Scott Adams Thread (Garfield Cartoonist)

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Else you could have read The Power of Positive Thinking, and rebooted yourself.



So... well past the AI Singularity then.

AI singularity seems like an easier nut to crack since the substrate it runs on has been figured out more thoroughly than the substrate we run on.

We know practically nothing about human biology. The depth of knowledge can typically answer only 2 layers deep of questioning until the answer is "we don't know why". It's surprising how often drugs are indicated to treat a condition with no explanation whatsoever why it seems to help.

[freebeard]

I thought we we talking about using Neuralink to control your vices.

[freebeard]

The Great Wave Crashes
Whatifalthist --30,564 views -- 4 hours ago

Just starting it right now.

[redpoint5]

Same basic theme, that most of the elements of collapse are in play that point to a probable decline, or worse.

I'm more optimistic, because technology can break through to boost economic conditions (which inevitably increases disparity, which is one of the elements of collapse), or people can simply stop spending money they don't have.

... on a tangent, I'm listening to this boring sounding guy talk about population collapse. The startling fact standing out to me is his claim that no country that had experienced even a slight decline in population due to diminished birthrates has ever recovered.

The other conspicuous yet not often considered fact is the #1 best predictor of population growth rate; how many children women say they want to have. For a population to stabilize, it "simply" requires women to say they want the number of children that creates that population growth rate.

Finally, even Africa, the only place in the world with a growing population, is experiencing a declining population growth rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahjdeDhP09o

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'm a half hour into today's Episode 2644. He's debating destroying the existence of an apostrophe.

Very boring. How offended should someone be if I said "your girlfriend's ugly" vs "your girlfriends ugly"?

In other stupid news, some unknown person made the comment "I hope your beeper doesn't go off". He needs to apologize, because what he meant to say is "I hope your beeper goes off".

[freebeard]

Offense is on who[m?] ever takes it. The first choice is fragmentary, the second ambiguous (is/are). maybe deserves it's own apostrophe, I dunno.

https://www.merriam-webster.com › grammar › when-to-use-its-vs-its
It's vs. Its: Correct Usage - Merriam-Webster
What to Know. It's is a contraction and should be used where a sentence would normally read "it is" or "it has." The apostrophe indicates that part of a word has been removed. Its with no apostrophe, on the other hand, is the possessive word, like "his" and "her," for nouns without gender.

Apologizing for offense taken is a slippery slope.

All I remember from today's episode is Trick-or-treaters chanting "Respect -- respect -- water".

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Offense is on who[m?] ever takes it. The first choice is fragmentary, the second ambiguous (is/are). maybe deserves it's own apostrophe, I dunno.


Apologizing for offense taken is a slippery slope.

All I remember from today's episode is Trick-or-treaters chanting "Respect -- respect -- water".

Insincere apology is certainly a slippery slope. Sincere apology is almost never harmful.

Our culture does a poor job of training our youth to become resilient against becoming offended. Since all relationships are a 2-way street, we have a duty to a. not intentionally offend people, and b. to take as little offense as possible from others.

I'd not be very likely to apologize for a joke though. The right response to an unfunny joke is to not laugh, and that sends the message.

The disorderly discussion that resulted in a beeper joke reminds me of the thing I'm currently (painfully) listening to. It devolves into ad hominems because the participants view the enemy as the person, and not the ideas themself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH0M83drPAw

[freebeard]

Sincere apology is almost never harmful.... Since all relationships are a 2-way street

But if it is percieved as a sign of weakness?

The disorderly discussion that resulted in a beeper joke reminds me of the thing I'm currently (painfully) listening to.

I avoided that one based on the thumbnail. Try A Message to Pennsylvanians -- Whatifalthist

It devolves into ad hominems because the participants view the enemy as the person, and not the ideas themsel[ves].

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

But if it is percieved as a sign of weakness?

i before e, except after c, except for exceptions.

I don't recall who I was listening too recently, who said his brother is often apologizing for some slight that was never registered as a slight, and how the apology never accrued to the negative column because it was sincere, and meant to amend the relationship.

My wife humbles me in this regard, because she'll go on a tear, and later apologize. I don't require apology for expressing feelings confrontationally... but she humbles me by showing the pattern of reconciling the relationship, since apology is vary rare in my nature.

I'm agreeing with your point while drawing a distinction. Cherished relationships are maintained by apology and reconciliation, but enemies are bolstered by apology. There are no rules in war. Never apologize to an enemy.

I avoided that one based on the thumbnail.

I haven't got through it yet. The negativity is rough, but I've heard of this individual enough that I should familiarize myself with those points of view.

So far, I'm hearing that folks exploiting loopholes in a system is good.

After hearing myself type that, it seems a fundamental philosophical dichotomy might be between the value of including more individuals into a highly functional system, and maintaining a highly functional system by excluding individuals that might\would make it less functional. I need to think and discuss this idea more... but a well functioning system should include people to maximize their potential, but in a democracy, a majority of idiots can muck it all up...

*My bookmark note sums this up as "inclusion vs integrity", so that might be the most basic distillation of the idea.

**uncanny association- there's a participant that sounds like Spencer Klavan (no relation to his dad, Andrew Klavan), and speaks as intelligently; perfectly indistinguishable.

***Try as I may, I don't understand why anyone would advocate as a wiener.

****The Dude just apologized for using the R-word at 1:25. I would never apologize for that. a. nobody has ever intended that word to demean low functioning individuals, and b. it's not an accurate word to describe low functioning individuals because they aren't simply delayed in learning. Mastering trigonometry isn't just a lack of time issue for those folks. So, the R-word stands as the best way to convey the notion that something isn't well thought out, in the fewest words possible, and anyone that disagrees is that word.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people"

I've only ever heard this from you, and I'll have to think about it more. I'm inclined to agree since that flatters my personality, but nature selects what works, and nature has selected half of people to be women. On that fact alone, it suggests that discussing people has importance.

[freebeard]

I've only ever heard this from you, and I'll have to think about it more.

Heard it more than twice? I'd thought it a famous quote. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=minds+ideas+events+people It's been variously attributed: Eleanor Roosevelt, Walter Winchell, Socrates....

I'm agreeing with your point while drawing a distinction. Cherished relationships are maintained by apology and reconciliation, but enemies are bolstered by apology.

That would be my point. Don't apologize to the Blue Meanies.

So far, I'm hearing that folks exploiting loopholes in a system is good.

That's the hacker mentaiity. Bend the system to your will. It will increase the robustness.

The problem is with people who outright reject the system. This is the difference between a low trust and high trust society. Burn it to the ground vs the Golden Age.