jpttsn

First time a typeface violates my sensibilities enough to close the the article before reading

I happen to agree with you. Many others tie moral consideration to assumed subjective experience. They espoused this even though they obviously rarely adhere to it and that has self image considerations. I bet the lack of answers about others’ subjective experience has more salience to them. This may cloud judgment and lead to accept overconfident answers.

The test situation is in the video as well. Shot of John McClane stepping on glass follows John McClane wincing in anguish. John McClane does not respond to what’s not on TV and Claude does not respond to what’s not in prompt.

The example can continue with a depiction of an organism in a video game

A stab: a video recording of a biological organism can exhibit many markers that would indicate consciousness if observed in a biological organism.

It’s the hard problem. None of these considerations answer it one way or another.

you eat for $5.5/week?

This is a funny self-own, what am I missing?

Timing v. trends: - big game studios are already reviled as lazy, bloated - nimble indies are hitting a lot of records - gen. AI coming for many studio roles - employees have lower friction to be entrepreneurial

It’s like if home cooking and self checkout were going really strong and then the restaurants workers picked that time to riot for higher wages

Thanks for linking to a cookie banner

You can just say “I bought this expensive wine regardless how it tastes.”

But people don’t want to sound foolish; they want to pretend they can taste the difference. Point to minutiae, study up on distinguishing.

This same point was also made clumsily in the OP; I’m very unconvinced.

The obvious question marks in that theory:

Lots of human labor happens in nondemocratic polities; slave-owning/repressive societies create lots of labor.

Democracy historically doesn’t advance in lockstep with labor; it’s arisen with many contingencies. The model (English Parliament) seems founded on concerns with right of some wealthy barons v. Kings.

Traditional common sense alternative is that military victory goes to people with largest army, so voting saves time. That’s been debatably less relevant with deadlier weapons, so democracy could be cooked.

“You wouldn’t download a car” is making an unexpected comeback after all these years

> We shouldn't have to give up our rights to privacy to participate in society.

Betrays fundamental misunderstanding of both.

I don’t think I solve multiple choice questions like that.

I consider the letters to correspond to facts about the world, consider the facts symbolically, and then map back to the letters.

It has the same output, but it’s a different process.

It's much simpler:

The point of being rich is to have all the good stuff.

To get there, it helps if you're not too easily satisfied.

Alas, many rich people go overboard on not being satisfied. When they get all the good stuff, the have forgotten how to enjoy it.

But if you're smart about it you can make sure you enjoy stuff, and also get more stuff.

You are allowed to (gasp) enjoy your previous victories, without getting complacent. You can be happy about your yacht and also work hard to get a jet.

Unless, you know, you can't. But that's just a (common) mindset problem and I don't think you're doomed to fall in that trap.

I bet this "rich but unhappy" trope is appealing as a cope for the less fortunate. Thus it gets overplayed as a trope and people wrongly think it's universal truth rather than a cliché.