I don’t think immigration is bad, but if the “problem” of fertility below replacement is caused by the other problem of people who might otherwise want kids not being able to have them because of economic constraints, focusing on solving the first problem by importing competitive and ambitious skilled professionals seems at least kind of questionable.
Fun fact, on release, the UI for Morrowind did not even have health bars for enemies, this was patched in later.
Is it really about explaining why they’re not more successful? Personally being “burnt out” was more of a realization that I don’t even want that kind of success, I just want to get as far away from the way my life was in highschool as possible.
Based on my experience with spaces for discussing and arguing about AI, there is a huge amount of middle ground in peoples opinions between unconditional rejection of the technology and complete denial of every problem or threat that could be associated with it. There’s also many different perspectives about what solutions to those problems are a good idea or not.
There is not anything like ideological unity. Someone who is supportive of AI for anti copyright reasons is usually going to have a lot of differences of opinion with someone who thinks AI powered surveillance will solve society’s problems by eliminating crime. Someone who wants strong government crackdowns on AI because they think Eliezer is right that a superintelligence will form and kill us all will disagree in many ways with someone who thinks the technology is largely a scam. This is a new thing that’s causing rapid changes, so people are going to have different ideas about it.
I don’t think the additional levels quite fit. From the original blog post:
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
The bottom two aren’t really themselves arguments. They aren’t things you read and then make a decision whether to take seriously, but rather means of controlling what you read to begin with. So while there is reason to criticize these practices, their inclusion muddles the scope of the message. The scope of the message is important, because the ideal of free expression has become more controversial since it was written in 2008, and it’s not itself a defense of free expression, more of a proposed heuristic for getting more out of a debate with the assumption that you are approaching that debate with the intention of improving your rational understanding of something or leading others to a rational understanding.
IMO arguments about censorship and violence need to be made separately, because the value of that approach (as opposed to words being valued mainly as persuasive weapons) is in question and has to be addressed.
Until you physically can’t communicate anymore, it’s always an option to keep trying.
You can sort of emulate a vibrator with the bridge of your nose and humming really loud, just saying
This is a good point, there are definitely plenty of times I’ve gotten a response and ended up embarrassed and rethinking a bit how I approach things, and I’m certainly not advocating to avoid that. And maybe “disable inbox replies” is more something with niche uses and not a general solution here. I guess the main reason I mention it is, most of the time I have felt a similar kind of anxiety about responses has been over some specific comment I believed really should be said but knew was likely to get a hostile reaction, and being able to rule out worries over those specific comments helped a lot on Reddit.
The larger point I want to make though is that the anxiety you are describing in the OP post should be overcome, and shouldn’t be a struggle people face alone without help. I want to hear from more perspectives, and it’s not great to think it’s likely many are deterred entirely by this sort of fear of social disapproval. IMO learning from mistakes is harder if it’s considered as and feels like a punishment or enforcement of some external will.
If “come alone” is one of the options, does that imply that in order to uninvite someone you have to yourself avoid attending?
Of course if someone never wants to read comments they can just do that, but I think that’s a bit of a different thing because it seems that would indicate disinterest in back and forth engagement here overall instead of just a specific kind.
I wonder though why you feel that you should “face consequences” for expressing an opinion you expect will be unpopular, while at the same time expressing anxiety about the possibility of it happening (when you have conviction you’re right even), because that’s honestly confusing to me. Why would it necessarily mean you ‘screwed up’ just because what you have to say triggered hostility? Wouldn’t it be better just to be able to worry about it less, and express yourself more freely without chilling effects? People might say this could be abused, but I guess the way I see it is that letting others have the last word is what it amounts to externally, and what you choose to read or feel yourself is private and something you have broad license to make your own choices about.
For me the most common situation on Reddit where I use this feature is if I have something to say in disagreement with someone who is already talking aggressively about something. Where I have good reason to think they’re likely to leave a nasty response, and that there likely won’t be anything productive left to say, I’ll probably have to hold myself back from responding further anyway, so there’s no point feeling anxious in the meantime worrying about getting the inbox notification.
I also disable vote scores, though fortunately that’s something Lemmy does have now afaik.
I don’t see how it’s fine because it’s basically just a loophole that makes the law useless isn’t it? If they have ultimate authority over what is and isn’t allowed on your phone, and the owner of the phone has no say in that, what do the details of how it happens matter?
Lemmy needs the “disable inbox replies” feature for comments imo. Although lately I see mostly polite disagreement.
They have pepper spray, ramming capabilities, and speakers. Supposedly the idea is to distract the shooter to buy time and give away their position.
This, plus I find it way easier to not care now that I don’t watch television anymore and have a good adblocker and so never see advertisements for movies.
So it seems like it’s something about politics but I’m not clear what you mean, like what’s an “arithmetic bubble”? What’s “it”?
You need social proximity for democracy to work, because that’s how you have conversations about issues. We would need a shared global culture and factors that mean people at every level of society have friends distributed around the world. The specific rules and bureaucratic procedure are less important, the main thing is people in different places need to become more connected to each other.
I have read that this is actually a bad idea because the post office people know which addresses are vacant and know that it’s likely an illegal package because lots of people have that idea.
clever to put it somewhere it can’t be cropped out
What a helpful cow
The reason I’m thinking of it is I recently read this lemmy thread. The article itself is probably AI and not that convincing but I think people are making some good points about the pressures imposed by expense of housing and how those affect the desirability and difficulty of having children.
Of course a prerequisite for that to matter is that not having children is more of a real choice than it is for people with no resources in a state of poverty. But it isn’t necessarily the case that the difficulty of raising children decreases with country-wide affluence, because wealth inequality is a thing, required resources (like housing space) might become more expensive relative to income despite overall increase in income, and other factors like an increasingly atomized career focused society where community can’t be relied on as much to help raise children and the expectations placed on parents are higher, maybe requiring high daycare expenses.
I agree in principle with the logic here, but if those capable workers are being placed in competition with a population that is financially struggling, and those taxes are not being used to give those people more breathing room, that productivity isn’t helping and is being employed on the wrong side of a class struggle.