FriendOfDeSoto

I think if he were honest with himself he would see that what he got wasn’t what he had envisioned in any of the countries that claimed to be communist/socialist. But they were his team so he would publicly support them. You can sell his stance as an evolvement of the theory rather than admitting mistakes. Not too dissimilar from the way the PRC sells its version of communism to its people: communism “with Chinese characteristics.”

Chances are though that he would have perished in one of the purges happening in whichever communist country he would have chosen to reside in. He would have enough clout to niggle at leadership openly about stuff going wrong and eventually be would deliver the straw that broke his camel’s back. He would be mind-holed and his legacy rectified so he wouldn’t be the lighthouse of the movement that he could only become because he died early. And he didn’t starve millions. And communism would become the thing created by the people through an arduous march and not a system dreamed up by some German philosophers.

Limited and generalizing.

In your example, I think this is a defense mechanism more than anything. People deal with grief of separation in different ways. This looks dumb on the surface but it’s like burning your hand on the stove. You only need to do it once to be fearful of and therefore extra careful with all stoves. Person who likes blue and broke their heart = stove.

I don’t think this is genetic though. Critical thinking is something you should learn how to do. It’s a failure due to chronic underfunding in education.

I do agree with you that the people who can do it, often despair and withdraw from public discourse out of frustration. But they could be making babies like rabbits at the same time.

My preference is simple:

Minimalist Lemmy - ordered by new, chronological (used to be the same on reddit before I stopped) Mastodon - chronological

If I look at how the algorithms on YouTube or Instagram (don’t know which category they fall in) treat me, they always surface 80% irrelevant stuff and 20% that is okay but only in the rarest cases mindblowingly good. And that’s why on YouTube I tend to ignore the Home tab.

Especially in the short video algorithms, I fucking hate that if you didn’t respond within a microsecond you’ll now get fed sloth videos or car crashes until you die. I’m all algorithm’ed out.

It remains to be seen if reading about all the emotions and morals is the same as feeling them, acting according to them, or just being able to identify them in us meatbags. So even with the sum total of human knowledge at their disposal, this may not matter. We already don’t know how these models actually organize their “knowledge.” We can feed them and we can correct bad outcomes. Beyond that it is a black box, at least right now. So if the spark from statistical spellchecker (current so-called AI) to actual AI (or AGI) happens, we’ll probably not even notice until it writes us a literary classic of Shakespearean proportions or until it turns us into fuel for its paperclip factory. That’s my assessment anyway.

Groundhog Day

It’s a funny coincidence of history that gated communities for the well off folks in capitalism and mass housing for the not well off in communism follow the same design principle: few access points that can be controlled by a single tank each.

Is it possible? Yes. You can see examples in mainland China where foreign channels, including the more liberal channels from Hong Kong, routinely get blacked out when China news come on (unless they are gloriously positive).

Is it likely where you are? No. Especially it happening on broadcast channels you would hear a lot more about it. The socials would be full of it. There would have to be an office full of people censoring broadcast channels as they go out. We know the Chinese are operating such a facility because we heard about it. And we haven’t heard anything like that for the US. Ockham’s razor points at a buffering issue somewhere along the distribution chain from the news studio to your local antenna. A streaming video, like on YouTube, is just freeze framed when it’s buffering also. And I don’t think you as an individual consumer are important enough for somebody just doing it for your receiver.

Captcha, but for bots, I imagine. Fits in with the general conspiratorial theme.

That’s conventional wisdom for lithium ion batteries. Keeping it between 20 and 80 percent will extend its life. But that doesn’t mean charging or discharging it fully will be bad immediately; the effects are small but cumulative. And while battery tech improves, this guideline will probably be less important.

There are certain crimes you will never be able to fully eradicate. You can only try to get them down to the bare flawed human minimum. For pretty much as long as there are laws and courts, killing in cold blood has been illegal. But to this day humans kill humans in cold blood. All we can do is make good laws, prosecute perpetrators, and increase awareness. If the latter is what you mean by grassroot change, then sure. If we stay within the hypothetical, I don’t think a mass accident (like an accidental gas leak) or mass murder (a gas leak made to look like an accident) of the whole bunch on Epstein island would bring about a cultural change. My personal fear is that this whole exposé of this particular case only served to make the rich fuckers even more careful when they do it, not do it less.

At the root of the Epstein case is money. Billionaires should not exist. The quality of legal representation should not depend on one’s bank account. If you want a grassroot cause, tackle that one.

I would prefer buyer or customer. Not Consumer.

If I could just quickly split this hair: there is a semantic difference. The buyer or customer paid money. The consumer needn’t have. If I buy my kid a Switch 2 I’m the buyer and my kid is the consumer.

I don’t disagree with your take that it gets overused though.

Bert and Ernie

I’m afraid that pedophilia is prevalent everywhere. We only hear about the rich people more because journalists take an interest and rich people think - not unjustifiably - that money is a good protective shield and therefore take more risks.

In this hypothetical scenario, if all these people were pedophiles or turned a blind eye to it, were assembled at the same time, and all punched their ticket to a delightfully shitty afterlife, I don’t think the problem would be gone. There will be willing successors standing by to fill all of these positions. And it would be a stroke of luck if the waiting successors were suddenly more moral beings.

I agree. And I think your idea of personal exchanges is something we should try. All I’m saying is that it’s too early for anyone to have a well thought through, working solution.

At different points in the past, we thought novels, newspapers, radio, television, and the internet would be the end of truth. Truth is still around. We develop systems to sieve through the bullshit. In terms of slop, I don’t think anyone can say for sure how we will deal with it. But if past experience is anything to go by, it will rely on reputation. You trust a certain news source because they have been reliable, so they have a reputation they don’t want to lose. And that keeps them honest or you move on. We will find a way to deal with slop as well that will be based on reputation. In addition to laws and regulations that are yet to be written.

Whether it’s news rooms or TikTubers or something completely new that will gain this reputation, eff knows. But we will get there.

Not to worry! And thank you for this civilized exchange that managed to stay clear of Godwin’s Law:)

Does a nation cease to exist after it is conquered? All the efforts to that effect by the English notwithstanding, it’s still there.

[Angry Welsh noise, probably involving a lot of consonants and a few double L’s]