circlefavshape

What? 100% disagree! Do you actually mean this? What do you think is important?

"explore the world without desire"

I don't know how I feel about this. I know when I can manage to accept things I feel better overall, but there is real joy in getting what you wanted - in doing something you enjoy, and realising that you're enjoying it while you're doing it, and rejoicing in that

Detachment is all very well, but attachment brings higher highs as well as lower lows

Impressed by what utter shit this is. Music video creators are safe for a while yet

> having humans watch every citizen on camera instead of just using computers which even Asimov in the 1980s could see was laughably inefficient

1984 was published in 1949. It's a bit harsh to expect him to have anticipated computers

Have you been neglecting to pay your child support?

This sounds awesome ... is there a way to enter text rather than talking? I'm guessing yes, but I can't see where

It's necessary for devs right now, no matter how good they are, and it's those devs' code the models are trained on

Ah weird - the text of the page says Atahualpa had 80k troops, but then the infobox describes the Inca forces as 3-8k in size. I guess not all the 80k were involved in the battle

You're missing a zero. It was EIGHTY thousand, not 8000.

Cats are native to the UK, and less damaging to biodiversity than they are in the US because local wildlife has co-evolved with cats

I get a lot of content about "how to promote your band"* and it's almost ALL about finding "superfans" you can sell merch to - so the actual art is reduced to ads for t-shirts

* I've been in the same (unsuccessful) band since 1987 - obvs I have a day job too

I came back cos I felt a bit guilty. You're right - I was condescending and I'm sorry

I think your model of men's social status being solely based on strength, and women's on beauty, is too simplistic to be useful. Even male chimpanzees' status isn't based solely on strength (social grooming and coalition building are also really important), and female chimpanzees' status is not based on the males they attract. Human societies are complex, and people can be useful to the group in a zillion different ways. Men were never only hunters/warriors, and women were never only wives/mothers. Even in societies where almost all food was from hunting it needed to be processed and preserved, and that work was very often done by women. A beautiful woman who takes shortcuts when preserving meat and runs the risk of poisoning the whole family does not make a good wife

The core of anyone's power is how useful they are to people around them. If you're beautiful that can be part of your usefulness, but if that's all you have to offer then you're not going to be very powerful

[flagged]

Nah, it is bizarre.

> You need to think of things from this perspective rather than the perspective of what's "taboo". It's only bizarre because society has conditioned you to look away from the cold hard truth.

Haha good lord. Of course you have access to the cold hard truth that I'm too foolish to see! Your fixation on "power" (whatever that means) is incredibly reductive, and I expect your knowledge of human behaviour is rather limited

> For women the core of their power anthropologically lies with beauty

Physical attractiveness is a social asset, and it's a more useful asset for a woman because men are affected by how women look more than the other way around - that's all fair enough ... but "the core of their power anthropologically lies with beauty" is a bizarre framing.