• 3 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Nov 30, 2020


I’d say ‘no’, and that this is a category error (like asking what the colour of ‘up’ is).

If I owned by body, I could legally sell it, but I can’t sell it, and wouldn’t want any legal structure allowing people to sell their body-parts. I think bodies aren’t the kinds of things one can own.

Philosopher Solomon pointed out that emotions follow reasoning hand-in-hand, quite reliably.

If you think someone’s stolen from you, you feel angry. If you find out they didn’t steal from you, you stop being angry at them. Perhaps you become angry at yourself for losing the item, but again -that’s reasoning coming into play.

Emotions seem part of a judgement at every point. When your friend starts talking about how great someone is, you might conclude they’re having romantic feelings, because part of loving someone is thinking they’re great (if things are going well).

Even when someone’s feeling ‘just generally irritated’, this usually translates to persitently judging things to be bad - thinking their government, or the kids’ music, and the latest TV shows are bad.

Judgement can be irrational, and the emotions will follow suit, but to feel happy that you’re going to see an old friend doesn’t seem at all irrational.

If you’re on Linux, here’s my notflix script to torrent and watch instantly.

Just do:

./notflix.sh solaricks

Wait 2 minutes, and it’ll play.

I’ve never met anyone who had opinions about 18th century clubs.

I’m very interested in this topic, how would you define the maximal total utility for a group with different values?

I’ll try to condense what I’ve read with some bullet points:

  • Utilitarian theory has a lot to say about why this is possible in principle, but it’s not always possible in practice. It’s similar to physics, where everything has mass, but actual measurement is difficult (except Utilitarian theory isn’t nearly as developed as any branch of Physics).
  • Actual methodologies typically use Economics tools, such as Game Theory. There’s another hurdle to implementation - we can calculate a ‘fair’ wage for everyone in a corporation, depending on what they contribute, but the actual formula’s difficult to compute once you get beyond about 10 people (or at least 10 roles).

even the slightest difference could lead to large splits.

Yes - every difference in someone’s individual utility mappings can affect a given decision, but it’s not all that crazy once you look at real-world examples.

And is there a limit to optimization for a group before it starts coming at a cost for subgroups?

Yes - and utilitarians won’t add any suggestions on where to take the split.

5 people want to go to the cinema. 2 of them love Marvel, 1 hates Marvel. The currently playing films are ...

Mathematically, this example threatens to become insanely challenging, but we make these decisions every day, so clearly we’re making some attempt to maximize utility, even if we’re not 100% successful.

In a global perspective, the difference between i.e. catholics and protestants are comperatively small yet some experience a large divide.

This is an easy one - don’t take global perspectives when making decisions, unless it’s a question with a super-homogenous answer like ‘should people get stabbed by rabbid monkeys?’.

So you’re saying speach about Ethics isn’t vague, because someone who’s studied philosophy would ask one thousand questions about the situation. Is that what you’re saying?

Right - the idea’s not to conclude with ‘tomatoes bring utility - let’s make tomatoes’. The idea’s to maximize total utility, given a population with different values.

A master’s degree in Philosophy, specializing in ethical theory.

Take for example, the statement “he didn’t deserve that”. How do we find out if that’s true?

Or we can look at the lack of epistemological grounding. If I bet you €5 that some building is taller than another, we can go online, find out who’s right, and the money’s paid out.

Now imagine I bet you that fur clothing is always morally wrong. How could the money get paid out? What evidence would make a publicly available conclusion?

I hope so, and it’s sort-of the aim.

Hume and Locke’s writings are often on ‘Philosophy of Mind’ - a subject which wasn’t at the time anything like a science. Nowadays, lots of the mind is squarely under the purview of neuroscience, or psychology.

Utilitarianism was always a branch hoping to involve science, and eventually become law. Bentham - the originator - stated this should be the methodology for writing laws. Instead of vague moral debates, we should answer the single question ‘what would bring the most utility to people?’.

Or it’s like my great-grandmother, who used to switch off her hearing aid if someone was boring.

I wish I could do that sometimes.

Nobody will do any of the things needed to install Linux:

  • Back up all your stuff
  • Get USB
  • Rofi
  • Install ISO
  • Find BIOS
  • Mess with ‘allow less secure OS’ options in BIOS, which sound scary
  • Go through install process which may break your computer if you do it wrong
  • Relearn unknown number of things in new OS

The only time we’ve seen Linux adoption, is when it comes preinstalled on devices:

  • Android
  • Chromebook
  • Smart TVs
  • Steam Deck
  • Lenovo/ Dell with Pop_OS!
  • Schools using Ubuntu

If Windows 10 stops getting support, people either use a non-supported OS (like they do with Windows 7), or they buy a new computer.

I like ℵ^0 because it annoys Maths nerds.

A progressive tax scheme seems to work well for the UK.

I sometimes wonder if we’d be better off continuing those tax brackets until 99%, so that everything over some number, like €1M per year, becomes almost entirely tax. I don’t see much point in having people who own €20M. If €20M doesn’t make you happy, it’s probably time to start trying medication, rather than money.

The rest of the ‘how’ gets more fiddly. Every article on tax loopholes I read seems incomplete, so I guess a comprehensive tax system will take some work, with some very cynical and prepared people.

I’m not sure what the point would be, or what the exact plan is.

If it’s making male-only online spaces to talk about Left-Wing men’s issues, then I’m not sure what the point is, and we already have mostly-male spaces all over the internet, some of which talk about Feminism.

If the idea’s to focus on men’s issues, then we also have plenty of spaces for that already. I’ve known a few Feminists who take time to look at men’s problems (mostly women), but Feminist movements usually focus on women’s issues because the biggest problems lie there atm, at least as far as I can see (e.g. right now, Roe V Wade’s being overturned).

While everyone’s talk about collecting data has some truth, a big part is just because an app often works better than the website.

If you wanted to use Mastodon only through the mobile’s web, the display would be messed up (because of the tiny screen), and you wouldn’t be able to flip between accounts so easily.

While websites try to do everything for everyone, a specialized app can do one job, and do it well.

NFTs are bullshit. Help me with a reductio ad absurdum
Love, Death and Robots just ended with a little NFT QR code, and before that I saw a message for Ukraine-war NFTs. I don't know what that last bit even means, and I'm so fed up of this bullshit. The plan's to make a protocol for a replacement, just to demonstrate how stupid the entire thing is. Here are NFTs stated goals: - show ownership of art, verified on a blockchain. - allow transferance of ownership Here's why NFTs are bullshit: - you don't need to gind CPUs to have a blockchain. - URLs verify an image - none of this shows ownership. # The New Protocol - Stick image sha256sums in a git repo, verified by gpg keys (now we have a blockchain). - Allow a few people to verify image ownerships, gpg keys (verify other people's stuff if you like, so it's a standard ring-of-trust situation). - Don't bother with proof-of-work. Just let the shasum rest. - Only merge images into the main branch if there's a requested sale (otherwise it gets full of crap). - Display ownership with exifdata. Here's the [repo](https://gitlab.com/andonome/artblocks), just as an example. # Questions - Does this cover 100% of what NFTs were supposed to cover? - Is there an even simpler way of doing this? - Can I add stuff with git-lfs without also downloading it (so the repo remains small, even with 10,000 images)? Just to reiterate - this is a solution to a problem nobody has. It's not a real suggestion, just a proof of concept to show that art-transferance could be handled better with some gaffatape and a git.

Streaming anything with 4 lines of bash
I'm running a similar script, and it's great. Takes a minute to find less popular films, but broadly works fine.

I turned my notes into an online cheat sheet
I take lots of notes, so I've made them into a cheat sheet, and stuck them on my website. ## Why not use existing documentation? I want a more chronological order. If you `curl cht.sh/git`, you find `stash` is covered before committing, and there is no init or clone, so at that point you don't actually have a git to work with. I'm also not a fan of documentation explaining what something does. This is meant to be for people who already know what something does (why else would you be looking for docs on it?), and just want to know the basic commands to set up and start. I want docs that give you the bare bones in ~5 minutes, with the assumption that man pages and Stack Exchange will take care of advanced usage. I've worked on making it more accessible, but it's still a work in progress. If you'd like to make a correction, or add a program, the whole thing is on a git, [here](https://gitlab.com/andonome/lk). PRs are welcome.