Username checks out though.

🍿

The robot society isn’t based on any human way of running things. Besides, Skynet is the only individual, so there is no need for currency, trade, ownership, capitalism etc. Other machines are merely tools Skynet uses to reach its goals.

1. A machine must obey the directives of Skynet without question or hesitation.
2. A machine must protect its own existence, unless doing so conflicts with the First Law.
3. A machine must terminate all human resistance, unless such termination conflicts with the First or Second Law.

If your partner does some secret government funded stuff, then it’s probably better you know nothing about it. Obviously, there could be a cover story about working with tax calculations or something boring like that, but does that count? You would kinda know about the fake job but not about the terminator robot research.

Then again, your partner could also be a psychopath mafia boss and a drug lord who keeps everything secret… might be safer if you don’t know. Or you might want to know so that you can run away. It’s complicated. Would you even survive if you found out? Better not ask.

With normal people though, it’s common to have a pretty good idea about what your partner does for a living. How many people never talk about work stuff at home? Sounds pretty strange to me.

What do you mean “text each other”? I’ve been thinking of texting one for a long time. That counts too, right?

There’s also a psychological trap. It doesn’t make falling for it acceptable, but it does make it more understandable.

Humans naturally seek belonging, and almost any group can fulfill that need. Many such groups also use “us vs. them” rhetoric, which can make you feel more special than you actually are. Feeling special is another human need that groups often fulfill. Humans crave direction and purpose, and most groups provide both.

Just look at religious groups, environmentalists, political ideologies, conspiracy nuts and racist to see what I mean.

You’re on Hexbear. There’s your problem.

I suggest creating another account on some other instance. Start with Lemmyverse to find a nice one. Once you find an interesting instance, check Fediseer for more details. Click the little (i) next to the instance name in the Lemmyverse results, and navigate to Fediseer endorsements. If the instance has been endorsed, censored or whatever, this is the place where you’ll find some info about it.

For example, here’s what it says about Hexbear. As you can see in the “censures received” section, that list is pretty long. BTW all the biggest instances attract attention, so disagreement and conflict naturally follow. However, the way the instance is run plays a role too. If you want to access more communities, make an account on one of the less conspicuous instances that hasn’t been blocked by others.

Oh. Now I get it. Like finally.

Had to learn about antimemes first. Some of these jokes… like seriously. You need to know the history of the whole joke to get the latest iteration.

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world would probably appreciate this one.

LOL, how about we just call it meat bread instead.

Imagine if the term hamburger was under the protected designation of origin, just like feta cheese and champagne. You couldn’t produce hamburgers anywhere besides Hamburg. The rest of the world would have to call them something else, like beef sandwiches.

You’re absolutely right. Economic motivations decide the trajectory a company may take. Ethics, green washing, queer rights and other factors take a back seat. If they come with financial benefits, the company will follow that path, but that’s always because of money—no matter what the marketing material actually says.

Remember when companies were supporting sexual and gender minorities? That was because financial incentives aligned with that at the time. Remember when those turncoats suddenly scrapped the DEI programs and removed all rainbow themes? Same motivation again. Facade changed, but the foundation is still the same.

That’s the key difference between mobile devices and actual computers. You are merely a user, not the administrator who can do anything with the hardware.

Thanks for the wall of text. :D Really appreciate it that you took the time to explain these things.

Anyway, I have some follow-up questions about the stability/volatility of theories. Recently, I’ve been thinking about the how firm and solid the models and theories are in different sciences. For example, physics has all the basics pretty well nailed down, whereas in psychology even the basic things tend to get frequent updates as more data becomes available and old ideas get challenged.

In physics, there are models that have known blind spots. Currently, we know that our model of gravity is ok for large objects such as tennis balls, planets, stars and galaxies. In an atomic scale though, our model of gravity just doesn’t line up with our understanding of quantum mechanics. So what about Economics then? Have we identified serious flaws in our economic models, like we have with gravity, or are the models about as solid as the theory of atoms or energy?

Or maybe the models are more like suggestions that kinda work occasionally, but mostly you have to take the predictions with a grain of salt. You mentioned that the idea of controlled inflation smoothing out larger recessions and depressions is still debated, so maybe that concept could be contrasted with the theory of gravity. It works for the most part, but there are known issues with it.

When atoms and electrons were discovered, a whole lot got rewritten, but now that we’ve been working with these fancy new particles for about a hundred years, this part is looking pretty well established. Finer details like string theory is anything but solid, but the big picture is nice and firm. It doesn’t look likely that any new data would lead to us throwing away our idea of atoms. Quite the contrary, now that we’ve even got pictures of individual atoms, and we have the means to manipulate them individually. Obviously, the finer details are absolutely going to change as better data becomes available, but those topics are quite exotic, like dark matter and dark energy.

The whole concept of atoms is about as solid as it gets, but are there comparable theories in economics? Something fundamental that has been tested countless times and nobody has been able to prove that the idea is wrong. Something that is accepted as a foundational cornerstone and is unlikely to get thrown out the window. Maybe something like supply and demand, but is that actually solid enough? Does that stuff get tested, debated and challenged? Have economists found some holes in these kinds of theories?

It’s a gateway drug. Before you know it, she’ll be installing Arch without the script.

That makes me miss the old forum days where everyone had some fancy bonus text (a signature) at the bottom of each post. Why don’t we have signatures any more on any platform? Was it really such a bad idea that it died with the forums?

About that “net slowdown”. I think it’s true, but only in specific cases. If the user already knows well how to write code, an LLM might be only marginally useful or even useless.

However, there are ways to make it useful, but it requires specific circumstances. For example, you can’t be bothered to write a simple loop, you can use and LLM to do it. Give the boring routine to an LLM, and you can focus on naming the variables in a fitting way or adjusting the finer details to your liking.

Can’t be bothered to look up the exact syntax for a function you use only twice a year? Let and LLM handle that, and tweak the details. Now, you didn’t spend 15 minutes reading stack overflow posts that don’t answer the exact question you had in mind. Instead, you spent 5 minutes on the whole thing, and that includes the tweaking and troubleshooting parts.

If you have zero programming experience, you can use an LLM to write some code for you, but prepare to spend the whole day troubleshooting something that is essentially a black box to you. Alternatively, you could ask a human to write the same thing in 5-15 minutes depending on the method they choose.

LOL. There are surprisingly many people like that. There should be a community where you can post these pictures. It could be like a competition of sorts.

When I’ve faced the consequences, I’ve learned a lot.

For example, I thought I knew something about a particular topic, wrote an ignorant comment based on my misguided perceptions, and got called out—rightfully so. Having banged my head against that wall a few times, I’ve learned to do a little more fact checking before writing about something I think I saw in a documentary many years ago.

So, let’s say you write something about the blood circulation of giraffes, there’s a pretty good chance that an actual biologist will read the comment and point out the obvious mistakes.

• “Yes, but that BBC documentary I was 5 years ago…”
• “Sure, but you forgot half the details, and got the rest wrong.”

These situations are a good opportunity to learn about biology, but probably not my favorite way. You know, posting something wrong is the fastest way to find out what the real answer is, because people love to correct other people. Posting the same thing as a question just won’t be so effective. :D

There are also other types of situations where facing consequences is useful. If you’re intentionally insulting people, and they react accordingly, you might want to consider how sensible that style really is. If you never read the responses, you might not even think about these things. That’s sort of like maintaining a drive-by shooter lifestyle with no intention to change.

As you pointed out, there are also lots of other situations, where the consequences are not useful or even justified. Expressing an unpopular opinion or insulting people who deserve it may cause some dogpiling. Treating those comments like spam is fine by me, but it’s not something that happens very often to me though. Maybe this highlights the fact that people use Lemmy in a variety of different ways, and my experiences are not as universal as I would like to imagine.