mdp2021

That is hardly possible. Meanwhile, what is evident is the unbelievably large mass of elements which pollute the human set - the opposite of competitive. As people lose the value we have to look somewhere else.

A future in which finally we could have synthetic intelligence, reliable judges, accomplished consultants?

Thank you again for reminding me I have a reason to live.

Apart from exporting experience to future endeavours with more "point".

And "fun", relevant as other are insisting noticing, is another thing you build and will return in the future.

Of course. At this point further analysis must be qualitative then quantitative (why this and that, what properly describes the clusters etc.), but certainly some interpretation of your idea is defensible defining implicit subsets.

Well, you will have created an important part an /ideal/ human that will finally fulfill the mandate, and with more resources (read and digest many orders of magnitude more).

And for what the cost are concerned: to call it more expensive in instance terms I want to see the numbers first, and - have you consider the cost of "unfinished" humans as liabilities? The costs of fools, of crooks, of the vile, of conformists etc.?

Good, this seems one of the crucial missing pieces towards AGI. Add critical thinking during cleanup, and we get very close to it.

> talking about a guy

'Guy' in the anglosphere is often para-gender (e.g. Australia).

> nonsense

Unfortunately, that is not the telling difference between LLMs and human specimens...

> I thought we were talking about Renee Good

> I thought

Ooooh finally, I have been insisting in a handful of replies to the poster "what (case) /exactly/ are we talking about". Is this confirmed, poster?!

> Most of the stuff out there

I cannot understand how you cannot understand. ___Which___, of the many cases I may have heard of, is the one you are talking about.

> not how actual cases work ... And it seems you know this

Yes. But within general principles, you cannot present a principle of prudence as primary when it is suggested that others may be at play. It is a true statement that prudence does not override other factors. If we went into details still within the general principles, if a suggestion were made about "power as would-be giving more freedom", it required a strong rebuttal - very much not (power to potentially exercise violence does not confer a legitimacy for further freedom). In actual cases, discrimination in judgement is required - but that will happen in front of actual cases.

> I hate to go all HS on you, but.. what does justice mean to you

What is "HS"? "Hismajesty Socrates the maieutist"?!

Within what I said earlier, "you do what you have to do". Do it prudently, reason it properly within the constraints you are given, but if it is what you have to do you do it (not "but going away is safer"). (Still the general principles.)

I'll be even more literal: can you give information about the case? (Which "videos"?)

> at least few videos

Sure, but I objected to the general principle: prudence has a limit - the value of one's life has limits. Justice comes before life, Dignity comes before life, etc.

If you could you please present the facts as you know them, as I suggested, because this in topic must be one of the cases I missed from the news - and you seem to have details that support your view anyway, so a generic narration will not suffice.

Your example fails, has Prudence has a limit in Justice - you do what you have to do.

I am not familiar with the case under discussion, but surely there is no legitimate advancing that one should be tame in front of danger (as in "bending as they are armed").

In other words, to disambiguate: an example about prudence proportionate to danger cannot be simply exported to social life.

> neither the child nor the mum should have been there to begin with. The onus is on her. [...] She chose to gamble her and her kid's future

At first level this seems simplistic. Then, it seems inconsistent with «happily dropping them for school» - can somebody explain...

Edit: and the "simplistic" perspective is outside the gross understatement of "«should not have been there» hence «only to be shot»"... Which again makes no sense without all the relevant information (hopefully).

Edit: maybe the poster could elaborate on which details exactly he believes justified the events.

Not an argument.

> [El Salvador (16.5/Mln), Cuba (8/Mln), Rwanda (6/Mln), Turkmenistan (5.5/Mln), United States (5.5/Mln)]

> “Ridiculously niche but ridiculously joyful” ~~ Richard Herring

Could this be an opening to seeing author Rob Manuel interviewed by Herring in the RHLSTP Book Club?

(I must recommend the RHLSTP Book Club. It worked well in noticing important new titles I otherwise missed.)

--

Ah, also I see and want to notice:

> “Greatest book ever made and you win. Profound.” ~~ Joel Morris (Philomena Cunk co-creator)

Joel Morris has a great entry in his curriculum.

--

The initiative keeps on giving:

> [About "Spelk Press" publisher, near Newcastle upon Tyne:] A spelk is a North East word for a splinter: hard to ignore once it's under your skin.