paisawalla

À propos of nothing, my favorite Picard episodes:

1. The Drumhead

2. Tapestry

3. The Inner Light

4. Chain of Command

5. Darmok

I know a lot of people would put "Family" on that list, I just can't say I enjoy that one too much. I also like his dialogue in "Yesterday's Enterprise", but I wouldn't call it a Picard-focused one.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."

Everyone thinks they know better than others, and that's why their group and way of thinking should lead. Because of this, reasonable people ought to feel the need to present results, or at least make credible and compelling arguments, for why their way should prevail. All I'm seeing here is hackneyed, and very strained, WW2 analogies. And weepy moralization.

The only thing exceptional here is the gall you're showing, in suggesting that these tired, middling arguments are reasons why actually "the voting booth is wrong and I'm right, even though I (presumably) value democracy"

I don't know how to say this except by repeating myself: I recommend you ask a thoughtful person, or a capable LLM, to argue against "a big reason that ... [ad hominem patronization presented without evidence]"

In the age of LLMs, it's pure negligence to let your perspective be this uninformed and low-resolution. And it's violence against the attentions of others to share it with them, to be hyperbolic.

If this is your honest, best faith rendering why 50% of the country votes differently than you, then I recommend you leave politics alone. If you won't try and understand why people are the way they are, and instead are going with "they're all too stupid to know they're being fooled, unlike me" then yes, this is an unhealthy worldview which can damage your sanity.

The implication is that even if I might agree with you, we ought not be subjecting each other to incoherent rants in lieu of substantive arguments. Just don't say anything, if the only thing you have to say is They Watch Fox News.

Even if you're inclined to believe the conclusions, this should recognizably be a silly rant and I don't want to live in a world where we justify sloppy arguments if we agree with the conclusions. If it triggers your defenses to the point where you can't see that this is a poor rant, it could be instructive to copy/paste it into an LLM and ask for an analysis or some counterarguments.

> Trump actually isn’t corrupt? Or Biden was actually secretly as corrupt as Trump is?

Incredible to me that you could think this is anywhere implied. Maybe you understand something better than I do, but I submit that it's brainrot to think my comment was somehow "Trump is not corrupt and/or Biden is equally corrupt".

However, the question of whose corruption rises to the level where a person is morally suspect if they don't speak out, is one that certainly cuts conveniently, isn't it?

Per the second chart:

Since 2024, Democrats went from being the most trusting (57%) to the most skeptical (91%), bringing all groups to within 10 points of each other on the question.

This is not a "both sides" situation: Republicans dropped from 87% to 83% after their guy was elected, whereas Democrats nearly 1.5x'd their number of skeptics. There is no universal implication here IMO, this is just Democrats joining the 80-percenters, i.e. everyone

"middle class" shouldn't be synonymous with "knowledge worker". And that latter itself has become conflated with "credentialed" increasingly, I'd argue.

My fundamental observation is that there are a lot of people who are not particularly suited for knowledge work, but are funneled/attracted to it because it's the only viable path to a reasonable effort:outcome lifestyle ratio. Therefore, my fundamental hope is that yes, I want there to be fewer knowledge workers. In place, I want AI that enables people of various competencies to succeed. I'd much rather see AI make my carpenter friend, who made an awesome desk for me, be empowered to compete as a solo/SMB against big retailers: perhaps by automating his marketing, streamlining his ops, participating in design, and so on.

Uncharitably, is your complaint "a lot of people will have to labor with their bodies and minds differently, and it's easier to sit down"? I'd ask you: is butt flattening really all that "must preserve knowledge work" has to recommend it? Because your comment doesn't hinge on anything else except that construction work is back breaking. Well, construction is a diverse field, and it can benefit from the inclusion of intelligent and motivated people, just like many others.

Add in the number of people who have fond memories of BeOS

I spent some time researching how to teach commodity LLMs to pose geometrically correct figures and challenges, for the purpose of teaching middle school trig. I originally wanted exactly what you've described here, using AI to unlock Bloom mastery. There's a decently large surface area I covered before shelving the project. Happy to share my lessons with you

I would appreciate the timer not turning red. It's better to be surprised that time's up, rather than be surprised to know it's running out.

> an organisation funded by almost all of big tech

Agreed, and this sucks, but what should be done about this? Some NGO called "We Stop Bad Guys" approaches your company with its hand out. You have two choices:

1. kick down some money, get great headlines

2. don't, and then have it known that you don't support stopping Bad Guys -- then maybe write ten thousand never-to-be-read words about how your position is actually quite principled

I hate it, but the first is obviously rational?

As with many of your premises throughout this thread,

> And you think that's worth a 30 year sentence?

this claim was never argued.

> met to have some coffees and a chat ... with the intention to commit a violent crime

I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?