quantummagic

What if the bag of paper "money" is in a foreign currency? You'd still happily call it money, but then the distinctions you're trying to draw with crypto don't really apply. Think of crypto as a foreign currency, it still functions as money.

And if thieves stole a bag of paper from you, that happen to have the number $100 and some other artwork written on them by the government, what then? It's not money, it's just some "paper asset"? You're just showing your own personal bias about what the definition of money is.

This seemed so pointless and uninteresting to me. It's obviously a blindspot for me, since it's so heavily upvoted and liked by many. But for me, mindlessly clicking the prompted location, after sitting through some pointless into logos, leading to absolutely no payoff at all, just ending credits, was distasteful. Can someone who enjoyed this experience articulate why, so that I can reflect on my own personal failing in this regard?

They are exactly comparable. The concept is exactly the same. We have borders and protected areas, and it is reasonable to make restrictions on other people based on those borders. It is not racist.

That's a completely separate issue (if it is one at all), but I was addressing the specific concerns in the OPs question.

Of course those are real issues that should be addressed. Just like if a factory producing bicycles is running all night and keeping you awake. But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area. It's not an existential crisis, just a local nuisance.

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you genuinely believe what you're saying. I was the one saying that a border is a border, and you had better have a good explanation as to why the national border is fundamentally different from your home. If it's okay to protect your home, why is it WRONG to protect your country? See? I was putting the OP to the test: why is one just fine, but the other reprehensible? Instead, the OP responded with accusations of racism.

Misrepresenting the argument is not a good look. The argument is that everyone believes in borders. And that borders aren't racist. The only question is where we personally accept them being drawn. But NOBODY believes they're inherently all bad. Not even the people who pretend to do so, and are all too happy to throw around accusations of fascism and racism, to appeal to base emotion rather than logical and practical arguments.

Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.

> border fascism

I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.

Why? An argument stands on its own, regardless of origin. If it's poorly written, by someone who is say a non-native speaker, it can still be a VALUABLE and VALID argument. It would be racist to dismiss an argument because it was poorly written by a non-native speaker. "Racism" against a computer is just as ignorant and petty.

If the argument is good enough, it worth ignoring who/what the author is.

You're right, this is the best it will ever be. But there likely will be ad blockers for them -- local LLMs that filter for any brand placement, etc.

The point is that to the extent it causes certain individuals to lose faith in humanity, or become reclusive, and as a result not reproduce -- it has the effect of altering the overall genetic makeup of subsequent generations. The net result being a population "adapted" to this new environment.

Does it take a human to have agency? Doesn't a cat have agency and desire? What about a worm? Where do you make the cut off, and why? If an AI is programmed with a bias towards creating and following "desires", how is it fundamentally different than what evolution installed in us?

We're way too human focused and dismissive of everything that isn't exactly like us.