case what is the central idea being pointed at by the misnomer 'toxic masculinity' ? interesting to consider that prevailing framing as being an inherent critique of masculinity as a whole. personally I dislike the phrase 'toxic positivity' for similar reasons, it's like saying that a turd may be made palatable.

I think you have good intentions so I don't intend to attack you personally. just wanted to suggest that an individual being arrested for doing the right thing probably decreases the likelihood of them doing the right thing in future. so perhaps discretion is a good idea when doing the right thing, to increase chances of the right thing being done long term. there doesn't seem to exist a logical reason that corporations would avoid using the letter of the law to defend themselves, regardless as to how right that defense may be?

c.f. japan food labels & how they r regulated to not be misleading

uh huh. so music is like a joke - the payoff is unexpected, while simultaneously adhering to scenario expectations.

so you're saying the author's personal experience is invalid or otherwise cannot be extrapolated to a wider concept ?

for a forum of programmers i find it remarkably amusing how difficult it seems to discuss classes instead of instantiations

perhaps we could discuss socialization rates in the west over the past few decades, to illuminate the human social trajectory in an environment of technologization? or, perhaps we could talk about the ways that kids behave after exposure to short form content like tik tok during their nascent stages of development. the progression of community volunteering rates could potentially be another great point to discuss. i dont think my perspective is entirely relevant here, but i go to the park and it feels very empty nowadays.

a small wonder the wunderkinds of computer science were at all capable given their lack of computer science degrees

rebelling against the social contract after decades of perceived neglect , a subset of the nerd class uprises and promptly stomps freedom out of existence. thus, a small amount of nerds act to cement the legacy of all nerds as dweebs. if only zuckerberg or thiel got the nerd kicked out of them. alas, bullying is considered a universal no no in contemporary western discourse, to protect those same nerds currently seeking to puppet the world to their lame ends. bring back bullying I say!

im legitimately curious why you felt the need to bring up wrongness , of course i could not compel you to answer , still it would be appreciated

putting morality to the side in favor of legal pragmatism , certain jurisdictions classify the act of accessing data without prior authority as data espionage

privacy is a luxury only afforded to the most deserving who clearly are worthy of digital god hood , toil in the mines prole and watch your tongue

personally i think its pretty cool to see that some books from thousands of years ago are applicable to a world the authors could never have imagined. it sure is a lot cooler than detonating earth to make peter thiel and other evil men of his ilk very briefly happy. from my angle, the absurdity is watching evolved monkeys toil to cease gigacenturies of evolution by permanently ruining their home.

things now make more sense, thank you for clarifying. in this new light, thiel's vision of transhumanism can be seen as the inverse of catholicism, where both meet at the concept of the soul from diametrically opposed angles (soul = undiscovered solution for some vs. soul = inherent mystery for all).

i like your ending quote, it is a great reframing of another quote, "beware of unearned wisdom".

kids have more fun with a SNES than they do with a PS5. office runs fine on 2010 era thinkpads. I get by with the cheapest possible nokia. a perceived need for modern tech conveniences is artificially engineered to program consumption behaviour into the uneducated or unwilling. I presume you fall into the latter camp and have your reasons, I don't believe such a decision could accurately be extrapolated to society at large.

im not sure what gives you the impression that wrongness (or an accusation thereof) was present here. may i ask why you felt the need to ask? personally i think it's interesting to be aware that many AI-isms originate in human english expression localized to certain regions.

openai has retracted many of their lean proofs for the big drop of supposed novel mathematical solns. if frontier ai screws it up , how does this inconsistency manifest in weaker models?

did u have a way to back that belief ?

understanding of the unconscious would be entirely novel , yet such knowledge is overtly claimed here. if the author is human he may be showing signs of ai psycosis.

how does one learn to mitigate not understanding the work they push , given that the work wasnt performed by them ?

contradicting yourself would be a choice on your part , nobody else could choose that for u or lead u there as u put it

ive seen this quote posted many times and never understood it. thanks for linking the original (?) essay, things make sense now. i do disagree with the author though; his statement is plainly defensible.

do you suppose that the average tech worker is socially perceptive enough to determine the occurence of their manipulation? seems to me that most tech workers cease consideration of consequences after accepting their role.