a bunch of thoughts, and more than i will list here:
"I know I am good because I know my inner thoughts. Even toward people who didn’t deserve kindness" ... why doesnt that make you irrational? some people are not good enough to deserve your kindness, but you yourself are sooo good that...
"logically: If being a good person, truly, fundamentally good, isn’t enough to earn divine grace" ... you are this good? think of it this way: eternal divine perfection self-giving, etc, and in your short life, you have earned all that, you are good enough to claim it all as rightfully yours; who is anyone else to pay their life in your place and sacrifice their everything, when you are already... better than them
i read an independent study that found other ai were all left of center (how ever one measures that, sentiment analysis normalized to a given population??). they said grok was evenly left/right split
but what's to validate any given population as centrist anyway
they suggested the ai opinion drift was caused by internet demographics not directly reflecting actual population i.e. California publishes more etc
Man, I got ready to debunk this but just questioned my life choices instead.
Why the fuck am I glued to my smartphone arguing with people posting shit like this instead of spending time with my daughters, creating new things or looking after my own body and soul.
Michael, please copy your comment verbatim into any LLM with search capabilities and ask for primary sources that confirm or deny your statements, and break down the beliefs by party.
Then, use your real flesh and meat brain to ponder where your (not other peoples' - your own) beliefs about this came from, and what their motivations for blasting them at you could be.
Goodbye HN, I think I'm done with this site for good.
Instead of feeding the whole thing to chatgpt let's pick one item.
We tend to accept young earth creationism because perceptively it has little to do with everyday life doesn't hurt anyone and people are quite open about it. It also means that your brain is literally broken, you have no critical thinking skills and you are just the right sort to be manipulated by evil and end up building or guarding the concentration camps.
According to Gallup 95% of Republicans believe this at a strong majority 58% believe that the earth was quite literally created as is less than 10k years.
While this is magnificently stupid in and of itself it's not the problem it's merely a symptom of their disease.
They largely believe that dead kids aren't a reason to reign in guns, they believe climate change is a hoax, a cycle, or inevitable and won't do anything about it or let anyone else. They believe that us aid to poor nations was 10-15% of our budget and we just can't afford to not let kids starve when it was one-half of 1%. They believe that it may be necessary to use violence against the rest of us to maintain the status quo. They believe that we need an stong authorian to lead us democracy be damned, they believed that COVID was a scam until the corpses piled up or even after!
Here's a hilarious one. It's a graph of the percentage of the population which understood that COVID was worse than seasonal flu a march through April 2020. For Dems it goes from 74 to 87%. For Republicans it goes from 42 to 40 it actually drops whilst body count goes up.
They are magnificently staggering wrong on average about everything. We could go point by point and I could find polls for every single one because I'm basing my understanding of their position by reading their own words and polls by reputable sources like pew and Gallup.
The right Wing collectively has departed so entirely from reality that educated con artists must carefully contort their words to avoid their insanities and prejudice whilst fools spout forth with abandon uncaring.
ive owned two cars. the modern backup camera means the new one has small "stylish...." rear windows. it is wayyyy more dangerous than the older one with no sensors
i only have those two data points; but give me an older car with larger windows every. single. time.
by no means an overview of the situations, but good to give quick excerpts from one of the issues in the report:
This was not the first or last time the BBC has reported stories about starvation in Gaza without telling audiences that the person highlighted has pre-existing medical conditions that might explain their emaciated appearance
... The same programme also featured images of baby Siwar Ashour who suffered from allergies and required specialist formula. She also had a congenital oesophageal condition, which had been reported in The Guardian.
By the time of broadcast, the BBC already knew the story was out of date and that baby Siwar had received the necessary formula a week earlier, she was maintaining weight and had been discharged from hospital. None of that was revealed in the programme - meaning the BBC had broadcast another inaccurate story.
--
Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue told BBC’s HardTalk programme the media had widely misinterpreted its findings. She said it was not correct to say the ICJ had ruled there was a “plausible case of genocide” in Gaza.
But a report to the EGSC flagged “numerous instances” of the phrase being used on BBC reports, analysis and live two-ways on both television and radio. It was also cited by International Editor Jeremy Bowen and on Newsnight.
The report said there were too many instances of the BBC misrepresenting the ICJ’s ruling to be listed in full.
--
The strong implication in the coverage was that Israeli forces had buried hundreds of bodies at both sites prior to withdrawing from the area. The source for both stories was the Hamas controlled Gaza Civil Defence Agency. This was not reflected in the coverage.
The internal report to the EGSC flagged: “There was no independent corroboration of allegations of war crimes, including alleged evidence of summary executions, torture and bodies found with their hands tied together”.
One online story incorrectly implied a UN official had corroborated the reports of hands being tied.
It seems that the most likely explanation was the graves at both hospitals were dug by Palestinians and the people buried there had died or been killed prior to the arrival of Israel ground forces.
The EGSC was reminded that the BBC had itself reported extensively on Palestinians digging these graves at the time. These reports had topped its bulletins.
How could this then be forgotten in the subsequent BBC coverage that suggested something more sinister had occurred? The EGSC was offered no explanation.
The question becomes even more pressing when you learn the journalists responsible for the first set of stories were the same journalists who wrote the second set of stories suggesting the graves were evidence of Israeli war crimes
'The internal report to the EGSC flagged: “There was no independent corroboration of allegations of war crimes, including alleged evidence of summary executions, torture and bodies found with their hands tied together”.'
Meanwhile, Israeli military itself is saying it's committing war crimes:
ive lived a large part of my life in the Middle East, so my opinion of bias is formed from seeing news outlets write about situations ive lived in
> So ask yourself, which direction is the BBC bias truly happening?
i have. im not asking who is committing war crimes. im saying bias needs to be fixed -- the issues presented in the report are massive irrespective of who committed war crimes!!
and if we desire to truly and correctly ascribe war crimes, then we must start with removing bias. else we lay error ontop of error
CBT (cognitive behavioural training) has been shown to be effective independent of which therapist does it. if CBT has a downside it is that it's a bit boring, and probably not as effective as a good therapist
--
so personally i would say the advice of passing on people to therapists is largely unsupported: if you're that person's friend and you care about them; then be open, and show that care. that care can also mean taking them to a therapist, that is okay
Yeah. Also at the time I tried it what I really needed was common sense advice like move out of mum's, get a part time job to meet people and so on. While you could argue it's not strictly speaking therapy, I imagine a lot of people going to therapists could benefit from that kind of thing.
once you specify "the job", the best tool is "the solution" to that job only. anything else is excess complexity
however if "the job" is unspecified, power is inverse to the length of "the solution"
so is constraint of power bad?
--
a fascinating question
just like music can be created by both additive and subtractive synthesis; every line of code creates both a feature and a constraint on the final program
in which case power can be thought of as the ability to constrain...
it implies expressivity is the ability to constrain
it implies drawing on a page, or more broadly, every choice we make, is in equal parts a creative and destructive act
so maybe life, or human flourishing is choosing the restrictions that increase freedom of choice? it's so meta it's almost oxymoronic; concretely: we imprison people to maximize freedom; or, we punish children with the aim of setting them free from punishment
this is the same as the walk from law into grace found in Christian ethics
maybe the ultimate programming language then, provides the maximal step down that path, and this is also the most useful definition of "power"
i.e. place on people those restrictions that increase their ability to choose
> With confidence fractured along partisan and generational lines...
the root cause, i think, is a devaluation of truth; for "truth" in the name of partisan lines
this is so so common: "we know this is not true, but we advance it to improve our position or virtue signal etc"
this was, i think, foundational to the collapse of society at the beginning of the 1900s -- we "believe this" because we get other peoples property or otherwise advance our cause
being truthful costs us, and people are no-longer so willing to pay
the root cause of that, i would say is they have walked away from Jesus who pays his life for our benefit; only people who live like that can be trusted to tell the truth
reply