Guest_

guest_


— Guest_ Report User
Time to get a lawyer 7 comments
guest_ · 2 minutes ago
I prefer the detailed and imaginative explanation by mrsuperman- but a simpler explanation is that they are... A European ambassador and not THE European ambassador. However less humorous than the other reply- we also must keep in mind that a world ran by women could be very different and have very different borders. For instance there could be a single ambassador that represented the entire European Union in foreign affairs.
This make me SO ANGRY! 3 comments
guest_ · 16 minutes ago
I dunnoh. I punch like a champ in my dreams. It could be something inherent to you, or it could be something in your subconscious, or you might just need to train up your imagination. I can’t 100% control my dreams 100% of the time, but I often have a good deal of control and my mind usually puts me in scenarios that are in line with my fantasies or with reality. So maybe it has to do with your reality? Maybe you either don’t think you can punch hard, or know you can’t, or that you wouldn’t punch hard even if you could. Maybe it isn’t just punching. Maybe your subconscious feels some type of weakness, or helplessness- that you’d be faced with a situation and be unable to effectively confront it or defend yourself against it? I dunnoh. Can’t say I’ve had the problem so I’m just spit balling.
Choose your fighter you nerds 13 comments
guest_ · 24 minutes ago
@granlobomalo- there are potential dangers for sure. Those dangers you mention come down to a fear of the unknown and a fear of loss of power or control. We can apply these dangers to most anything we see people scared of agressive towards in the world. We don’t understand and can’t really define sentience. We don’t know that a machine couldn’t achieve it on its own, or that it doesn’t just “happen” at some point. We don’t know how or if we can protect against it. Sentient AI brings up interesting questions. Hard questions about what life is and right or wrong. We don’t even know if it really is possible to create a sentient machine or if you just get a very advanced machine that still follows orders as programmed. But as you allude to- if it’s coming it’s inevitable short of a Dune esque Butlerian Jihad. The advantages of AI over those without make it inevitable that no major player in government or industry will want to give up that advantage especially if a competitor has it.
· Edited 24 minutes ago
Choose your fighter you nerds 13 comments
guest_ · 15 hours ago
Pretty much. But our minds tend to go to dark places when confronted with an unknown future. So many predictions of how intelligent machines would seek to destroy or enslave humans. But why? There’s no reason to believe these machines would think like us, or even in a way we’d understand. Machines don’t have the needs, or likely the desires humans do. They wouldn’t have the instincts that lead to many of our negative actions or responses because they didn’t evolve in the physical world where those were survival imperatives. They don’t need to really even exist or interact with the physical world beyond a certain point, and might even view us somewhat like we do many animals or insects- something best left to itself as much as practical. Fear of unknown is fear of our own imagination, and reflects more on our minds than on the world or others.
1
So easy 3 comments
guest_ · 17 hours ago
I dunnoh. Why would you paint your own picture for $100 in materials when you can buy a painting or a print for less? Why would you pay more money and make 6 stops to go to tiny local stores when you could go to one giant chain store and get everything you need for cheaper? It’s a mystery of life I’m sure.
4
Choose your fighter you nerds 13 comments
guest_ · 17 hours ago
AI will change the world. Many of those changes will have good and bad points, just as the internet, the robot, the assembly line, the cotton gin, and even steel itself did. The world will be different. It won’t be the world you grew up in, and if you can’t or won’t adapt to the new ways it will be scary and foreign. The first time humanity picked up a stick it was a danger to the species. Zucc is a sack of crap. He wants humanity to Continue on a linear evolution of baser desires, served by technology that is advanced but just serves those base desires. Musk wants people to change while using iterative advancements of the same tools we have always used. Neither wants real change, like most any other powerful person else they just want to “change” the world to what their vision of the world “should be like” and like most “powerful” people they are scared of the unknown or that they can’t control.
1
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
It’s by their rules. And their rules are clear. You can’t do that. It undermines the very stability and equality of right to commerce that you are enjoying by participating in commerce. Any act performed in public or which effects the public is no longer strictly a “private” act. Your actions as a member of society effect others, and as a society we balance personal freedom of one against that of all others. A system designed to allow EVERYONE, not just you, or these people, or those people. When you put something for sale to the general public, you are participating in the commerce market that is a central part to our society and an extension of the government that services that society. That is why I mention government. Unless you are strong enough to declare sovereignty or dominion over yourself and your land from the government- you must play by their rules. Their rule is- no wrongful discrimination.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Your assertion that you would require things be given away free is agiant the entire point of the discussion thus far. It shows a disconnect with reality. If you don’t let anperson be an airline pilot because they never learned to fly a plane, or you don’t allow them to sleep with your spouse or take your kidney while you’re sleeping, you aren’t committing wrongful discrimination. You have very good reason for all those things. If you don’t let someone become an airline pilot because they are Latino- that’s wrongful discrimination. If you put up signs at your flight school saying “no <race> allowed...” that’s wrongful discrimination. If you sell a home but don’t sell it to so and so because of protected class- that’s discrimination. See- you are engaging in commerce. Commerce protected by your government. That’s why you pay taxes on things. You owe the government for letting you, for protecting your ability to- engage in commerce. I’m s market stability that exists because of them.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Once society enters the mix, we have now said that in the interest of stability, you can’t do that. You ant do whatever you want because you want to. It doesn’t matter if there is an organized government or just a social community, a militia or a despot. There is a body of power which sets the acceptable rules and has power to compel others to follow them to one degree or another. If you have one rule for all people, then by those rules all people are equal in the rules. That’s all there is to it. If the rules say “no running” and one person says it is ok for this guy to run and not that guy, because they don’t like one guy- you don’t have one rule for all people. If you let one guy run because he is an emergency responder on his way to a critical emergency- you’ve given valid justification, exception to the rule as prudent to society so that there is still one rule for all, with justifiable flexibility as needed.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
The system of land ownership exists because of a “body of power.” Otherwise you would have an equality where we didn’t need to worry about money. Don’t have $1miol for a house, but are a good shot? Shoot the guy from down the block and it’s yours until someone else takes it. That’s not very stable. So your right to own that property is protected. The body of power prevents people from just taking your shoes or your house as much as they have the power to compel. A critical part of that system in a democracy is that those rights are protected equally- by the government, because it is through them and their law that you have that ability. Without someone to enforce your rights, or in a system where you are given no rights by the body of power- there is no one to ensure that you are given anything. You are only able to get and keep what you as an individual can take and hold.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Use your imagination. Imagine a world with no government where you live. People do whatever they want. “True” individual freedom. Whoever is most able simply takes what they want. As human history shows, it doesn’t take long for that to mean murder, theft, slavery and subjugation. Inevitably humans realize strength in numbers and form alliances. These groups take from individuals and groups who lack the power to oppose them. They establish territories, settlements. If you read a history book it is all there as humans go through various stages of feudalism, serfdom, etc. the existence of government centralized power (which requires a measure of control) and then depending upon the system of government extends some of that power to individuals. Power to protect, to do commerce, to own land.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
You aren’t considering the whole conversation and are picking bits out of context. I never said you had to give anyone anything. One of the early things we established is that “freedom” in society is not absolute freedom. If you had to give away anything you earned for free to anyone who wanted it, that would seriously undermine a stable functioning society, and as I said in the last reply- personal property is a right, so I don’t know where you get your assumptions from. The PURSUIT of happiness also does not mean you have a guarantee of hapiness. You do not have a right to posses anything, you have a right equal to anyone else who meets the same criteria to potentially posses it. Next- let’s address this “government policy” part. The point was where does your freedom extend from? Government policy is literally what determines your personal freedom. Unless we exist in anarchy, every human is society is the ward of a larger power.
Old but gold 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
You’re drunk watermelon, go home.
5
Maybe he built a submarine?? 7 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Neither did the guy who wrote the story. It’s ok. It’s all just details.
1
American guns 9 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Those are rookie numbers.
1
Rather accurate 4 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
I’m not a 20 something year old girl and dating apps suck because meeting people sucks unless you’re the type of person who enjoys and is good/lucky at meeting people. Which if you are.... you probably wouldnt feel a need to be using a dating app or dating service to begin with and you’d just meet people in the world around you already. To me they were just tools to make an introduction to someone I wouldn’t have likely met otherwise (or not at my convenience and whim,) and It was just someone makes contact, make small talk, and someone sets up a date. The same way dating a stranger works without technology, except I didn’t have to wait around or get all fancied up and spend nights and weekends out trawling or dealing with singles scenes. It’s like the difference between shopping in store and shopping online, you can’t get as good a read, but it’s ok because it’s suoer convenient and there’s a very relaxed unlimited returns policy.
1
Elon christ 13 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
****untelated****
But since the bottle was uncorked- and colonize mars to escape ecological destruction or WW3?!! Ha! How’s that work? Mars is more inhospitable than projections of a future climate changes earth. If we have the technology to live on mars, or terraform mars, we would have the technology to live in a post climate change world! And WW3? Another problem caused by people. You don’t think that living on a resource scarce rock with limited habitable space would cause conflict just the same as on earth? What’s different? There’s still only one fragile planet, it’s the same shit. This is the galactic billionaire version of that one kid who is “totally moving to Portland/Austin/NYC, etc. because this place and these people all suck!” It’s the same shit. You avoid Earth WW3 and cause mars WW1. So while we SHOULD go to mars and take care of earth, the sentiments and motivations of fear and doom and gloom are bullshit. Do it because Humanity should be about always doing better.
2
Elon christ 13 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Mine, produce, and ship the increasingly numerous and complex amounts of bullshit being consumed by and ever growing number of people around the world as we tap the emerging markets for bullshit. People making shit people don’t need to keep people employed who market shit you don’t need so that people who manage people who do that can have jobs. We pay people to make shit no one really wants just so we don’t have to pay people to not do anything because we already have enough people with how efficient we are to supply everyone with what they need without having people do anything to get it. It’s all very silly, but to save the world don’t buy a Tesla, buy local, pressure changes to regulate air and interstate commerce, industrial operations, demand those we do business with elsewhere adhere to those standards as well, because 300 tons of Co2 in another corner of the world does as much global damage as 300 tons next door.
2
Elon christ 13 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
I agree that it’s best avoided, but all it really means is the world would change. To us it would be a catastrophe, but to any one born later it would just be with the world is. They won’t see many pacific islands on their maps. Florida might be an island, and places in coastal areas that used to be “inland” become beach front property. The people who have to live through the mass displacement of billions that rising tides and changing weather could bring- and the aftermath, would suffer greatly. Those born after would just know it as the way the world is, and those who came much before will be dead or dying. That’s also assuming the doomsday predictions of groups who’s last 20 years of doomsday predictions have been wrong, are right this time. So yes- we should do better and live cleaner, but no, one shouldn’t put much stock in these types of reports, and the primary causes of greenhouse gasses aren’t cars or agriculture or even power plants, but the industrial processes used to....
3
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
The exclusion of any person from an activity or opportunity based on constitutionally protected status, by extension, is flatly a violation of the principals of mass freedom set forth in the very document that defines what freedom in the United States is. Regardless of leagaleese I hope we can agree that it’s a shitty thing at least. However if a person meets all other criteria that would allow any other person to complete a contract, and you deny them the right to execute that contract based on any constitutionally or legally protected status, you have violated the right to freedom. So yes, they do have a right to live there. As much a right as any other person who otherwise meets the same criteria as they do other than protected status. If you do not offer these rights equally, they are not rights but privelages, and you can have “true” freedom and provelage together, but you cannot ENSURE freedom to ALL citizens, which is a major points of a democratic organized government.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
That all rights it offers are to be offered equally to all citizens. The opportunity to purchase that land is itself guaranteed by said governments administration and care of its territories. On the basic most levels of the fundamental principal of a fair and democratic nation, allcitezens are equal in rights and status unless special and appropriate conditions exist to the contrary. It is the determination of that government and its people, that race, sex, religion, etc. Re not appropriate grounds to curtail a persons basic rights to the foundations upon which life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness are built. Quite literally- in the line, the PURSUIT of happiness is guaranteed constitutionally to every United States citizen. Any action which does not have a specific legal permission and would hinder the PURSUIT of happiness is by nature unconstitutional. Any attempt to even deny the opportunity to try to own the land would be against the very fundamentals of our nation.
Words! 31 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
What gives a person the right to live somewhere? The government or body which holds sovereignty grants eights to live in its territories. Speaking of the USA: The government then gives a person constitutionally protected rights of private ownership, save exceptions where the government is allowed to retake ownership rights as it always holds true deed to all land in its territories. So... how did that property owner get that land? They were allowed the opportunity to get it. They only own that land by the rights afforded the original purchaser of the land. A key concept here- that the right to the land is held through a government, without which your claim to that land would only extend so far as your independent ability to defend it from those who would claim it. The very mechanism upon which the purchaser bought that land stems from the concept that it is a right to own property, and that land rights are rights granted by the government at its discretion. That same government holds..
Me, when I have a friend who’s a sociopath 5 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Lol. Thanks guys. I appreciate it.
2
Females 36 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Did it take metrics of certain individuals performing independent tasks and just choose the people with the highest numbers? You don’t need a machine to tell you that a man will likely score higher in most tests of physical strength than a similarly trained woman. There just isn’t really any meat here at all to speculate on or base conclusions off of or to support any arguments.
Females 36 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
In my defense I was drawn off on a tangent, so things sort of spun out from the original point, but yes. We have gone far off topic. My original point was that we don’t know the criteria or the specifics of the data fed to the machine. Asides the flaws in “AI” and the misnomer in the name, the system is only as good as the data it is fed, and can only come to a conclusion based on the parameters given to it and not intangibles that come into play in combat or any interpersonal team. The best AI known can’t predict the winner of a sports game, or even a sure winning “fantasy sports team- and fantasy sports is a game that largely exists within statistics. So we have no reason to ascribe any significance to the machines findings, nor do we know the specifics of how or why it was decided the findings were sexist- for instance, tainted data or assumptions by a programmer in constructing it making it inherently skewed.