bnlxbnlx

unfortunately, not that straightforward in valve's case.

they created a nasty gambling system with their loot boxes that exists outside controlled casino environments and which impacts young adults a lot.

> there's a fair point to be made that Polymarket and similar sites are not fundamentally different from e.g. sports betting.

not fundamentally different as in "live or die" you mean? the whole point of sports is that you compete whilst appreciating each others' humanity.

> I keep thinking about the version of me from a few years ago. He was worse at almost everything. Worse writer, worse thinker, worse at making things. Nobody really knew him and nobody really cared what he had to say. And yet he had so much more courage.

I would not agree that that earlier version had necessarily more courage. If no one cared than the associated risk is also lower, and thus less courage needed.

I overall agree with how important the courage to do stuff that might make you look stupid is, though.

a surprising amount of people disagree with that!

> Yudkowsky and Soares maintain that if anyone builds AGI, everyone dies. One could equally maintain that if nobody builds it, everyone dies. In fact, most people are already dead. The rest of us are on course to follow within a few short decades. For many individuals—such as the elderly and the gravely ill—the end is much closer. Part of the promise of superintelligence is that it might fundamentally change this condition.

wtf? death is part of life. is he seriously arguing that if we don't build AGI people will "keep dying"? and suggesting that is equally bad as extinction (or something worse, matrix-like)?

i don't think life would be as colorful and joyful without death. death is what makes life as precious as it is.

i believe the self-balancing properties are a core aspect of any (boat) lift, whether rotating or not.

i love zulip for so many things, and in particular the topic-first paradigm.

and as long as it doesn't offer voice messages i keep going back to signal (or similar). for small groups i often find voice messages to be easiest (totally not for big groups, i agree!).

i'm supporting a small org with their decision making and feedback systems.

reading this post, i see that the founder (already in his 60s) is in many ways that "Wolf" as described here, and he's not great at managing the team around him.

any suggestions what structure/ team set up is working well in such a scenario?

intrigued by this. i've spent a lot of timer over the last years with very committed nonviolence folks, and i keep wondering about the conditions for this to work.

can you recommend any sources that discuss this idea?

I've spent a lot of time with people who seem themselves operating within ML Kings lineage and have their lives committed to this kind of nonviolence work, and they defintely operate from within the an "agape mindset", even though they wouldn't frame it like that.

in my understanding some people use 'non-violence' to describe the more utilitarian version, and 'noniovlence' for that which exits the entire 'domination paradigm'

> I have read very many people claim this and exactly zero reasons provided by them why I should believe it is true.

could you share some sources where people have discussed this? i'd like to understand their reasoning better

I think the specific condition here is "change that someone else is willing to prevent using violence". I guess that is not present too often during everyday life.