nope, he’s too bald. can’t be havin that

too dumb to read

checks out

Most sensible comment in the thread, thread shoulda probably ended here.

Most greens are very wierd. They claim to be against malnutrition and vitamin deficiency, but when it comes to solutions, they are against them(see golden rice). They are also mostly vegans, but when it comes to insulin, they would rather kill lots of pigs instead of scary-scary GMO yeast. Or when it comes to energy production, they rather would choose one with guaranteed dangers(coal has very nasty byproducts of burning) instead of potential.

I think this is probably because they represent a more dangerous and legitimate opposition to the powers that be, and, as a result, tend to be one of the most astroturfed groups on the planet. Couple that with a kind of extremism, where they will oppose golden rice or GMO yeast on the basis of evergreening IP laws (a fair complaint, imo), and then you can kind of see why they keep opposing things that are presented as solutions and keep getting hit with the terminally annoying “well, why don’t you have any solutions, then?” style of criticism.

then you’re just a bot.

I mean to be fair you do make it pretty easy to discredit your entire argument, when you’re just gonna say that anyone calling you out on this very obviously stupid idea is a bot. Like that’s the same thing again.

Maybe I’m a victim of Poe’s law, but I’ve seen “launch nuclear waste into space” get way more repute than it deserves as an idea from people who have no clue about the actual issues with, even just normal aspects to do with energy generation. It’s a shorthand signal that lets me know that someone’s had all their thinking on it done for them by shitty pop science and shitty science journalism. It’s like if someone believes in antivax, or something. I’m probably not going to really think they’re a credible source, after that. This is also bad if the shit they’re saying is itself lacking in external sources which I can rely on outside of them.

I’m also flexing my brain right now because none of the shit you said at all really backs up the idea the nuclear energy is the future. Like, if you think it’s inevitable that more plants collapse and it’s inevitable that nuclear power plants get destroyed by missiles in times of war (also a great idea, on par with disposing of it in space, let me irradiate the exact area I’m trying to capture for miles and miles around), then you wouldn’t want nuclear power. If you believe in that and then you also believe in the overblown problem of nuclear waste, then there’s not really a point, there’s no point at which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

The reason people aren’t going to accept nuclear if they believe it has cons is because like half of those cons are, albeit overblown, catastrophic for life on the planet, and the other half are failures to conceptualize based on economic boogeymen, just the same as with solar power. Political will problems, rather than problems with physical reality or core technologies. But still, problems that conflict with the existence of the idea itself.

You’re not going to convince people to go in on nuclear power, your stated idea, if you only point out it’s flaws, and then also post ridiculous shit.

This, this should be common sense, and I don’t understand why it’s not.

Okay, so, say I need some energy that’s pretty dense in terms of the space that it takes up, say I need a large amount of constant energy draw, and say that I need a form of energy that’s going to be pretty stable and not prone to variation in weather events. I.e. I seek to power a city. This isn’t even really a far-fetched hypothetical, this is a pretty common situation. What energy source seems like the best for that? Basically, we’re looking at hydropower, which generally has long term environmental problems itself, and is contextually dependant, or nuclear.

Solar also makes sense, wind energy also makes sense, for certain use cases. Say I have a very spread out population or I have a place where space is really not at a premium, as is the case with much of america, and america’s startling lack of population density, that might be the case. But then, I kind of worry that said lack of population density in general is kind of it’s own ongoing environmental crisis, and makes things much, much harder than they’d otherwise need to be.

I think the best metaphor for nuclear that I have is the shinkansen. I dunno what solar would be, in this metaphor, maybe bicycles or something. So, the shinkansen, when it was constructed, costed almost double it’s expected cost and took longer then anyone thought it would and everybody fucking hated it, on paper. In practice, everybody loves that shit now, it goes super fast, and even though it should be incredibly dangerous because the trains are super light and have super powerful motors and no crash safety to speak of, they’re pretty well-protected because the safety standards are well in place. It’s something that’s gone from being a kind of, theoretical idiot solution, to being something that actually worked out very well in practice.

If you were to propose a high speed rail corridor in the US, you would probably get the same problems brought up, as you might if you were to plan a nuclear site. Oh, NIMBYs are never gonna let you, it’s too expensive, we lack the generational knowledge to build it, and we can patch everything up with this smaller solution in e-bikes and micromobility anyways. Then people don’t pay attention to that singular, big encompassing solution, and the micromobility gets privatized to shit and ends up as a bunch of shitty electric rental scooters dumped in rivers and a bunch of rideshare apps that destroy taxi business. These issues which we bring up strike me as purely being political issues, rather than real problems. So, we lack generational knowledge, why not import some chinese guys to build some reactors, since they can do it so fast? Or, if we’re not willing to deal with them, south korean?

I’m not saying we can’t also do solar and renewables as well, sure, those also have political issues that we would need to deal with, and I am perfectly willing to deal with them as they come up and as it makes sense. If you actually want a sober analysis, though, we’re going to need to look at all the different use cases and then come up with whichever one actually makes sense, instead of making some blanket statement and then kind of, poo-pooing on everything else as though we can just come up with some kind of one size fits all solution, which is what I view as really being the thing which got us into this mess. Oooh, oil is so energy dense, oooh, plastic is so highly performing and so cheap and we don’t even have to set up any recycling or buyback schemes, oooh, let’s become the richest nation on the planet by controlling the purchasing of oil. We got lulled into a one size fits all solution that looked good at the time and was in hindsight was a large part in perhaps a civilization ending and ecologically costly mistake.

And I say just launch the waste into space

This immediately discards like, everything you’ve said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It’s way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn’t crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.

I mean the government pretty much already has a death note, of a kind. If you’re not Gary Webb, then they could always just slip some shit in your water main or whatever, or otherwise just kinda kill you however they want. So it’s not all that useful for them to have, other than being cheaper and maybe making some political assassinations much easier.

You know I do kinda wonder what effect that would have culturally, especially if that became a kind of trend or mainstay. Like, obviously a big investigation would take place as to the cause of death. Doubt they would come up with anything, but obviously, huge scandal. After that, do the successors keep getting killed since they’d probably be the same or worse, or what happens? What would happen in response to that? Would they rename the party, launch further investigations, would they attempt to dissolve the party? Would they attempt to believe in different ideals out of a kind of fear or natural selection, or what? Would they all just devolve into extremely conspiratorial thought as they desperately tried to ward it off?

I mean, if they figured it out, then they might even just start putting them out under aliases or fake names or something.

this is some damn 2011 millennial humor

You know, as much as I do like this website, I do find it kind of tiring how the top posts tend to just be like. Like this is an NPC meme, you know? This is a chad vs virgin type of meme. This is about a step away from choosing to portray your opposition as a soy wojack. Sometimes I find that kind of funny because of how absurdly idiotic and brainbroken it reveals the creator of the meme to have been, but I dunno, something about the mainstream adoption of this kind of thing is just kind of incredibly depressing. It’s like I am seeing the mainstream consciousness break apart in real time.

Can we go back to advice animals and rage comics, guys?

You know I haven’t seen a whole lot of anime, so sue me, but I’ll kind of agree with this take. They’re both pretty good anime, and probably even great, and an easy recommendation, right. At the same time, they really don’t inspire me in any way, or bring up like, interesting philosophical subject matter really at all, which are things that are value in media more than like. Cool fight scenes, and an accessible story.

Also, an aside, but these shows don’t have that great of fight scenes. They have pretty good “action”, I guess, pretty good animation, but fight scenes? I wouldn’t say they’re well written or choreographed, they’re about as basic as you can get. FMAB gets some points for having inventive solutions that crop up occasionally as a result of the setting’s alchemy and real chemical reactions and stuff, but that’s about it. Otherwise both of these shows are kind of extremely basic when it comes to their action. Both in the way that it’s conventionally written, but also in their direction and choreography. I think stylistically I might be opposed to anime generally, in this regard, as a medium that has, almost inherently, no limitations (being animation, right), and as a kind of, general style, that tends to place the setup basically right before the payoff happens. Rather than sort of gradually building up to more well-founded action scenes. In action choreography, maybe I just have kind of, infamously high standards for this stuff, or have different tastes from the norm, cause every time I’ve seen “great anime action” it’s always like, the most incomprehensible, stiffly animated, impact frame yutapon cube sakuga nonsense you could ever imagine.

I dunno, am I insane for the take the the vast majority of action choreography is better done when it’s grounded into an actual physicality, and implicit physical ruleset, rather than like, appreciating the tradeoff that comes with not doing that, the tradeoff of spectacle and absurdity?

You know, it’s been pretty good so far, I’d even say, really good, probably, and it has an advantage over FMA:B in that I don’t find the comedy kind of, grating and annoying, and I find it actually funny sometimes, even if it’s mostly just weird and kind of pervy or whatever. Not like, fanservicey, but it does feel like the comedy is just, sex-based, or something? I dunno. I might just be like overblowing it in my brain.

With all that being said, FMA:B is definitely better still. Frieren has specific arcs, FMA:B just straight up has an overarching story that basically never stops and never really falls into, like, specific sections. I dunno, I guess that’s mostly a pacing thing, but if you were to ask me which one I liked more on that basis, I would say FMA:B every time. There are some other anime that can match that pacing, right, but most of the time they end up being kind of older more adult-oriented animation, and they don’t really have as broad of appeal as FMA:B, so I think it still takes the GOAT position.

Frieren is really good though, I will give it that.

I think that most of the criticisms directed at the industrialization and mecha stuff is mostly just a byproduct of the worldbuilding in korra broadly not being very good. Not even necessarily bad a lot of the time, but just not as good as avatar.

Bending styles became more homogenized and choreography is worse, everything became a kind of 1920’s hong kong steampunk, and lots of the city shots, there’s basically nobody walking around. You have things like tasers and huge mechas, but huge mechas and tasers without explanations for how they’re getting such dense energy storage, or circumventing some real world problems with those technologies in a 1920’s context. With various forms of bending, you can kind of get around the energy density problem a little bit, since it’s just straight up magic that seems like it violates conservation of energy, but with korra’s stuff, that doesn’t apply a lot of the time.

Lots of little things like that kinda give the impression that the world is made of paper mache, or that a lot of things are just kind of done because they’re a cool idea, rather than because they’re both a cool idea and make a little bit of sense. I’m not really opposed to the idea of a car in the setting, but it strikes me as quite a bit easier to power a car if you have a mobile human power plant that can produce large amounts of energy. I think it’s also kind of a shame to disconnect the tech from this for a different reason, as well, and that’s because it means that the bending is kind of, less broadly useful and applicable. It takes up less space in the setting, it has less utility, it’s not as cool, and the show doesn’t really end up giving many good replacements for it as time goes on.

That’s really nitpicking, though. I think the broader point is just that there wasn’t much done in the series to really show the continuity between ATLA and korra (do not mistake this for fanservice), and they really feel like different shows. Feels kind of like about a quarter of the reason why people didn’t like the last jedi, but that’s kind of a whole other deal. Anyways, that being the case, korra’s more of a stand alone kind of deal, and I think it kind of falls flat on it’s own, because it just isn’t very good and I don’t like it as much as the OG.

You also get a lot of people that will blame all the problems on the show that it kept getting renewed season after season without any real knowledge of the future viability of the show, but I think I would still just blame the writing, in that respect. You can make a good, contiguous series of media based only on good improv, only on good setup and payoff, external to the idea that the show has multiple locked-in seasons. I don’t think it matters too much, if you’re good enough. Main example there is probably just venture bros, though.

Always wondered why those aluminum bottles I see sometimes with screw on tops are so rare, I feel like they should be used way more. Recyclability of an aluminum can, convenience and form factor of a bottle.

If the military and police are the right leaning ones who agree with the greasy brainwashed boomers, I’d think more that said military and police are the major problem in that circumstance, and not the greasy brainwashed boomers.

I thought the real lesson that’s never learned is that everything is just doomed to get worse forever?

dopamine pump goes brrrr.

But also, I think to some degree, “building meaningful platforms with an abundance of excellent communication options” is kind of just. Investor speak. It’s kind of impossible. Systems are brittle, communication needs to be flexible, to some degree.

Speaking more specifically, right, if we’re looking at reddit and lemmy as examples, we have to think about the kinds of content that these systems are incentivizing. Upvotes float a post to the top of the front page, top of the comments section, right, and then that kind of lends itself to platforms where the top posts are snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely agree with, while the most downvoted posts are going to be snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely disagree with. And then you’re getting the full range in-between, with really no way to kind of properly find things based on what their substance is. The organization structure, basically, is arranged based on the kind of collective idea of quality, which isn’t really a specific enough kind of organization to be useful to most people.

So, that has drawbacks. What if we just went at it like a classic forum, right? People make accounts, people make posts, maybe you even have a membership fee. Well, now post quality has maybe gone up, but we’ve also created a large barrier to entry, which is a really bad strategy for growth. That’s maybe not a problem, as people tend to kind of, stupidly prioritize rapid expansion over steady growth and the quality of their core product, right, without really understanding the value they are actually looking to create.

Realistically though the biggest problem is just that the insularity of the forum is kind of going to be a snowballing thing, especially depending on subject matter. Jargon and in-jokes can develop that make it basically impossible to interface with as a newcomer, and that’s going to lead to a kind of inertial collapse where forums just slowly come up and then slowly go back down. Also contributing to this is kind of a point at which every discussion has been had before on the server archives, so any time you make a new post, refer to post 1224. If they don’t just die from inflation of basic goods, and can’t afford to keep up hosting costs, which is also a major killer of classic forums.

So, conventional forums also have drawbacks. So maybe we get rid of the accounts, now it’s anonymous, and everything is still going to be organized chronologically, right? Nope, that sucks, because now there’s not really any incentive to keep up post quality and your forum is going to get spammed to death with the maximum amount of possible noise, meaning you need to take on bot filters, which means you need to create more brittle systems to try and sort quality posts away from chaff. You could also just, not do this, and let chaff kind of swim around on your platform, but, that might not be a great idea, I dunno.

If you do end up somehow making a platform that can be, at the very least, popular and desirable for communication, then you’ve basically just ended up making a public good that you’re probably not massively paid for. Queue the platform getting bought out and ruined by an idiot stooge. Not just elon, but also, every other platform on the internet ever.

I think it’s pretty reasonable to look at all that and just think. Man. I want some more dopamine! Turn on the dopamine pump! And then the corporation says, yes sir, here is your dopamine pump, “free” of charge, of course, go to town.

Basically the cynicism is from two ends, is what I’m saying. It’s from the fact that the internet is kind of constantly undergoing a kind of expansion and contraction, where the systems work at the low end, and then rise, and then collapse under their own weight once noise starts to accumulate, right, so an ideal system is somewhat impossible, at least, under the current kind of economic constraints, maybe, but maybe also in general. So there’s a cynicism to that, right. There’s also the cynicism of being conscious of that. And then there’s also the cynicism of like, people just not really wanting communication, and wanting dopamine pumps. Though, I think people might really want both, if they were pressed on it.

Damn, this place just kinda is reddit 2.0, huh? You’re still gonna get the same fundamental person posting something to the wrong board, ragebait, to quick kind of snippit, to misunderstanding kind of cycle. If you post any, small or large, fraction of your worldview, you will inevitably get someone taking it out of context, misunderstanding it, or extrapolating off of it, substituting their own worldview for yours because you didn’t provide your entire worldview in an entire reddit comment that they could just kind of piecemeal respond to one by one rather than kind of comprehending it as a whole and then actually responding to it. Regardless of whether or not you provide all of it, even, people consume it piecemeal, they’re incapable of doing otherwise.

My brain is so fried, I fuckin hate the internet so much. Do we want to change this outcome, or is this outcome actually good? I don’t fucking know, google probably don’t know either. If you hit me with the 50/50 abuse stats, cause the men don’t report abuse, then I can hit you with the oh well men are more capable of like causing financial or physical harm with their abuse because of power dynamic. And then you can hit me with oh well that’s kind of a fucked up collectivist analysis to refer to this that way because that’s evaluating every group as a whole, and also that might not be correct even. And then I’m gonna hit you with the oh well I thought we were prescribing a collective top down kind of solution based on this bifurcation here. And then you’re gonna be like, oh, well, I thought you were kind of saying that men just don’t deserve help in these circumstances because that’s what your position was advocating for. And then I’m gonna be like nah not really but I can kinda see where you were coming from because the post is about how like oh this is an unreasonable decision and I’m saying well hold up maybe it’s reasonable.

This is a false dichotomy, is what I think. There are no real trolley problems. Nobody’s help has to come at someone else’s expense. There are only mutually beneficial solutions. Other solutions aren’t real solutions on the basis that they are harmful. I have to believe this or else everything kind of falls apart. I dunno, maybe you believe there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, like that libbed up POS thomas sowell.

I dunno, could we not just, probably figure out the gender of the person making this google search, and tailor their results, like we do for fucking everything else? Could we not probably just expect that if people need marriage counseling, or need some sort of domestic abuse hotline, they’ll search “marriage counseling”, or “domestic abuse help”, or something like that? Can we maybe think that, I dunno, if someone is having a major episode with domestic abuse, maybe the police should be able to help them with that, maybe their support network should be able to help them with that, maybe google shouldn’t be the thing that’s expected to solve all their problems?

But then, if I say all that, make those points, then oh, I’m living in fairy land, and my solutions are unrealistic, and it’s easier to try to ask a theoretical google search engine programmer to fix this very minor problem that is realistically just a kind of band-aid on the buckling crack on the face of the hoover dam. Every fuckin thing affects every other fuckin thing. You ask me about this minor thing, and instead of talking about this minor thing, we gotta blow it up into how life sucks for men and shit cause they can’t report domestic abuse, and that’s just one facet of how men are getting fucked up by everything. I dunno man! I dunno how to solve that! Gender inequality! Can’t we just hit the big red button that says “solve gender inequality” and that will immediately solve everything, obviously, right? Like c’mon, it’s so easy, obviously.

This kinda shit is just annoying cause it feels like nobody has a really good framework for filing this kinda shit away. Oh, yeah, men have problems with overly sealing their emotions, cause we can just kinda, broadly gesture towards patriarchy on that one, and then kind of just provide reasons for why patriarchy exists, and then kind of extrapolate based on that shared establishing on the problem, into what some possible solutions might be. Like instead we’re just gonna spend a million eons debating whether or not patriarchy exists in the first place for the same reason that everyone can call some shit woke, and then two people hear two wildly different things even though the word might have the same literal meaning.

I say patriarchy, one person hears “oh the institution that kind of benefits all men broadly” and one person hears “oh the bullshit idea that there’s an institution that benefits all men broadly”. I’m like what are we talking about, do I have to get into pay gaps, and then I have to get into specific studies on specific pay gaps, and then as we kind of dynamically litigate this argument it’s going to kind of come about that oops this study has problems, dismissed, oops this other study also has problems, dismissed, forever on, eternally, and therefore, my perspective is right, instead of us all just kind of admitting we don’t know shit and then kind of like turning it back to, well, what would be the best thing to do in absence of clear evidence one way or the other?

I dunno man, I have internet brainworms and the peanut gallery is living in my brain rent free. I’m just tired that everything has to be an argument and not an actual conversation where people are asking curious questions in good faith. Welcome to life, though. Don’t let the doctor slap your ass on the way out the birth canal or whatever.

I think it tends to be from a certain kind of framing of abuse, a certain kind of mentality. It’s the same one that has the reaction to cyberbulling of “oh, you should just log off”, type of thing. It’s an oversimplification that basically only conceives of abuse as being as a result from a kind of strictly physical and obvious power imbalance, rather than thinking of abuse as being a more complicated psychological phenomena. You don’t even need a scenario in which a woman is like, trained by bruce lee, or anything, you just need an idea that women are capable of somewhat basic psychological manipulation, and you maybe need a man that’s vulnerable to it.