I assume that psychological issue would apply to any sort of executioner regardless of the method, there’s not really a way around that if you’re killing someone, there has to be a person, or likely several, that actually does the deed, or at least is the last human to be involved in it. I don’t think its humane either, I just meant that in the relative sense where anything can be said to be if the other thing being compared can find a way to be just a bit worse.
I’ve seen it argued that it might actually cause less pain and therefore be more humane than lethal injection even if it looks less clean, though not being an expert in how people die or how quick it is when someone is shot, I can’t verify that. Personally though, I agree, I just dont feel like death can be a good thing and if you can execute someone, you sorta definitionally have them captured and under your control anyway, making justifications like preventing future violence irrelevant.
At some level I think, both are true, the frog’s part is pretty obvious, but I do think there are a great many things that I would not have known, or even known enough to be curious about, without the internet, along with people, to include a number that I now know in person and am very close to, that I never would have met. Humans are biased to notice the bad side in something more than the good, and it’s easy to take the benefits of the internet for granted as part of the “default” way things are, while noticing the harms it brings because, well, they hurt.
More to the point though, I think now that anything that does the blue part, will also get you the green part. The trouble is that the world is simply too big to comprehend. There are too many things to know, going on in too many places, to be well informed about more than a fraction, and too many people to know or feel kinship with all of them. Therefore, increasing information available and the number of people one can talk to will, and inheritly must, change you in a way that leads to a different sort of division.
Every faraway or global problem you become aware of and come to care about takes up time and attention from some other thing you would have done or learned or cared about instead. Every person you come to know takes up slots in Dunbar’s number that otherwise would have been filled with someone else, and the fact that you get some choice over what slice of the world you come to know means that those people you associate with are likely to care about the same problems and ideas as you, and those who dont will seem almost alien by comparison, caring for strange and seemingly irrelevant or problematic things while seemingly being unable to understand that which you find so obviously important. You probably seem the same to them.
I don’t even think anymore that this is necessarily a bad thing. The same happens without online connection after all, it’s just defined by geographic region more than by the people themselves. Existing in a “forced” space with no alternatives can be problematic for those people who do not fit in well with their family or neighbors, who nowadays at least can find community with others like them, and when people from different “tribes” do have to work together due to physical proximity, the diversity of knowledge available in that group is greater than if they all shared one perspective.
There are of course genuine problems to be addressed with attention driven algorithm or with platform owners manipulating social consensus with their power, but doing so wont suddenly make humans not tribalistic, or suddenly all informed about everything, or even everything you, or me, or any other individual person finds important. They are worth solving, but realistically the benefits of doing so aren’t creating a single global community whose members understand everything that it’d be beneficial for them to understand. Humans just don’t have the bandwidth and time to facilitate that.
Aand now after typing on my phone for half an hour Ive noticed this is the shitposting community and I’m way overthinking it. Oh well, that’s what I get for never bothering to pay attention to what community things are on I guess.
The US south gets it’s revenge by putting ice and an unhinged amount of sugar into tea.
And star trek
Interesting, I dont have the spare time for a video that long at the moment but I did glance at his “detour” section about modern stuff and the bit about just keeping stuff used to talk about secrets in a room rigged up as a faraday cage with a bunch of shielding seems to fit the kind of use I was picturing being a problem in my head.
Something I kind of wonder about this whole "every single modern TV is a smart TV that spies on you more comprehensively than the ones portrayed in “1984"” situation is this: there must surely be some overlap between “facilities that have well-protected state secrets” and the use case for TVs. Like, do they not have any TVs in, say, the pentagon, or CIA facilities, or other country’s equivalents to those things? They might not need like entertainment generally, but displaying video information to a group of people seems like it’d be useful to organizations like that. There’s also people who inherently have secrets surrounding them, like national leaders, and those people will also sometimes expect entertainment.
So, how do groups like that, who both have a lot of resources to get stuff done and an obvious reason to not want a poorly secured spy device sending information from their facilities and people to some random corporate server, deal with the modern TV situation? Do they exclusively use old TVs? Do they modify off the shelf ones to kill the spying ability? Do they commission companies to make special models for them that aren’t commercially available, or build their own hardware? Or is the inability to buy regular, non-spying new TVs exaggerated, and theres some generic supplier out there that they can reliably get them from?
It, if it is imagined as using a similar underlying technology, would also be an example of that technology that is both far more mature and understood (at least until the writers want to use it as an excuse for whatever shenanigans of the day) than current AI tech, and more capable, and also not shoved into everything in an attempt to force people to use it so that it’s owners can extract more of everyone else’s shrinking supply of money, and also not part of an economic house of cards that people are told will eventually impoverish masses of people when it inevitability collapses.
It’s like saying that in the 21st century we have decorative plants and everyone loves those, to a dutch person from the 1630s who has complaints about the tulip industry.
design a thing with a reward system that trains it to take a certain action *
get upset at your creation because you didn’t want it to do what your design led it to do *
Sounds kind of like what some of those AI company people do.
If the power dynamic is clear (which includes parent-child cases like what OP was talking about, I’m in agreement with you there), then why should the law specifically care that the people involved are relatives, wouldn’t more general laws about coercion, grooming, or abusing positions of authority be sufficient to make that a crime? (And if they aren’t, shouldn’t they be?)
If the power dynamic is not clear, like if both people involved are of similar age and there’s not some other clear marker of who has power over the other like financial dependency or some kind of caretaker relationship (not “if there is no power dynamic”, just if it’s ambiguous enough to an outsider that there’s a significant risk of an outsider like a judge or jury or cop getting the dynamic wrong), then doesn’t having a specific law about incest risk punishing the wrong side a significant percentage of the time, or create a situation where a victim is afraid to come forward or can be threatened into more abuse, because they fear the penalty being applied to them as well if the law isn’t convinced that they weren’t the person with the power in their situation?
I think its a satire on AI company people saying we’re close to a technological singularity, given the “we’re asking for a pause” is a phrase commonly associated with that
Abstract concepts dont tend to have the capacity for surrender, after all.
I wonder what growing the pumpkin in a space station would do, the fruit wouldn’t have to be able to support its own weight at that point
Tried this once after townsends (cooking yt channel that makes old timey food) said that it was really easy and good. Was easy. Was also terrible, do not recommend. Can bake a potato for exactly the same effort and get something 10 times better.
Maybe that’s why alien ships in star trek often have such dim lighting- that’s how ships normally are and human ships are an exception slowly reverting to the mean
I dont have this newest gen6 plus, just the slightly less new gen6 with e/os, but I wouldn’t imagine the difference is huge. Has generally worked about as well as any regular android phone Ive had, with a few minor annoyances like the “paste” button for text often being invisible, such that I just have to press where it should be to make it work.
I mean, aren’t most of these “scientists find microbe that eats plastic” stories just them finding something in the wild that already has such an adaptation, rather than engineering something new? The idea that a plastic eating organism makes plastic nonviable to use anymore is a bit like saying that we can’t make stuff out of wood, paper, natural fibers like cotton or wool, etc, because those things will degrade given the right circumstances and time.
Evidently at least some humans find them impressive, to have named them after a mythological hyper-predator.
Like the one sub I still miss from reddit
Lately I’ve come to have doubts about the ethicality even of prison, though I don’t yet know what I’d suggest instead. In general Ive come around to the idea that the very notion that causing suffering creates a “debt” that must be repaid with more suffering on the part of the perpetrator is itself toxic, because if some way can be found to cause a person to live a life that will not inflict more harm without hurting that person, then that method would be better, at least in a utilitarianist sense, than something more “fair” relying on punishment. The challenge of course is in finding that way is.