A little while ago, people were complaining incognito mode didn’t do what they thought it did.
That chiropractic care is not evidence based
The stuff they do that works is stuff that a physiotherapist will do, just go see the expert.
My chiro has all his training in physiotherapy. So is he a quack or is he a pro? I’m so confused!
If he was a certified physiotherapist then he would work as a physio I can guarantee that.
I think you’ve just reconciled two things:
-
Internet always says chiropractors are quacks
-
Multiple reasonable people IRL have praised their own chiropractors
Someone can praise their chiropractor, in the end that’s anecdotal and then I could point to all the people that have become paralyzed due to chiros.
All of them are quacks because most of what they do to people is bullshit and potentially harmful, it just happens that they sometimes also do some things that are actually ok but it’s methods employed by an actual medical field.
-
Depends on what you mean by that. PTs can use chiropractic techniques to great effect.
But there is a MASSIVE difference between an actual PT that sometimes uses specific chiropractic techniques and the con artists who try to shake your down for weekly neck cracks.
I thought PT was chiropractic.
I’ve been cracking my own neck and back since I was 14/15, never had to pay for fake doctors
You cannot achieve any good by hurting people.
People are so convinced that if we’re more cruel to criminals, they’ll stop committing crimes, or if we’re harsher to workers, we’ll work harder, or if you’re tough on border controls, immigrants will go away. It does not work and it cannot work.
Idk, if someone’s trying to do a mass shooting, a little intervention could do some good.
Less good than helping the shooter before they went over the Rubicon…I think that’s the point.
That’s entirely fair.
Alright but there are people who currently exist who are already over the Rubicon. Ideal future utopias aside, force must be met with force.
This is a fair point, as far as it goes, and I’m happy to accept ‘mass shooters curently engaged in a mass shooting’ as an exception to the rule!
Sadly, it often works for personal profits.
What about eliminating nazis?
killing nazis makes the ones you weren’t able to kill more steadfast in their beliefs, (so it becomes harder to make them stop being nazis without killing them) and it makes it easier for them to convert others into becoming nazis (such as using it as ‘proof’ that they are oppressed)
Well, (my vegetarian friend’s least favourite dumb philosophical question:) Is Death Even Actually Painful?
Is Death Even Actually Painful?
Isn’t that more of a scientific question?
To quote a theorem from one of my engineering courses:
An optimized system can consist only of optimized subsystems.
This means any time you’re preparing to make something small worse, for the global good, it’s a mathematical fact you’re about to do the wrong thing.
The current system of getting a job is horrifyingly toxic, broken and inefficienct
The problem with some bad systems is that people recognize the system as bad, but can’t create a better system.
All rich people became rich because people like you and me are paying more for services and things than they’re truly worth, which means we pretty much never get our money’s worth even when we feel like we do.
There are no good rich people.
Or, the creation of economic value is actually possible and we aren’t just fighting over the same scraps of wealth that have always existed.
Poor people are just rich people without money
Tall people are short people that are tall
There are no good tall people
Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible, and anything that relies on perpetual growth to function is doomed to eventually fail.
For instance: social services that rely on perpetual population growth (especially youth population; e.g. Japan/South Korea), companies that rely on perpetual increase in users (most publicly-owned companies; e g. basically every social media company ATM), industries that rely on perpetual advancements in technology (e.g. industrialized agriculture, which constantly needs new ways to fight self-induced problems like soil depletion and erosion), housing as wealth generation (to be a wealth generator it has to outpace inflation, but at a certain point no one will be able to afford to purchase houses at their inflated prices no matter how over-leveraged they get; e.g. Canada). [Note that these are merely examples where these issues are currently coming to a head; they are by no means special cases, they’re just in a more advanced state of “finding out.”]
In other words, a lot of the modern world, in both public and private sectors, is built around a series of ponzi schemes.
But you’re assuming the type of growth will never change.
- population growth is not sustainable and we’re past that point, but knowledge growth is
- resources growth is not sustainable and we’re past that point for many resources, but economies can grow independently of resources
They literally said:
Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible
I don’t see how your comment applies to that.
Knowlegde growth may be sustainable, but it is also impossible to grow forever. (Supposing knowlegde is finite, which is, as far as I see it, the case as long as we make the definition of knowledge depend on characteristics like repition-free and new. For example, you could learn the number pi to even longer lenghts forever, but doing that is not necessarily something new to know as it’s just a manifestation of a repition which was already discovered.)
I’m intrigued how you would explain that economies could grow independently of resources. From my perspective, it looks a lot like each and every form of economy relies somehow on some form of resource or resources. As resources are finite, economies can’t grow forever.
There are already trends showing economic growth disconnected from both resources and energy. Welcome to the service economy
Service needs workforce performing the service. Workforce are usually human resources. Thereby, limited again. Or did I get it wrong?
We already have many cases where a very small number of humans can manage automated services for millions. It’s extremely scalable
While you could argue the electronics and power are also a resource dependency, it again scales extremely well
Hours spent working is not the same as productivity.
Twice as many people assigned to a project does not double productivity either.
I could go on…
Did you know that nine women can deliver one baby in just one month?
Yes, and if 30 people can sing a symphony in 2 hours, imagine what 120 people could do.
One woman can deliver a baby in an hour, if she’s a doctor or a midwife.
Why couldn’t 9 women deliver a baby in one month? That’s perfectly reasonable. Put the baby in a vehicle. Drive. Maybe stop at some hotels or just sleep in the vehicle with all 9 women. Then eventually you reach your destination in 1 month. Deliver baby. Profit.
Yup! Gotta count for the amount of work done too. Probably several other factors too, like skill experience, and quality of work.
Edit: if this doesn’t get properly formatted, sorry think something may be weird with Eternity
The left lane is for passing. If you’re not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It’s not that hard people
Left lane… on the highway maybe. In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
So is the right lane. If you’re driving the same speed as the car in front of you, you have no reason to use the left lane. Unless you’re making a left turn. Right?
Exactly my point, yes. Both/all lanes should be for navigational purposes in most cases in the city. 👍
If you’re driving the same speed as the car in front of you, you have no reason to use the left lane
What if the car in front of you is driving at the same speed but heading right at you? Or if there is an angry T-Rex in the right lane?
Idk man. That’s above my pay grade.
Ok, I’ll come clean, I’m actually an angry T-Rex that drives on the wrong side of the road. I’m just looking for validation
Do you drive a Model-T?
I dont agree, I use the left lane frequently to not have a car in front of me. Increases visibility and security a lot, and just gives a nice feeling of not being blocked.
I do drive a bit faster than cars in the right lane almost always though.
Sure, I do the same thing sometimes. But I also pay attention and move to the right when I see someone catching me from behind. And I especially don’t drive at the exact same speed, side-by-side with the car in the right lane. And yet I see other drivers do that constantly.
Some people seem to think of it like a moral crusade or a pissing contest and they feel emasculated if another vehicle passes them. The sociology of automobiles and traffic is endlessly fascinating to me, although I often forget my intellectual curiosity when I’m actually driving 😅
See this is a sensible response to people getting unreasonably PO’d about this. You drive in “the left” (whatever that means to your relative position) until someone faster comes along and they can’t move more left than you.
I get upset when some fuckwit is going 15+ over the flow of traffic and then that fuckwit gets pissed when he runs up on someone’s ass expecting them to be aware of every dangerous fuckwit out there.
It is better to have angry drivers behind you?
No I drive fast enough to never have cars behind me. :) So Im actually not part of the problem the thread was discussing, with drivers just driving the same speed in the left lane. That is really frustrating when people do that.
I would go as far as saying that this behavior of driving faster in the left lane helps to make traffic flow a lot better and avoid congestion. But it’s not legal.
Nah, if it’s in the city (or in a small town with 4 lane roads and low speed limits), you’ll see semis use the left lane for the same reason I do: the right lane stops a lot due to right turns.
That’s fine. That means you’re passing the cars in the right lane that are slowing to make a turn.
If I’m going straight, or right eventually, I wouldn’t use the left lane to pass people when driving in the city. That’s just lane surfing and not very safe driving.
I don’t think it’s lane surfing if you’re not changing lanes. Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don’t unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they’re going faster than you, etc.
The best advice I ever got about driving was “be predictable.” I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
I don’t think it’s lane surfing if you’re not changing lanes.
No, definitely not. It’s only lane surfing if you’re changing lanes to pass. Sorry, I thought that was the implication.
Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don’t unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they’re going faster than you, etc.
Yes, agree completely. ❤️
The best advice I ever got about driving was “be predictable.” I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
Exactly. That person understands traffic. So many times people will decelerate very rapidly to stop and give way for me (because it’s a place where they are supposed to). But because they are coming at such speed, it doesn’t look like they’ll stop in time and it makes me react by breaking suddenly.
People need to look far, and break early and slowly. Be predictable and have clear car body language.
👌👌 You and I are on the same page.
Depends on which country…
The passing lane* is for passing.
I actually like it better that way because it emphasizes how obvious it is. When I visited the UK and rented a car, I actually found that drivers were far more courteous and self-aware compared to the US.
And if you’re on a highway, and if that highway has left-lane exits or turns.
Capitalism is not working.
Oh, yes it is, and it’s working exactly as it’s meant to.
What do you mean by “working” in this context?
The end result of capitalism is slavery. The end result of anarchy is also slavery. The end result of socialism is… yup, also slavery. Basically humanity seems to enjoy slavery:-). :-(
Knowing this, it might have been good to have tried to work against that trend. However, we got too lazy, and/or greedy, and if you don’t fight against entropy then the natural state takes over.
Case in point: our level of technological progress is higher than it has ever been. We could feed the world. We won’t, but we could. And yet, food prices reflect… more similarity to slavery than to freedom of choice - what other food can I buy except the stuff that is twice as expensive as it was?
I can understand capitalism resulting in slavery, because it wants to minimize labor costs, so slavery is the logical conclusion (also, slavery is still used by capitalists). I don’t see anarchy resulting in slavery, because slavery is inherently hierarchical. I also don’t see socialism resulting in slavery because the workers own their means of production/businesses/workplaces.
Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That’s extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)
True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called “anarchy” but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).
Outside of theory, irl I don’t know that “capitalism” can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even “regulations” seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of “capitalism” and rather bc of “anarchy” i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.
And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I’ll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn’t lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc “unregulated” anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.
i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.
And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven’t yet fallen into the anarchy state… but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.
LLMs are not general AI. They are not intelligent. They aren’t sentient. They don’t even really understand what they’re spitting out. They can’t even reliably do the 1 thing computers are typically very good at (computational math) because they are just putting sequences of nonsense (to them) characters together in the most likely order based on their training model.
When LLMs feel sentient or intelligent, that’s your brain playing a trick on you. We’re hard-wired to look for patterns and group things together based on those patterns. LLMs are human-speech prediction engines, so it’s tempting and natural to group them with the thing they’re emulating.
Yup, 100%. These “AIs” have issues filtering out misinformation, finding trusted sources, and are vulnerable to other forms of manipulation. Jokes and memes probably have an impact too, and because it’s not human, it’s not gonna think the same we do, realizing it’s a joke or just stupid people saying “3 + 4 × 8 = 56” B.S.
And please for the love of god, don’t start the stupid math debates again, thank you.
When LLMs feel sentient or intelligent, that’s your brain playing a trick on you.
Sentient = prob a trick
Intelligent? Maybe a broken clock is right twice a day?
You write a sentence that don’t sound too good. You pretty much know how an author you respect would write it, but can’t remember the syntax & word choice exactly. You ask a model for a dozen revisions of the sentence in disparate styles. One of them clicks: “ooh! That’s what I mean!”
Am I being pedantic to say the LLM can feel intelligent when it nails the exact word choice you were looking for, better than half your social circle could’ve written it? Half your friends aren’t dumb, but the LLM can sometimes sound better than them, so you think: “yeah sounds intelligent!”
Of course…
Later it totally misunderstands some context, needs unbelievable hand-holding and still doesn’t get it, confabulates moronically… and it’s back to stupid! Mmmm glue pizza
You can recharge your new iPhone in the microwave.
and hit Alt+F4 to toggle God Mode
Need more RAM? Just download it!
found myself some bootleg RAM on usenet, screw the system
How corporations use advertisements to influence how the media reports on their activities. Prime example is how BP ran all those “We’re Sorry” ads when they poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. They weren’t apologizing to the public. They were using the ads to pass bribes to the news agencies to make sure to give them soft coverage when they should have been ranking them over the coals.
Fuck me, I had not thought of that. Wow.
Fuck, ofc it was all a bribe.
How is an ad saying “we’re sorry” a bribe to the news agencies? Do you means the purchase of the ad space is for that?
Yes. That’s how you bribe news agencies with plausible deniability. It’s so well understood within the industry, that you wont find explicit instructions on any of the contracts.
That’s of course when the corporations don’t just outright own the media.
Incredible theory. Did you come up with it on your own? Search engines are blank on this. Want to read more!
Thanks
You’re being facetious, but anyone else that really wants more, search “Manufacturing Consent”.
The advertisement angle is just one way to influence how media reports. You could also just start buying stations whole sale, like Sinclair did.
Sorry for my difficult to discern tone. Oops! Receipt talk-
My tabs from last night:
My comment two weeks ago:
The BP bribe theory is terribly cunning and nobody else talking about it came up in the first few DuckDuckGo/Google results. Never heard anybody mention it in 2010 either.
Edit: I guess the point would be discussions on the topic may not mention each individual case of bribery because the practice is pervasive.
“Homeopathic” does not mean organic, or good for you, natural, wholesome, effective, or inherently safe to consume.
It is, in fact, a code word for no active ingredient.
Omg I remember having this argument with my friends. “Well there are some home remedies that work, modern medicine doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge” OK but homeopathic medicine just means its water, plain water that remembers being able to cure a disease, its fake “Yeah but they’re not all like that some of them work, my grandma would use a half of an onion to take the pain out of bee stings” jfc I’m literally not talking about that, I’m talking about water sold as medicine that is covered by most major insurance! look it up!
Water? Over here it’s just a plethora of sugar pearls.
Solvent* then. Get them all under one umbrella
Actually homeopathic refers to medicine which fights disease by inducing similar symptoms or etiology as the disease.
And example is capsaicin for pain management.
The word got attached to ultra dilute solutions later in the game, mostly because ultra dilute solutions are easy to debunk, which facilitates making fun of homeopathy.
Screw the meaning, first time hearing this word! But thank you, good to know!
Dandelion leaves are like crack to ducks and geese and you can use them to influence said fowl for your own nefarious purposes
And here I thought the neighbor’s ducks just liked to visit us. 🤷🏻
This seems to me like a random fun fact, but hey, thanks for sharing!
When changing lanes or turning you are supposed to use the turning signal before doing the manouver. The turning signal is supposed to warn other drivers that you are going to do something. It doesn’t make any sense to use the turning signal when already mid-turning or while already changing lanes. Many drivers don’t seem to know that.
You have been permanently banned from c/BMW.
My current car was even built around that stupid idea that turn signals are for while you change lanes.
It has a feature called “blind spot safety”. Basically if I’m on the interstate and I put on my blinker to let people know I want to change lanes, if there’s a car in the left lane it turns down the music and beeps a loud warning at me.
In other words, it treats me turning on the turn signal, when the lane on that side isn’t clear, as a danger scenario deserving of a warning. It’s the same kind of warning as the collision warning.
So basically, it’s built on the assumption that me turning on my turn signal means I’m already turning the wheel to go there.
