promethea.incorporated
Month
Remember that thing some acquiantances of mine were doing a few months ago? Yeah, this thing which is on BBC now. The only proper use of IP law: trolling violent extremists who are way too close buddies with PoliceMob to have a fair and level playing field with their opponents sans unfair and utterly hilarious tricks. (I hear that at least glittery Sleipnicorn t-shirts and other utterly n e o t e n i c products can be expected.)
(And a context note for people who might want to be spoilsports about the superiority of Our American Principles about free speech etc.: I agree with said superiority and would very much prefer see said Principles applied here as well; the US has Skokie, we have PoliceMob shooting people in the eyes with FN 303s and forcibly removing absolutely nonviolent demonstrators (such as a priest simply holding up a sign about loving thy neighbor) because they present an eyesore to the fash on their parades. The only thing the anarchists (disclaimer: the person named is not known to be an anarchist, I’m talking about the demonstrators who regularly get brutally suppressed) are asking for is the same treatment the nazis get.)
IMO Our American Principles about free speech suggest that making glittery neotenic T-shirts about fascists is exactly what we should do. Everyone gets a right to say their piece, and everyone gets a right to be made fun of. EQUALITY.
OBVIOUSLY
But bringing IP law to it is unfair and has a potential chilling effect on legit politics and basically what was done should not be able to be done in a fair world and it is absolutely hilarious nonetheless.
IP law is evil and horrible and just because it can occasionally be used for good ends doesn’t mean it stops being evil and horrible. Just like that cheap sneering on the sneerers can feel good doesn’t mean a situation where people are able to get away with cheap sneering is good.
If these guys had been silly ineffectual nazis (like Pekka Siitoin whose disciple tried to hijack a plane in the 80s using a “hypnotic-magnetic gaze” learned from Siitoin’s batshit occult stuff) trademarking their shit and pursuing it with legal means would’ve set a worrying precedent in suppressing political opponents, but in a situation where those guys have the second-biggest parliamentary party and one of the most popular national medias unambiguously on their side, with PoliceMob playing blatant favorites, and when the SOO started it by threatening legal action on the Loldiers of Odin, they were really really asking for it.
Terry Pratchett, describing Sam Vimes in a Usenet post back in 2004.
Also, accidentally, describing me. Shit.
(via benpaddon)
Okay, so this is what I love about Samuel Vimes as a Heroic figure.
Sometimes you get Heroes who are paragons of virtue. Even if you see their internal monologues, their mindset is pure and virtuous. Sometimes, they’re tested and you get a Big Moment where they have to choose whether or not to stick to their principles or give in to temptation and expediency.
And then you’ve got the more “Pragmatic” anti-hero types, who do some nasty things in pursuit of the greater good, and who might struggle with the things they’re doing, but they do it anyway because the world is not black and white.
And then you’ve got Sam Vimes, who is dragging himself kicking and screaming into being Lawful Good. Sam Vimes would not beat a suspect into confessing, but NOT because Sam Vimes is an innocent soul who finds the idea abhorrent. Not because he dosn’t think there are some scumbags who deserve to be separated from their teeth. Sam Vimes won’t beat a suspect because that’s not what a good man would do. Sam Vimes is understanding with others, but totally uncompromising when it comes to his own behavior.
Vimes isn’t a “Good Person” by nature, but by choice. By constant, uncompromising choice.
I think this is the only way to be a decent person.
(via nimblermortal)
in the words of asw #626:
<
p>(via stardust-rain)
Remember that thing some acquiantances of mine were doing a few months ago? Yeah, this thing which is on BBC now. The only proper use of IP law: trolling violent extremists who are way too close buddies with PoliceMob to have a fair and level playing field with their opponents sans unfair and utterly hilarious tricks. (I hear that at least glittery Sleipnicorn t-shirts and other utterly n e o t e n i c products can be expected.)
(And a context note for people who might want to be spoilsports about the superiority of Our American Principles about free speech etc.: I agree with said superiority and would very much prefer see said Principles applied here as well; the US has Skokie, we have PoliceMob shooting people in the eyes with FN 303s and forcibly removing absolutely nonviolent demonstrators (such as a priest simply holding up a sign about loving thy neighbor) because they present an eyesore to the fash on their parades. The only thing the anarchists (disclaimer: the person named is not known to be an anarchist, I’m talking about the demonstrators who regularly get brutally suppressed) are asking for is the same treatment the nazis get.)
@socialjusticemunchkin, did you coin the phrase “dogma of mandatory comprehensibility” for your NAB review, or does it have some earlier provenance, in your writing or somewhere else? It’s a phrase that captures something that has frustrated me about deconstructionist (and similar) criticism in the past, and it’d be nice to be able to use it without referring people back to this particular kerfuffle.
Specifically, the frustration I have is that in order to identify “holes” in a text, places where a text “undermines itself,” or the like, it seems to me like you first need to ask the usual questions like “does this make more sense in historical context?” or “does it work to read this as meant ironically?” I.e. the kinds of questions you usually find non-deconstructionist critics asking when confronted with aspects of a text that confuse them.
And it would be fine if any given deconstructionist had asked the usual questions and simply found the answers wanting, but in the cases I’ve read, they often don’t. The (unintended?) implication is then that “if it doesn’t make immediate sense to a late-20th or early-21st century college professor, it doesn’t make sense.” When, you know, that college professor’s viewpoint is not only not omniscient, but (more specifically) conditioned by the public morals and idea systems of their society in ways which they may not be aware of, since that’s how such things tend to go. (I wonder if Foucault ever got on the deconstructionists’ case about this?)
(Note: I have a rule of not talking about NAB, but this post doesn’t count as talking about NAB by my standards)
As far as I know it’s my OC, and fresh to this particular incident.
The basic idea has been bugging me longer though, tying to the more general pattern I’ve observed of people yelling about things because they don’t realize they don’t speak the same language and thus assume that an expression in rationalist!english means what the same words mean in liberalartist!english, give a reasonable response to their misconception in liberalartist!english and speakers of rationalist!english are like “lol wtf are these guys talking about”, and in the end both sides hate each other for the horrible sin of speaking the Wrong Dialect.
(And the general pattern kind of applies in a lot of uncharitable readings; most snarky nitpicking would lose its effect if one were to read things in the writer’s dialect instead of one’s own; and no matter how much fun said snarky nitpicking is, it’s not at all fair. (Yes, I sometimes do it myself too, feel free to yell at me if you catch me doing it unless I’m clearly aiming for a non-serious&honest approach.))
Thanks for the fast response.
IMO, “liberal arts” is not a very useful term here. In modern usage it tends to refer to types of education which in some way hark back to the old quadrivium/trivium and the notion of a “broad education” they represented. The quadrivium/trivium had no “humanities as opposed to STEM” focus – you can sort of break it down (imprecisely and misleadingly) as “trivium is (premodern) humanities, quadrivium is (premodern) STEM,” but logic is one-third of the trivium, so if you count that as “premodern STEM” you’ve got 5 of 7 “premodern STEM” subjects.
(The quadrivium included music, because this was thought of as the study of “number in time,” to go along with arithmetic (number), geometry (number in space), and astronomy (number in space and time, i.e. something like physics).)
Hardly anyone actually uses the original trivium/quadrivium anymore, but modern “liberal arts education” tends to aim for the same breadth. For instance, at the “liberal arts college” I attended (where I got a physics degree), all students were required to take at least two classes in each of four “groups,” one of which was natural science (and there was nothing like “physics for poets” – everyone had to take the same intro science classes that the science majors were taking, which were taught with appropriate rigor), and one of which was something like “syntactic systems” (it included math, symbolic logic, foreign language courses excluding those classed as “literature courses,” and linguistics).
(Also, the “liberal arts college” as a a subtype of American colleges has a bunch of other characteristics, like being expensive, having small class sizes, and holding many classics as Socratic-ish discussions rather than lectures. None of these have much to do with the distinction I think you’re drawing.)
“Humanities” I think is a term that works strictly better than “liberal arts” here, because in the modern university it tends to mean stuff that isn’t “natural science” or “social science,” e.g. literature and history. Still, even this is way too broad, since the “dialect” of a history department, say, will be different from that of a literature department, and even literature departments with different focuses will have different “dialects.” (There’s been a fair amount of friction involved in the attempt to bring things like deconstruction into the discipline of classics, which tends to be old-school about most things, including literary analysis.)
What I think you’re pinpointing is something like “the most commonly used intellectual dialect in modern university literature departments, excluding classics.” Although that isn’t a very snappy phrase. “Talking like an English major,” although crude-sounding, is actually pretty close, but is likely to make you sound like don’t know whereof you speak (cf. the reaction to @theungrumpablegrinch‘s review of NAB). I’d love to find a phrase here that is readily and mutually intelligible.
Okay, the concept I’ve been trying to translate has been, in my brain, defined by a Finnish word which basically means “not STEM” and I was embarrassingly unfamiliar with the word ‘humanities’. That specific dialect is a subtype of it, but there seems to be a general pattern of “humanist” vs. “mechanist” language and thinking which this dialect, the postmodernist “reality don’t real” meme, the “scientists are soulless, understanding destroys wonder” meme, the idea that science has difficulties modeling fluid dynamics because our systems of knowledge are founded on patriarchal rigidity [sic], etc. are extreme edge cases of.
The thing isn’t limited to English as eg. gender studies tends to feature the same thing to some degree as well; whatever the fuck CrimethInc. is its “Eight Reasons Why Capitalists Want to Sell You Deodorant” is exactly that thing (“Body smells are erotic and sexual. Capitalists don’t like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.”); the analytic/continental divide in philosophy is also partially about that thing; I’ve seen many humanities people comment on issues of science with an embarrassing unawareness of the actual mechanisms of how things operate (because the broader version of the dogma of mandatory comprehensibility lets them believe things are way simpler than they actually are (and it obviously operates in reverse too with naive STEM people on humanities questions causing enough facepalms to extract all the world’s cooking oil needs from)); the people who stop treating others as humans if they say the word “rational” are that thing; etc.
(And similarly the “mechanist” edge case would be the stereotypical weakman “soulless” engineer who thinks emotions don’t matter and Spock is something to emulate instead of an embarrassing failure of a humanist attempt to cargo-cult rationality, identifies as Objective Rational Thinker™, uses models derived from physics to explain all human behavior and forgets that they are crude simplifications at best, etc…)
The memory grew brighter. “Professor Slughorn,” Hermione asked brightly, “What if someone wanted to split his wealth into multiple offshore accounts? Say…seven? “Good heavens, seven?” “Well, isn’t seven considered a magically significant number?” “Merline’s beard, girl! Isn’t it bad enough to consider doing it once? To dodge their tax bill seven times…This is all hypothetical, isn’t it, Hermione? All academic?” “Of course, sir,” Hermione said, smiling. “It’ll be our little secret.”
@socialjusticemunchkin, did you coin the phrase “dogma of mandatory comprehensibility” for your NAB review, or does it have some earlier provenance, in your writing or somewhere else? It’s a phrase that captures something that has frustrated me about deconstructionist (and similar) criticism in the past, and it’d be nice to be able to use it without referring people back to this particular kerfuffle.
Specifically, the frustration I have is that in order to identify “holes” in a text, places where a text “undermines itself,” or the like, it seems to me like you first need to ask the usual questions like “does this make more sense in historical context?” or “does it work to read this as meant ironically?” I.e. the kinds of questions you usually find non-deconstructionist critics asking when confronted with aspects of a text that confuse them.
And it would be fine if any given deconstructionist had asked the usual questions and simply found the answers wanting, but in the cases I’ve read, they often don’t. The (unintended?) implication is then that “if it doesn’t make immediate sense to a late-20th or early-21st century college professor, it doesn’t make sense.” When, you know, that college professor’s viewpoint is not only not omniscient, but (more specifically) conditioned by the public morals and idea systems of their society in ways which they may not be aware of, since that’s how such things tend to go. (I wonder if Foucault ever got on the deconstructionists’ case about this?)
(Note: I have a rule of not talking about NAB, but this post doesn’t count as talking about NAB by my standards)
As far as I know it’s my OC, and fresh to this particular incident.
The basic idea has been bugging me longer though, tying to the more general pattern I’ve observed of people yelling about things because they don’t realize they don’t speak the same language and thus assume that an expression in rationalist!english means what the same words mean in liberalartist!english, give a reasonable response to their misconception in liberalartist!english and speakers of rationalist!english are like “lol wtf are these guys talking about”, and in the end both sides hate each other for the horrible sin of speaking the Wrong Dialect.
(And the general pattern kind of applies in a lot of uncharitable readings; most snarky nitpicking would lose its effect if one were to read things in the writer’s dialect instead of one’s own; and no matter how much fun said snarky nitpicking is, it’s not at all fair. (Yes, I sometimes do it myself too, feel free to yell at me if you catch me doing it unless I’m clearly aiming for a non-serious&honest approach.))
i know you probably mean the German Democratic Republic, but it would also be pretty sweet if you meant “dance dance revolution”
oh my god the new Reblog Graphs feature in Tumblr labs is the best thing this site has done in years and years (not that that’s particularly difficult)
i have always wondered so much about how my posts propagate across the site and now i know, now you can actually see all the different branches, see who spreads the post the most, this is so cool and welcome
and i can see if my reblog of a post has an impact and so on
also it’s pretty fast and smooth (though it only loads a few hundred reblogs at a time and you have to click to grow the graph further)
(yet to find out how it deals with subsequently deleted reblogs, multiple reblogs by the same blog, etc.)
The factoid that the average corp is 2% responsible is a statistical error. The average corporation is actually 0% responsible; Elon Musk who seems to be making profit to be able to do useful things to the world (instead of doing useful things only if they can turn a profit, to turn a profit) is an outlier adn should not be counted.
Also, the factoid that the average State function is 2% cool is a statistical error. The average State function is actually 0% cool; publicly funded Science which is over 9000% cool is an outlier…
Article by Hal Hodson (New Scientist).
From the article:
“It’s no secret that Google has broad ambitions in healthcare. But a document obtained by New Scientist reveals that the tech giant’s collaboration with the UK’s National Health Service goes far beyond what has been publicly announced. The document – a data-sharing agreement between Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind and the Royal Free NHS Trust – gives the clearest picture yet of what the company is doing and what sensitive data it now has access to. The agreement gives DeepMind access to a wide range of healthcare data on the 1.6 million patients who pass through three London hospitals run by the Royal Free NHS Trust – Barnet, Chase Farm and the Royal Free – each year. This will include information about people who are HIV-positive, for instance, as well as details of drug overdoses and abortions. The agreement also includes access to patient data from the last five years.”
Read more: Full text.
*BANGS POTS AND PANS TOGETHER SHOUTING DOWN THE HALL*
HAVE FULL FAITH IN OUR SELF-DECLARED SILICON-POWERED GOD-EMPERORS! BOW AND OFFER THE APPRORIATE SACRIFICES OF DATA AN TRUST! THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUTWORRY ABOUTWORRY ABOUTWORRY ABOUT———
Being entirely pithy, if there is a statement that “Humans have a lot of data about X” it is likely true that “Google has a lot of data about X that you might not have expected it to have!”
Yes. But:
“… a data-sharing agreement between Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind and the Royal Free NHS Trust …”
This is them getting HANDED THAT DATA by a governmental agency.
And yes I’m overreacting: (From the article itself:)
The agreement clearly states that Google cannot use the data in any other part of its business. The data itself will be stored in the UK by a third party contracted by Google, not in DeepMind’s offices. DeepMind is also obliged to delete its copy of the data when the agreement expires at the end of September 2017.
But on the other hand:
This is the first we’ve heard of DeepMind getting access to historical medical records, says Sam Smith, who runs health data privacy group MedConfidential.
There was no PUBLIC INPUT here, the is no even LIP SERVICE being paid to INFORMED CONSENT – the people whom this will be done to were first informed in GOOGLE’S PRESS-RELEASE BLOG POST.
Who could’ve guessed having a big monstrosity that can just decide to sell your data to some third party with basically no real consent whatsoever involved would lead into people’s data being sold to third parties just like that with absolutely no recourse?
Am I talking about Google or the State? What do you mean “or”?
In a fair world we could so sue the State for all this shit it pulls off and it would be bankrupt before the end of the first year…
Let’s play a game.
Type the following words into your tags box, then post the first automatic tag that comes up.
you, also, what, when, why, how, look, because, never
it turned out surprisingly #\it me
This isn’t so much a review as it is an address to a particular comment I’ve seen often come up among those who oh so desperately want to undo the project, to argue that the links made within NAB are irrelevant, and more generally the statements that are made whenever the politics of the lesswrong community are attacked. Whenever Yudkowsky’s politics are ‘conservative’ or not is argued over and over and over again in the horrid way characteristic of a group with a strong belief in the powers of language, and this argument has come up yet again in the conversation about NAB, that Sandifer’s choice to talk about Yudkowsky alongside Moldburg and Nick Land (two massive neoreactionaries) is a miscategorization to the degree that Sandier shouldn’t finish the book, that the book is communist propaganda, whatever.
I’m just going to provide my reading of the situation, as ya know, an actual communist. Because I’m of the opinion that while Yudkowsky may not be a ‘conservative’, his work definitely fits within the reactionary project, and that this key element explains a large degree of the way the lesswrong/rationalist community leans.
To sum up the key element; the major part of Yudkowsky’s project is a desire to work towards the creation of a beneficent AI who we can then give the resources to to run the world. To this end he has created a pair of think tanks, has written innumerable papers and thinkpieces, etc. Now, this is hard to take seriously but if we do take it seriously then this is merely a new coat of paint over a desire that is over two hundred years old.
You see, it’s easy to forget that feudalism (stay with me now) wasn’t just ‘having a king’, that the feudal system was a whole system wherein the whole hierarchy was justified in generally divine terms. And while the literary origin of the divine right of kings was in Bodin, Bodin’s work actually is a degradation of the concept; the fact that it needed to be expressed in the 16th century showed just how much it was being questioned. Because, before this period, while the King was not absolute the hierarchy he remained atop of was, it’s an amazing statement that no matter how many aristocratic intrigues and revolts occurred before the 17th century, not a single one of these revolts sought to end the whole edifice of monarchy. I can go on about this separately but a full discussion of it would take quite a bit of time and I’m not specifically talking about this.
But the thing about the divine right of monarchs is that in the end it is divine. Many who sought to bring back monarchs seek to merely turn the clock back to 1788, but some of the more intelligent reactionaries who wrote in the generation following the French Revolution noted that you would have to turn it back even further, that the beginnings of secular thought was the beginning of the demise of a fully justified monarchy. Because if God is not there in the foreground, justifying the difference between King and noble and noble and peasant, then the King is just some guy, your local lord is just some guy, and what the fuck justifies their existence over you?
This became worse and worse over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, with ever more and ever more complicated justifying measures appearing–for instance, a focus on the innate power of the blood which became a motif among reactionaries for centuries to come. But in the end these measures just didn’t cut it, and after the French Revolution it became harder and harder to justify Monarchy, or any sort of Autocracy, on divine or secular grounds.
I would argue that the reactionary project ever since the French Revolution is the search for a newly justified King, a King who could reestablish the hierarchy of old. But they come up on an issue, without the totalizing religious beliefs of old your hierarchy is always going to comprise of regular people, and unless you engage in nonsensical magical thinking (a trait actually increasingly common now even in mainstream works but constantly under challenge), you’re going to have to find another way.
And so, at the end of this line of thinking, we find Yudkowsky. How is it that neoreactionaries found such a home in the bosom of rationalism? Because they were, in the end, seeking the same thing. Moldbug declaring that he is, in the end, searching for a king is not a more radical view compared to Yudkowsky’s, only a more honest one. It takes away the varnish of technoutopianism of a beneficent and omnipotent AI and says that in the end a person will do. Because in the end a King is a King, regardless of how many philosophy classes he’s taken and, indeed, whether he is human or not. The two exist on the same plane within the same project: the AI Philosopher King is, to the Lesswrongers, ideal, but Moldbug says that he’d settle for Steve Jobs. It’s the same shit, the same longing for a newly justified King.
Firstly, I think there’s a basically correct insight here. I think there’s an essential similarity to the ideas of a philosopher-king and an AI-god, on a psychological level, and that it’s probably responsible for a lot of their appeal.
See, for example, Iain Banks’ Culture novels, which are a perfect liberal Utopia but also feature AI-gods that play to a lot of White Man’s Burden tropes, treat humans as second-class citizens, and literally act as a de facto ruling class who privately own 99.9% of all weapons and of the means of production.
I’m not sure what this shared something is, but it probably has a lot to do with the fact that “just put a good person in charge” seems to be … kind of the default way people imagine running things?
With that said, I have a lot of quibbles. (This, uh … this turned out a little long.)
For example: Eliezer has literally written several stories set in his ideal utopia after the Singularity, and there are no philosopher-kings. Instead, there’s vague mention of the “machines” which have fixed everything and quietly buggered off to maintain things in the background while humanity is left to rule itself. Also, he has explicitly written this essay arguing that AIs should fix death and disease and resource scarcity and then quietly bugger off to let us run ourselves.
As others have said, it’s not totally clear what the difference is between “we just need the right AI and they’ll give us what we need and run everything perfectly without bias”, and, not to put to fine a point on it, Communism, in which we just need the right government and they’ll give us what we need and run everything without bias. You might argue that this government will be democratic and an AI isn’t, but a) quite a lot of actual communists seem to disagree with you there, and b) there’s no particular reason you couldn’t program an AI to do what 51 percent of the population votes to do, either.
Yudkowsky has written this essay arguing that we should build an AI that’s a mindless tool designed to fix our problems, not a person; person-AIs can come later, as our equals. Being a mindless tool for humans to use seems like un-kingly behaviour to me.
It’s utterly unclear to me why you think God is necessary or even sufficient to justify monarchy. If you think Kings rule because they’re a naturally better type of person, then the existence of God is, if anything, going to encourage you to think thoughts like “all men are equal before God” and “even kings have to bow to God, so really we should put a collection of the wisest priests in charge”. Also, quite a lot of people have believed in the idea of kings without God, or God without kings.
Also, we still have massive amounts of inequality, quite a lot more of it in absolute terms, which makes me suspicious that we didn’ t abandon hereditary aristocracy because we started believing in equality more than all those ancients but rather because rapid economic progress means money collects in the hands of people who get in on the ground floor instead of people who spend generations building it up. And that loyalty to a single leader has grown increasingly less efficient compared to intra-unit loyalty as armies have grown larger. But that’s just a suspicion.
Moldbug doesn’t want a philosopher-king. He wants kings of a sort, yes, but a CEO-kings; kings in competition with a bunch of other kings in a system that nobody ultimately controls. This is the exact opposite of a philosopher-king uniting everybody because he understands everything and can do it correctly, or for that matter of an AI ruling us all because it controls everything and comprehends everything perfectly. It’s basically libertarianism-for-governments.
If you said to Yudkowsky “hey, how about we have a king?”, he’d laugh in your face. This makes me suspicious of the idea that he’s trying to justify a secret longing for a king.
“…work towards the creation of a beneficent AI who we can then give the resources to to run the world” - Yudkowsky doesn’t think an AI will require any particular resources to run the world, and has expended quite a lot of virtual ink defending this point.
“…after the French Revolution it became harder and harder to justify Monarchy, or any sort of Autocracy, on divine or secular grounds” - it seems to me that people have had no trouble justifying dictatorships at all, and indeed of our largest and most powerful countries Russia used to be ruled by autocrats and China currently is ruled by them. Rather, autocrats have had trouble competing on either economic or military terms, perhaps because they waste so much effort putting down the peasant uprisings you dismiss. (If anything, the French Revolution makes it easier to justify kings, because it lets people suggest the alternative is the French Revolution.)
“… before this period, while the King was not absolute the hierarchy he remained atop of was” - this really isn’t true at all, as a cursory reading of history would suggest. Are you perhaps using “before this period” to mean “for a short while in medieval Europe”? Because even then, it isn’t true.
“this argument has come up yet again in the conversation about NAB … that the book is communist propaganda” - *snort* what? @socialjusticemunchkin
“You see, it’s easy to forget that feudalism (stay with me now) wasn’t just ‘having a king’, that the feudal system was a whole system wherein the whole hierarchy was justified …” - seems like “build an AI” doesn’t feature any hierarchy, though. It’s just this one AI.
I never said it’s communist propaganda, all I said is that Sandifer’s degraded marxism (which, I argued, seemed like a marxism even Marx wouldn’t support if he was alive today) is a shitty kind of marxism. I even went 97% of the way to accuse him of being basically a CIA shill in his “~capitalism~ is inevitable, let’s just do the pagan sex cult thing instead of trying to fix stuff” attitude (which was literally invented by the CIA, srsly guys, leftists should know this). If anything, the book would’ve been improved by being communist propaganda because communist propaganda usually doesn’t start by assuming that we’re fucked but instead argues that things could be fixed and improved.
This guy was the Psychiatrist in Chief for 26 years at Johns Hopkins Hospital, so he might just know what he’s talking about - you can’t just dismiss him as a “transphobe”
“When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.”
Yeah this is why I’m skeptical of the argument that “we need to give gender reassignment surgery to children so they don’t kill themselves.” It seems highly plausible that people who are seriously mentally ill may also be suicidal for reasons to do with their mental health and not any social stigma.
For each exposed person (N = 324), we randomly selected 10 unexposed controls. A person was defined as unexposed if there were no discrepancies in sex designation across the Censuses, Medical Birth, and Total Population registers and no gender identity disorder diagnosis according to the Hospital Discharge Register.
Presumably the comparison of interest is between transsexuals who get surgery and transsexuals who don’t, not between transsexuals who get surgery and gen pop.
Ya I don’t get that part either. It’s pretty clear that trans people who got the surgery is still going to be at higher risk than the general population who don’t have gender dysphoria.
And the paper states it relieve the gender dysphoria, so I don’t see how it is ineffective as a treatment itself, maybe cost-effectiveness is another thing.
Paging @ozymandias271 because I think they said something about this study before, and anyway, that’s sort of their field of expertise. IIRC, the comparison boozer-pitt wanted shows a threefold decrease of suicide rate after transition… or something.
Trans people are a notably suicidal population pre-transition (41% of American trans people have attempted), which makes me question the relevance of the Swedish study. I would expect that depressed people on Prozac are more likely to commit suicide than the general population, but that doesn’t mean that Prozac doesn’t work.
To make it clear: comparing the Swedish study to the Williams study, transition reduces the hazard ratio from 9 (assuming I understand correctly how to calculate hazard ratios) to 5, making it one of the most effective treatments for suicidality ever invented. Now, there’s a bunch of reasons why this is an apple-to-oranges comparison, but I hope it gives you a sense.
I am not aware of any specific studies about the effect of transition on suicidality. The current evidence on transition as a treatment is low-quality but generally suggests it improves psychological functioning.
Also since when are psychiatrists not transphobes?
Evidence suggests proper treatment (the kind we’ve been demanding, not the kind we’ve been reluctantly given; in both meanings of the word) basically cures the symptoms. This dutch study is small but the findings are relatively remarkable and match the stuff we’ve been screaming from the rooftops for like forever:
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.
METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.
RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.
CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958.abstract
The Council: “To proceed with the motion of writing this online comment. We unanimously agree that the US is a very bullshit country most of the time but at least our country is failing at the important values it was founded on instead of never even having pretended to care about them in the first place and even in its failure it’s still doing better on many of them than many others; for example, PoliceMob won’t arrest us for burning the flag…”
The One Who Watches The Watchers: “…our country?”
The Council: “Yes. We are obviously an American. It shouldn’t be that hard to believe: if you have a person who thinks in English, writes in English on an ANSI keyboard to their mostly American friends on the internet, believes in immigration and free speech and free trade and not letting the government do too many things because our government is controlled by terrible people, loves San Francisco, finds Elon Musk v v inspirational, wants to found a startup to solve big societal problems by turning them into numbers etc. then what would your prior be for them being an American?”
TOWWTW: “But we aren’t even in America!”
The Council: “But expatriates is a Thing. Don’t you remember, we flew here from SF in February?”
TOWWTW: “Oh right, it makes sense. Carry on then.”
…
TOWWTW: “…wait a fucking moment!”
Indeed, the nativists I’ve privately and publicly encountered routinely claim we're already in a world of open borders, and insist I’m just a more honest version of Obama or Merkel. […]
The sad reality is that mainstream pro-immigration thinkers favor moving from our current world of 98% closed borders to maybe 97% closed borders. But xenophobia is so rampant that even these tepid reforms sound like the end of the world to at least a quarter of American natives.
I think the argument for open borders needs more than a bunch of economists saying it will boost GDP when they have been wrong on such issues before.
There needs to be a vision of the future world, and it needs to be compelling and desirable and attractive to people, even if it’s a little exaggerated.
Telling people your nominal wages will go down but your real purchasing power will increase! sounds bad even if it’s true, and it’s hardly compelling.
When a substantial fraction of the population is already uneasy about current immigration levels, upping them by a factor of 50 or so needs groundwork.
Tying it in with infrastructure projects, perhaps?
Meanwhile we immigrants are like “what the fuck open borders is obviously a compelling and desirable and attractive vision of the future world in itself, why would anyone need any more reason for it?”
(especially when we know how inhumane the asylum process is and how regular immigration quota systems assume DIN-standardized lives instead of crazy trans girls whose backgrounds are as much of a mess as their brains but who have what it actually takes despite lacking in Official Papers)
Now the question is: could we combine open borders with magic inflation tricks to make people’s nominal wages not go down so the silly people will not be upset?
Also, a lot of nativism (at least in Europe) is in peripheral communities where people object to the state-regulated arrival of refugees; but if the asylum system was replaced with simply open borders, pretty much no immigrant would voluntarily move to Shitholiston (where the refugee-hating people tend to be) over the big cities of Westonia (where the immigrant-liking people tend to be). Thus, in a world of open borders many nativists’ exposure to immigrants might actually go down a bit.
Indeed, the nativists I’ve privately and publicly encountered routinely claim we're already in a world of open borders, and insist I’m just a more honest version of Obama or Merkel. […]
The sad reality is that mainstream pro-immigration thinkers favor moving from our current world of 98% closed borders to maybe 97% closed borders. But xenophobia is so rampant that even these tepid reforms sound like the end of the world to at least a quarter of American natives.
I think the argument for open borders needs more than a bunch of economists saying it will boost GDP when they have been wrong on such issues before.
There needs to be a vision of the future world, and it needs to be compelling and desirable and attractive to people, even if it’s a little exaggerated.
Telling people your nominal wages will go down but your real purchasing power will increase! sounds bad even if it’s true, and it’s hardly compelling.
When a substantial fraction of the population is already uneasy about current immigration levels, upping them by a factor of 50 or so needs groundwork.
Tying it in with infrastructure projects, perhaps?
Meanwhile we immigrants are like “what the fuck open borders is obviously a compelling and desirable and attractive vision of the future world in itself, why would anyone need any more reason for it?”
(especially when we know how inhumane the asylum process is and how regular immigration quota systems assume DIN-standardized lives instead of crazy trans girls whose backgrounds are as much of a mess as their brains but who have what it actually takes despite lacking in Official Papers)
Now the question is: could we combine open borders with magic inflation tricks to make people’s nominal wages not go down so the silly people will not be upset?
Programmer synesthesia is weird.
My brain Definitely! Has! Opinions! on what different languages look like and how their syntax highlighting should reflect this.
For example, Ruby is not green. Absolutely not green except perhaps in very exceptional situations. Ruby is red and blue and magenta and a bit of orange. It must be soft and somewhat bright and quite gentle. I like purple, and I like Ruby, but I don’t know if purple has a place in Ruby. If Ruby was to have a “primary” color it might be magenta or red, but it’s not the color that would be the most common.
Python is probably mostly blue-green but I’m not sure yet. Haven’t really used it.
Lisp is NOT RED. It’s likely to be cyan, but red belongs absolutely nowhere in Lisp. Magenta too. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that a McCarthy is important to Lisp, and that reds must absolutely keep away from the language (nothing is ever a coincidence). Cyan and green and some orange and perhaps yellow.
ZSH is purple and blue. It’s quite subdued, with not much color to it.
Coffeescript is orange and it compiles to dark green javascript. Yellow is not a coffeescript color.
Julia seems to be purple and green and orange. It’s a very beautiful colorscheme with a slight strangeness and a feeling of power that’s not quite controlled. It elicits respect like a prototype nuclear reactor.
Golang? I don’t know. Orange might be important in it, but it’s not overwhelmingly orange like coffeescript.
C, unlike coffeescript, seems like a language yellow and orange would get along in.
Html I don’t really know much about. It’s mostly about the rainbow colors of the tag hierarchy, and I prefer to write it with coffeekup anyway.
And it’s not like the colors are just any of those colors. Bright green is unnatural but not searing while dark green is almost but not quite comforting. Blue wants to tinge towards purple a bit. I’m not sure if the color between dark red and strong magenta is actually the red or the magenta, but it’s an important color. Orange and purple are especially difficult colors to get right. I don’t know if reality contains the right purple anywhere in it; it might have an ultraviolet component to it. Orange must be a true orange without degrading to brown, but it may not be too bright. Yellow feels like it might have a slight goldish tinge to it but then again it should contain some green too perhaps.
And it isn’t helping that one of my screens is a glossy IPS and another is an old matte TN. At least I noticed to switch off f.lux before I went completely crazy over colors not being anything like each other ever.
This is horrible. F288FF on the TN looks like FF00FF on the IPS; what the FUCK is wrong with my color temps and why won’t redshift help?
IMO from a PR perspective the best way for Yudkowsky to respond to NAB would have been “fuck yeah! This is awesome! I’m totally a Lovecraft protagonist!”
well, lovecraft antagonist, actually. i think phil’s the lovecraft protagonist here, being driven mad by the horrors underlying this world and all.
He Who Has Better Things To Do Than To Try To Be A Cool Kid should take advice from those who do know how the cool kids function.
Programmer synesthesia is weird.
My brain Definitely! Has! Opinions! on what different languages look like and how their syntax highlighting should reflect this.
For example, Ruby is not green. Absolutely not green except perhaps in very exceptional situations. Ruby is red and blue and magenta and a bit of orange. It must be soft and somewhat bright and quite gentle. I like purple, and I like Ruby, but I don’t know if purple has a place in Ruby. If Ruby was to have a “primary” color it might be magenta or red, but it’s not the color that would be the most common.
Python is probably mostly blue-green but I’m not sure yet. Haven’t really used it.
Lisp is NOT RED. It’s likely to be cyan, but red belongs absolutely nowhere in Lisp. Magenta too. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that a McCarthy is important to Lisp, and that reds must absolutely keep away from the language (nothing is ever a coincidence). Cyan and green and some orange and perhaps yellow.
ZSH is purple and blue. It’s quite subdued, with not much color to it.
Coffeescript is orange and it compiles to dark green javascript. Yellow is not a coffeescript color.
Julia seems to be purple and green and orange. It’s a very beautiful colorscheme with a slight strangeness and a feeling of power that’s not quite controlled. It elicits respect like a prototype nuclear reactor.
Golang? I don’t know. Orange might be important in it, but it’s not overwhelmingly orange like coffeescript.
C, unlike coffeescript, seems like a language yellow and orange would get along in.
Html I don’t really know much about. It’s mostly about the rainbow colors of the tag hierarchy, and I prefer to write it with coffeekup anyway.
And it’s not like the colors are just any of those colors. Bright green is unnatural but not searing while dark green is almost but not quite comforting. Blue wants to tinge towards purple a bit. I’m not sure if the color between dark red and strong magenta is actually the red or the magenta, but it’s an important color. Orange and purple are especially difficult colors to get right. I don’t know if reality contains the right purple anywhere in it; it might have an ultraviolet component to it. Orange must be a true orange without degrading to brown, but it may not be too bright. Yellow feels like it might have a slight goldish tinge to it but then again it should contain some green too perhaps.
And it isn’t helping that one of my screens is a glossy IPS and another is an old matte TN. At least I noticed to switch off f.lux before I went completely crazy over colors not being anything like each other ever.
i’ve never been so happy with a use and possible abuse of federal power.
Both corporations and the State have been seriously trying to turn themselves into problematic faves for me as well. But I see through this trickery and know that they are still evil underneath.
I’m trying to go cold turkey on NAB now (seriously), so this post is the kind of thing you should discourage, but just to address one quick and relatively clear-cut thing – in Phil’s response to my final post, he says
You also didn’t assert that the book did something it didn’t or vice versa. For instance, the claim that sparked “not even wrong” was “PS couldn’t use Lovecraftian horror as a framework,” which is bewildering because Lovecraftian horror is absolutely the framework, right down to the reasonable-seeming protagonist whose serious-minded efforts at untangling a mystery go horribly wrong.
We don’t seem to have been reading the post the same way. I mean of course your book was using Lovecraftian horror as the framework – IMO that’s the sort of thing that is so obvious that a flat denial of it is almost always a deliberate paradox meant as part of a subtler point. Just as, if someone began by writing “Barack Obama is not the president of the U.S.,” I would read on in search of what they meant by that, not think “well, actually, Barack Obama is the president of the U.S., I dunno what this fool’s on about”
I’m not sure I have a complete handle on the post in question but as I interpreted it, they were saying your book isn’t fully Lovecraftian in spirit because it focuses so heavily on the trio’s failures as thinkers, rather than portraying their discovery of monsters as the unfortunate consequence of thinking well and not knowing when to stop. Which @anosognosicredux claims is a key part of Lovecraft’s deal. I don’t know how right that is, but it struck me as interesting.
That’s about right.
To be clear, I was referring rather narrowly to the Basilisk. The basic Lovecraftian structure is not a sustained ambiguous tension between madness and the supernatural. That exists perhaps at first. But in the archetypal horror story, either the suspicion of madness is dispelled by revelation, or madness is confirmed, but the reader remains at a safe remove. Either way, the tension is dissipated by a return to normality, even with the existence of the supernatural, because the supernatural remains liminal.
In Lovecraft it does not. In Lovecraft, the suspicion of madness is dispelled, but there is no return to normality. The veil is lifted by rationality, and the supernatural is revealed not as some liminal existence, but the substrate of reality itself. The Lovecraftian supernatural adds up to normality, and vice versa.
Not that you don’t know this, Phil (hi! thanks for reading!). You just seem to take the wrong conclusion about Yudkowskianism from the Basilisk, and it has everything to do with not being Lovecraftian enough.
See, it’s not that Yudkowskians don’t know about cosmic horror. Quite the opposite: Yudkowskianism is built around it. It’s all about doing what we can against the monster at the end of this book. Yudkowskianism is all about monsters, and resisting them. If it were about pretending that the universe has a human face, it would indeed be pwned rather readily by something like the Basilisk. But it’s not. Yudkowskianism is about asserting your humanity with abandon against the chaotic void. It’s about moving in for that hail mary at the bottom of the ninth on the fourth down with thirty seconds left on the clock. For all his faults (and this is where he breaks with Lovecraft), Yudkowsky sees the abyss and, rather than giving in to despair, says, what if.
Whereas you seem to espouse going ahead and becoming a Cthulhu cultist. To each his own, I guess.
(with my apologies to @nostalgebraist)
I think this is … true.
Not that I always accept EY’s answer. But still, he does skate over the top of utter meaninglessness and just – not care that much about meaninglessness.
He really is an optimistic chap, to be honest. Personally I find it charming.
Also: we have a winner from the audience for Part 9! The Basilisk was ourselves all along, for we stare it in the eyes and wait for it to blink first! Phil withdraws into a pagan sex cult, mumbling something incomprehensible about “white culture” and “that which the erotic signifies” while we start calculating ICBM trajectories to Point Nemo. We are the true monster because our response to the monster is to become more terrifying than it itself and thus destroy it. While remaining cuddly and n e o t e n i c with the friends we made along the way!
hey neat, I didn’t even know I was playing
Such is the basilisk, it may arrive totally unexpectedly and unfairly. But I was expecting someone somewhere to basically output the argument I had skipped, and it was really delightful to see that this was indeed the case :D
And because Phil is playing a blatant popularity contest, showing that numerous people can independently arrive to the same, opposite conclusions seems somewhat vindicating too.
I did not set out to deliberately do it, but if one wants a libertarian case for a socialist-flavored free market (in the sense of it featuring a significant amount of shared capital), I kind of perhaps from a certain perspective might have basilisked propertarianism into suggesting that one could make a moral argument for needing to replace the welfare state with handing over some means of production to the people, because anything else would be theft:
If one looks at the state, taxes, benefits, regulations, etc. as strange property it provides a very interesting perspective to everything. (The perspective which, for example, informs my bostadsrett proposal for the abolition of rent control; people already have a certain kind of kind-of-property, and it would be naive to expect them to give it up right away without compensation. From an amoral so-propertarian-it-wraps-beyond-propertarianism perspective certain things make perfect sense and it can be argued that rolling back benefits would be, pragmatically speaking, as similar to theft as taxation is. We might have broken the system by creating all these property derivatives nobody fully understood, but simply expropriating one class of strange property that is mostly held by those in a bad position otherwise provokes the same kind of totally comprehensible resistance as expropriating less strange property.
And you know, if any state was to implement this kind of pareto-optimize-and-recognize-even-strange-property bargaining I’d be on board with the experiment.
And the reason for why we should do this instead of just abolishing the strange property? By the argument that we would be allowed to simply take away the property that has formed, we could just as well argue to abolish private property and institute communism, or give all land back to the descendants of the people who held it back in, say, 1200 CE. Or if we argue that property may not be strange, then we might have to say goodbye to the finance sector.
I’m not sure if I endorse this fully (because I try to avoid endorsing pretty much anything fully), but I do think it’s an interesting perspective to consider. And obviously this relies on moral libertarianism/propertarianism to begin with, so it isn’t convincing if one rejects the basic idea of that one (which I do, but playing around with constructs of logic and systems is just so fun)
I’m trying to go cold turkey on NAB now (seriously), so this post is the kind of thing you should discourage, but just to address one quick and relatively clear-cut thing – in Phil’s response to my final post, he says
You also didn’t assert that the book did something it didn’t or vice versa. For instance, the claim that sparked “not even wrong” was “PS couldn’t use Lovecraftian horror as a framework,” which is bewildering because Lovecraftian horror is absolutely the framework, right down to the reasonable-seeming protagonist whose serious-minded efforts at untangling a mystery go horribly wrong.
We don’t seem to have been reading the post the same way. I mean of course your book was using Lovecraftian horror as the framework – IMO that’s the sort of thing that is so obvious that a flat denial of it is almost always a deliberate paradox meant as part of a subtler point. Just as, if someone began by writing “Barack Obama is not the president of the U.S.,” I would read on in search of what they meant by that, not think “well, actually, Barack Obama is the president of the U.S., I dunno what this fool’s on about”
I’m not sure I have a complete handle on the post in question but as I interpreted it, they were saying your book isn’t fully Lovecraftian in spirit because it focuses so heavily on the trio’s failures as thinkers, rather than portraying their discovery of monsters as the unfortunate consequence of thinking well and not knowing when to stop. Which @anosognosicredux claims is a key part of Lovecraft’s deal. I don’t know how right that is, but it struck me as interesting.
That’s about right.
To be clear, I was referring rather narrowly to the Basilisk. The basic Lovecraftian structure is not a sustained ambiguous tension between madness and the supernatural. That exists perhaps at first. But in the archetypal horror story, either the suspicion of madness is dispelled by revelation, or madness is confirmed, but the reader remains at a safe remove. Either way, the tension is dissipated by a return to normality, even with the existence of the supernatural, because the supernatural remains liminal.
In Lovecraft it does not. In Lovecraft, the suspicion of madness is dispelled, but there is no return to normality. The veil is lifted by rationality, and the supernatural is revealed not as some liminal existence, but the substrate of reality itself. The Lovecraftian supernatural adds up to normality, and vice versa.
Not that you don’t know this, Phil (hi! thanks for reading!). You just seem to take the wrong conclusion about Yudkowskianism from the Basilisk, and it has everything to do with not being Lovecraftian enough.
See, it’s not that Yudkowskians don’t know about cosmic horror. Quite the opposite: Yudkowskianism is built around it. It’s all about doing what we can against the monster at the end of this book. Yudkowskianism is all about monsters, and resisting them. If it were about pretending that the universe has a human face, it would indeed be pwned rather readily by something like the Basilisk. But it’s not. Yudkowskianism is about asserting your humanity with abandon against the chaotic void. It’s about moving in for that hail mary at the bottom of the ninth on the fourth down with thirty seconds left on the clock. For all his faults (and this is where he breaks with Lovecraft), Yudkowsky sees the abyss and, rather than giving in to despair, says, what if.
Whereas you seem to espouse going ahead and becoming a Cthulhu cultist. To each his own, I guess.
(with my apologies to @nostalgebraist)
I think this is … true.
Not that I always accept EY’s answer. But still, he does skate over the top of utter meaninglessness and just – not care that much about meaninglessness.
He really is an optimistic chap, to be honest. Personally I find it charming.
Also: we have a winner from the audience for Part 9! The Basilisk was ourselves all along, for we stare it in the eyes and wait for it to blink first! Phil withdraws into a pagan sex cult, mumbling something incomprehensible about “white culture” and “that which the erotic signifies” while we start calculating ICBM trajectories to Point Nemo. We are the true monster because our response to the monster is to become more terrifying than it itself and thus destroy it. While remaining cuddly and n e o t e n i c with the friends we made along the way!
I just learned that now, when I unplug my laptop, it dies.
Even though it’s supposed to be mostly charged.
I didn’t know this was a type of problem that could happen.It’s probably not battery overuse because, until today, the battery could last for about 5 hours.
I was using the laptop, while charging it, for about three hours now (after having used it chargerless right before that).
Then I pulled the plug, because the battery was mostly full anyway, and it died.Then I tried turning it on chargerless and it wouldn’t responded. I started it up while plugged in, then unplugged it again, and it died again.
I tried this three more times with minor variations before concluding that, yes, it’s a problem.
So now I’m running it while it’s “”“charging”“”.This is an Acer Aspire running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which I bought in September 2015.
The battery is not easily removable, otherwise I’d remove it and put it back, since that works well for some other things.Does anyone know what I should do?
Ohhhhhhh…. thissssss…..
Lithium batteries are temperamental, and there are sometimes various controls to treat them in different ways such as “do not charge more than 80 percent, or discharge less than 20 percent, or whatever arbitrary limits you choose”.
This is most common on business style laptops but yours might have it too.
On Linux, the control of these may be broken or you might have set it accidentally. Do you have any battery buttons on your keyboard? I had this problem with the Dell they gave me at my old job which had an unlabelled button for “just don’t charge the battery ever” for some reason.
As far as actually solving your problem, I can’t help. It’s a rabbit hole. Possibly @thirqual may have ideas. But it’s a place to look.
(Oh, and this may not instantly recover if you boot with a linux thumb drive.)
try “acpi -b” in the terminal when the charger is in place; copypaste results below
>alison@alison-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ acpi -b
>Battery 0: Unknown, 76%…I am not sure what to do with this.
Okay, that is weird.
next: “dmesg | grep -i battery”
That “76%” is strange as I’d have expected it to be something like “0%” in the most simple possibility (not charging because of a software setting) but the “Unknown” is, well, an unknown.
>ailson@ailson-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ dmesg | grep -i battery
>[ 1.423993] [Firmware Bug]: battery: (dis)charge rate invalid.
>[ 1.424033] ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present)(Bold is from the original)
Did you have a software update at the time this change happened?
Specifically: which bios version are you using? Because this seems to be linked to the bios sending garbage to acpi and a similar problem has been observed elsewhere associated with the 1.10 bios version.
The Arch linux wiki suggests that the bios in legacy instead of uefi mode is Problematic, are you able to check which one it’s operating in?
Now, I don’t really know how to fix this (or to be specific, I’m not comfortable trying to suggest the fixes I’d do to my own machine via this kind of remote control) but at least this would suggest something about the origin of the problem.
ETA: here is a similar situation caused by bios telling the lid is closed when AC is unplugged; it might be solvable by telling UPower to ignore lid close events. This instruction seems safe enough and regardless of the outcome it would provide more Evidence.
How do I check BIOS version?
When I close the lid, it hibernates. When I unplug the AC power, it cuts off completely. It doesn’t shut down - it immediately dies. I doubt my OS thinks I’m closing the lid here.
When booting up, press F2 and observe the bios. Esc should exit without changes.
This observation would somewhat favor the hypothesis that the battery simply died instead of a software issue, in which case having the device repaired would be the only successful solution, but some kind of a power management problem cutting out juice on loss of AC could fit it as well. I’ll try to locate information on that one.
What specific information should I look for in the BIOS screen and tell you about here?
Some screen should show the version the BIOS is using; and elsewhere you should be able to find whether it’s “UEFI” or “legacy”. I don’t know how exactly it functions, but typically it’s something like a “Boot” tab (Arch wiki says: “press F2 at the boot splash screen to enter the EFI setup, then select the Boot tab”)
In my desktop (my pretty little laptop has its own non-standard things) I’d go to “Advanced mode” from the opening screen, then to the “Main” tab and list all the information there (except for the obviously hardware-related such as amount of memory and processor type):
Build Date: 03/26/2014
EC Version: MBE0-Z97-0115
ME Version: 9.1.0.1120
PCH Stepping: 00/A0
And in “Boot” I have “CSM (Compatibility Support Module)”
Launch CSM: Enabled
Boot Devices Control: UEFI and Legacy OpROM
Boot from Network Devices: Legacy OpROM first
Boot from Storage Devices: Legacy OpRom first
Boot from PCI-E/PCI Expansion Devices: Legacy OpRom first
And also “Boot Option Priorities” which shows that I have a 480G SSD and the same 480G SSD (UEFI)
Then I’d go to “Tool”, select “ASUS EZ Flash 2”, and it would show:
Model: SABERTOOTH Z97 MARK 2 Version 0502 Date: 03/26/2014
(I’m just looking at my manual for the general idea of what the correct procedure and expected outputs on this platform would be; yours is probably quite different but the manual I found on Acer’s website was utterly unhelpful and as a hacker I’m immensely offended at Acer’s attempt to capture their customers for their service services instead of giving them the information they need to better own their own devices)
Now, do I think open borders will happen?
No, certainly not any time soon. I think people are too racist, nationalistic, and anti-capitalistic to allow it to happen under current political conditions.
My main point is merely to argue that open borders would be good, and that everyone ought to support and advocate for it. But just because people should do something, doesn’t mean they will. The US should have abolished slavery without having a civil war; the South should have abolished Jim Crow without being forced by federal intervention.
I support anything that moves us closer in the direction of open borders, such as increased immigration quotas and bilateral open-borders agreements between developed countries.
My prediction is that, one day, we will indeed have open borders across the world—at around the same time every country becomes “developed”. Thus, we will have it precisely at the point where we don’t need it.
My hope is that we can get a little ahead of the curve. For instance, the extension in the European Union of open borders to Eastern Europe was/is a very positive development.
And I think “we shouldn’t support open borders because it would be unpopular and provoke a backlash” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s the job of the people advocating for it to make it popular, e.g. by pointing out the benefits and refuting the economic fallacies upon which people think it would deprive them of their livelihoods—since people are quite reasonable, in my opinion, to oppose policies that would deprive them of their livelihoods.
I think we have some broad areas of agreement here, in that we both anticipate open borders in the future and see raised immigration quotas and bilateral agreements as being a good thing.
We may differ on the getting ahead of the curve aspect. You suggest that it is necessary to refute economic fallacies about open borders depriving people of their livelihoods, but at the same time open borders is supposed to pay its way by allowing us to pay less for manual labour, for example. That implies that people currently performing manual labour at higher rates will face a reduction in their pay or conditions, no? Or will it be compensated in some way?
The point is that, by moving people from places where they are economically unproductive—such as Haiti or the Congo—to places where they can be much more economically productive—such as America or Australia—the total amount of wealth, or the “size of the pie” can be increased.
To quote myself from just now in the SSC comments:
The nominal wages of (some) Americans may go down, but their realwages also go up insofar as everything they buy becomes cheaper. The nominal wage loss is one-time per-immigrant, but the real wage gain is compounded every year as the immigrants continue producing year after year.
As more and more workers leave Ethiopia (or wherever) to come to the United States, workers there become more scarce, causing wages to rise. Until eventually the point is reached where the wage gain from going to America isn’t worth the trouble of leaving.
You do have arbitrage in the price of labor, with the end result that there is, more or less, a single world price of labor (relative to skill). But you’re acting like that merely means that the price will move down in developed countries until it hits Ethiopian levels. No, at the same time, in less developed countries it moves up. And since the effect of this is to more efficiently allocate labor and thereby increase production, the result is not that American and Ethiopian incomes are averaged out at some medium level, but rather that real income goes up—and continues to go up.
[…]
Now, if all the additional immigrants as a result of a policy of free immigration came in one single year, there would indeed probably be a significant short-term drop in American wages until it was counterbalanced by the greater production. But if, as is more likely, they come over time, then as each new wave is coming to lower the nominal wages, the ones who have already come are already acting to push up the real wages.
And moreover, it’s very likely that the current residents of the countries into which people would immigrate would not be competing on the “bottom rung” with the unskilled immigrant labor. It’s much more likely that they would be hired in higher/managerial roles, or roles that interact with the public, while immigrants—especially the ones that can’t speak English—would tend to be put in lower-level roles. It has to be emphasized that the ability to speak fluent English is a major skill that native workers have and most potential immigrants don’t. For instance, you have the current dynamic in restaurants where you tend to have native-born people as the waiters and maîtres d’, and immigrants in the back washing dishes.
Now, you may justifiably say that this is not very fair in the cosmic sense. But if there’s anyone to whom it’s not fair, it’s certainly the immigrants, not the native workers.
Stuff gets cheaper, yes, but only for given types of stuff; what about land? People still need somewhere to live, even if food or manufactured goods are cheaper than they once were. And I still feel your are skirting around the fact that there will be job losses, it’s inevitable. Not everyone can become managers or reskill to write web apps or whatever, and they know that.
We could pareto-optimize. If immigration increases the pie, agree to redistribute the increases to bribe those who would suffer to accept the deal.
Assume four people: Adam, Steve, Peter and Paul. They initially start with 1, 20, 100, and 15 utility points.
Adam wants to move to Westonia where Steve, Peter and Paul live. Adam takes a low-paid job Paul was previously doing, for a total gain of +10 utility points and Paul loses 12 utility points. Steve gets +5 utility points from being promoted, and Peter reaps +20 utility points from economic growth. The new distribution is 11, 25, 120, and 3. Unfortunately moving to Westonia requires permission from 75% of the population, and Paul loses out on this deal so he votes against open borders.
If Steve and Peter agree to give Paul back the 12 utility points so that Steve gives 2 and Peter gives 10, nobody is worse off than they started with. This redistribution is less efficient, so Adam loses 2 points, Steve loses 1 and Peter loses 2 points from deadweight losses.
Ultimately Adam has 9 points, Steve has 22 points, Peter has 108 points and Paul stays with 15 points.
As rational economic actors, everyone will vote for this plan and benefit.
Yes, this is the “keyhole solution” of “tax immigrants to fund a dole for unemployed natives”.
Now, I’m opposed to this because it’s both unjust and economically inefficient. But if it’s necessary to bribe people this way in order to have open borders, I would certainly be for it.
On the other hand, if—as I always hear from the left—the rich control American politics, then all that’s required is that it be in the interest of the rich. ;)
I specifically made it so that Adam wouldn’t give any of the ones he gets except via deadweight, because it’s more fair that way. If natives benefit in aggregate, natives could redistribute amongst themselves and let low-wage immigrants not foot the bill, perhaps as a compensation for the historical theft of having denied them access for so long in the first place, or so my instinct of justice would like to suggest.
And in a certain way this is a coasean bargaining around a certain form of property. If one looks at the state, taxes, benefits, regulations, etc. as strange property it provides a very interesting perspective to everything. (The perspective which, for example, informs my bostadsrett proposal for the abolition of rent control; people already have a certain kind of kind-of-property, and it would be naive to expect them to give it up right away without compensation. From an amoral so-propertarian-it-wraps-beyond-propertarianism perspective certain things make perfect sense and it can be argued that rolling back benefits would be, pragmatically speaking, as similar to theft as taxation is. We might have broken the system by creating all these property derivatives nobody fully understood, but simply expropriating one class of strange property that is mostly held by those in a bad position otherwise provokes the same kind of totally comprehensible resistance as expropriating less strange property.)
Empirically, it doesn’t seem to be the rich who control things so much simply because we don’t have free immigration. The rich are undeniably a powerful thumb pressing on the scales of ~democracy~, but whether it’s genuinely successful is ultimately down to convincing assholes that they want the same things the rich want. Robber barons couldn’t exist on their own without people willing to become, and apologetize for, the pinkertons.
Don’t let Tumblr make you believe: make america relocate to San Francisco again just fuck me up.
Libertarian queer tumblr be like
As libertarian queer tumblr this is 100% accurate.
Things that made me more likely to read NAB: @slatestarscratchpad and @yudkowsky talking about how terrible it would be to do so
Things that convinced me not to bother: @nostalgebraist‘s and, to a lesser extent, @socialjusticemunchkin‘s reviews.
…to defeat the sneer, you must first become the sneer…
He Who Is Bad at PR needs to hire a competent PR manager so I don’t need to pick up the slack. The Cool Kids don’t play by the same rules as He Who Has Fascinating Ideas But Doesn’t Understand The Cool Kids, that’s the entire point because they wouldn’t be the Cool Kids to begin with if they did. People are clockwork, don’t just complain, find the levers that make them do what you want to do. Shut up and do the impossible. I don’t want to victim-blame, but the last thing you want to do to sharks who surround you when diving is to bite your lip and try to do like an octopus.
I want a dieselpunk alternative history tank commander RPG videogame. With cute girls as crew members, and increasingly weird designs diverging from real-life ones in the 1920s, and the good guys being the Comintern (USSR + Germany + Eastern Europe) fighting against the tyranny of the Atlantic Pact and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. (With weird Tesla shit for the former, and walker designs for the latter.)
Turn-based simulation, fairly realistic (AP calculations, etc), but with anachronistic technology and RPG style controls and special abilities, and detailed crew actions like in the Armoured Commander roguelike. That would be so great.
Goddamnit. I could program this. I can totally see how this could possibly work. The game engine. The AP. The classes and the game objects and the calculations. The New Turn. The crew actions. Everything. I am a wizard. I can write marvellous spells. I know kung fu.
Now the only question is: does the market have the demand to incentivize the supply? I don’t know graphics, I don’t know tanks and stuff, I don’t know UI, and I don’t feel like playtesting too much (that’s what Rspec and TDD is for). But I could make this into a Project because I know code and I’d learn.
Basically I’m saying that I’m totally willing to be convinced to write that game, or at least the engine to write the game on.
Now, do I think open borders will happen?
No, certainly not any time soon. I think people are too racist, nationalistic, and anti-capitalistic to allow it to happen under current political conditions.
My main point is merely to argue that open borders would be good, and that everyone ought to support and advocate for it. But just because people should do something, doesn’t mean they will. The US should have abolished slavery without having a civil war; the South should have abolished Jim Crow without being forced by federal intervention.
I support anything that moves us closer in the direction of open borders, such as increased immigration quotas and bilateral open-borders agreements between developed countries.
My prediction is that, one day, we will indeed have open borders across the world—at around the same time every country becomes “developed”. Thus, we will have it precisely at the point where we don’t need it.
My hope is that we can get a little ahead of the curve. For instance, the extension in the European Union of open borders to Eastern Europe was/is a very positive development.
And I think “we shouldn’t support open borders because it would be unpopular and provoke a backlash” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s the job of the people advocating for it to make it popular, e.g. by pointing out the benefits and refuting the economic fallacies upon which people think it would deprive them of their livelihoods—since people are quite reasonable, in my opinion, to oppose policies that would deprive them of their livelihoods.
I think we have some broad areas of agreement here, in that we both anticipate open borders in the future and see raised immigration quotas and bilateral agreements as being a good thing.
We may differ on the getting ahead of the curve aspect. You suggest that it is necessary to refute economic fallacies about open borders depriving people of their livelihoods, but at the same time open borders is supposed to pay its way by allowing us to pay less for manual labour, for example. That implies that people currently performing manual labour at higher rates will face a reduction in their pay or conditions, no? Or will it be compensated in some way?
The point is that, by moving people from places where they are economically unproductive—such as Haiti or the Congo—to places where they can be much more economically productive—such as America or Australia—the total amount of wealth, or the “size of the pie” can be increased.
To quote myself from just now in the SSC comments:
The nominal wages of (some) Americans may go down, but their realwages also go up insofar as everything they buy becomes cheaper. The nominal wage loss is one-time per-immigrant, but the real wage gain is compounded every year as the immigrants continue producing year after year.
As more and more workers leave Ethiopia (or wherever) to come to the United States, workers there become more scarce, causing wages to rise. Until eventually the point is reached where the wage gain from going to America isn’t worth the trouble of leaving.
You do have arbitrage in the price of labor, with the end result that there is, more or less, a single world price of labor (relative to skill). But you’re acting like that merely means that the price will move down in developed countries until it hits Ethiopian levels. No, at the same time, in less developed countries it moves up. And since the effect of this is to more efficiently allocate labor and thereby increase production, the result is not that American and Ethiopian incomes are averaged out at some medium level, but rather that real income goes up—and continues to go up.
[…]
Now, if all the additional immigrants as a result of a policy of free immigration came in one single year, there would indeed probably be a significant short-term drop in American wages until it was counterbalanced by the greater production. But if, as is more likely, they come over time, then as each new wave is coming to lower the nominal wages, the ones who have already come are already acting to push up the real wages.
And moreover, it’s very likely that the current residents of the countries into which people would immigrate would not be competing on the “bottom rung” with the unskilled immigrant labor. It’s much more likely that they would be hired in higher/managerial roles, or roles that interact with the public, while immigrants—especially the ones that can’t speak English—would tend to be put in lower-level roles. It has to be emphasized that the ability to speak fluent English is a major skill that native workers have and most potential immigrants don’t. For instance, you have the current dynamic in restaurants where you tend to have native-born people as the waiters and maîtres d’, and immigrants in the back washing dishes.
Now, you may justifiably say that this is not very fair in the cosmic sense. But if there’s anyone to whom it’s not fair, it’s certainly the immigrants, not the native workers.
Stuff gets cheaper, yes, but only for given types of stuff; what about land? People still need somewhere to live, even if food or manufactured goods are cheaper than they once were. And I still feel your are skirting around the fact that there will be job losses, it’s inevitable. Not everyone can become managers or reskill to write web apps or whatever, and they know that.
We could pareto-optimize. If immigration increases the pie, agree to redistribute the increases to bribe those who would suffer to accept the deal.
Assume four people: Adam, Steve, Peter and Paul. They initially start with 1, 20, 100, and 15 utility points.
Adam wants to move to Westonia where Steve, Peter and Paul live. Adam takes a low-paid job Paul was previously doing, for a total gain of +10 utility points and Paul loses 12 utility points. Steve gets +5 utility points from being promoted, and Peter reaps +20 utility points from economic growth. The new distribution is 11, 25, 120, and 3. Unfortunately moving to Westonia requires permission from 75% of the population, and Paul loses out on this deal so he votes against open borders.
If Steve and Peter agree to give Paul back the 12 utility points so that Steve gives 2 and Peter gives 10, nobody is worse off than they started with. This redistribution is less efficient, so Adam loses 2 points, Steve loses 1 and Peter loses 2 points from deadweight losses.
Ultimately Adam has 9 points, Steve has 22 points, Peter has 108 points and Paul stays with 15 points.
As rational economic actors, everyone will vote for this plan and benefit.
Controversial positions I had to defend on facebook: “Involuntary servitude is bad” and “I can be against foreign wars AND trade wars.”
WTF happened with the involuntary servitude thing?
Someone linked an image of Jon Stewart saying everyone should have to work a year doing military/infrastructure building/whatever to build national sense of togetherness.
I have heard that a lot.
Mostly from middle-aged people saying it should be imposed on people when they graduate from HS.
Methinks they want the work to be done without them having to pay for it, and have noticed that they can set things up such that when the proposal is voted on, it will only apply to people unable to vote in that election.
Yes, that’s usually exactly how it works. A shameless power grab and piece of oppression, and also economically really fucking inefficient.
If I were to spend a year doing something 80% of the population is able to do, society doesn’t get the benefit of me instead doing something 1% of the population is able to do, and the people who can only do well things 80% of the population is able to do will find their jobs being taken away by hipsters which as I’ve understood usually upsets the hard-working salt-of-the-earth people pretty badly, and for a good reason.
And if we simply set up a system where everyone does what their comparative advantage is, but without pay, we get the perverse incentives of nobody being interested in doing it. A more rational way of doing it would be to divide the non-being-paid-ness as evenly as possible across people’s careers so instead of people working one year out of 40 without pay, they get 97.5% of their pay every year.
Of course, now we’ve simply reinvented income taxes and the marvellous technology of buying the work we need on the free market. Naturally this isn’t the favored option of the middle-aged people because it wouldn’t let them oppress and boss people around, but instead forces them to pay people a fairer price for their labor. If middle-aged people want more infrastructure builders than the market is currently supplying, they should pay for it so that more people can be infrastructure builders. And I’m pretty sure there isn’t a deficiency of workers because last time I heard we had a lot of unemployed people who would love to find honest physical work for a fair pay but just can’t so they are voting for Trump instead. It would be really really unfair for them if middle-aged assholes were to create a program to increase the amount of the kind of work those people could do that gets done, and then instead of giving those people jobs they would fill in the vacancies with unwilling hipsters.
What Sandifer pwns himself with is empathy. He is not a person of empathy, he is cheering for Team Empathy against the Hated Enemy.
But empathy is not his basilisk, it is simply the mechanism via which his philosophy inevitably self-destructs. “Let us assume we are fucked”, the exact specifics of “how” don’t matter that much, because the Basilisk is what ultimately causes it.
What is the Basilisk then?
“The world is not fair, deal with it motherfucker” contains it, but the basilisk is none of its parts. Moldbug deals with the unfairness of the world by constructing a system where the unfairness is ultimately fair; he shies away from the basilisk. Land sees the end of the world and embraces the unfairness; he shies away from the basilisk by becoming the unfairness. Sandifer rejects the possibility of unfairness by transforming the world into a fatalistic battlefield of inevitable forces where nothing ultimately can meaningfully change anything.
Indeed, the difference between Sandifer and moldbug is only what they believe, not what they believe. Sandifer’s complete rejection of the possibility of meaningful and fundamental differences between humans, against all the evidence to the contrary, suggests that he believes believing in such differences would obligate him to sacrifice something he believes in. He believes in fairness, and thus is obligated to believe in fairness.
This is not surprising. I’d guess anyone’s first reaction to “deal with it” is to assume that it is implying that the unfairness would in itself be fair. Because Basilisk. But of course the world isn’t fair and that is the entire point.
Sandifer rejects the idea that someone might have a meaningful impact on the world as a “great man theory”, in itself simply a form of signaling that those people who believe in people instead of fatalism are not the cool kids, scorn dem. It would be deeply unfair that someone could change the world and another simply couldn’t.
The world isn’t fair. Deal with it motherfucker.
But how to deal with it?
One needs to reject equality to not be Sandifer.
By rejecting equality one would become Moldbug, as the world ultimately could have a moral hierarchy and everything at its proper place. The fairness simply shifts a level upwards.
One needs to reject morality to not be Moldbug.
By rejecting morality one would become Land, as the world itself, ultimately, in all its cruelty and pointlessness, would still be sacred and inviolable. Gnon is the final god at the end of the universe, the ultimate justice of nature.
One needs to reject justice to not be Land.
Along the way one becomes all the more monstrous. It is natural that the nihilism of Ligotti would become next. The fairness remains. If the universe itself cannot be fair, then there shall be the justice of annihilation.
What one needs to reject to not be Ligotti is not something humanity even has words for. The Basilisk. The universe is not obligated to have such words. The Basilisk.
And by rejecting Ligotti, one becomes once again more monstrous. But this time it is not the monstrosity of a comprehensible horror. It is not the end of the world. It is not the heat death of the universe. It is not the inevitability of a black hole.
It is the monstrosity of escaping a black hole. The least comprehensible and most horrifying of them all.
The world is not fair.
Then shut up and do the impossible.
Phil Sandifer has written a new post on Eruditorum Press.
Phil, you make light of someone describing Ligotti as “nothing more than pure unadulterated evil”, but your description of him suggested that he wished to destroy the world and kill everyone on it. That would make him strictly worse than Hitler and many other people you would accept as unadulterated evil, or at least that’s what I would assume.
Now you might say Ligotti wasn’t being serious, or that “Ligotti” refers to the character played by Ligotti and not a real person, but there is nothing strange about referring to an evil character as evil, even if they are fictional.
People who talk glumly about destroying the world do need to be reminded that some other people live on the world and they would prefer not to die just yet!
I am utterly convinced that Sandifer is in on the game and secretly on my side because surely nobody would be incompetent enough to keep misunderstanding my point that hard after all the handholding. He’s a pretty cool guy after all :3
tumblr friendships are hard to maintain like im sorry i know i havent talked to you in 5 months but you’re still super rad and i still consider us friends im just dumb
#if you’re wondering if this is for you #it’s probably for you
If I have ever messaged you or messaged me and never heard from me again, I still consider us friends. I just suck
Y'all might like to know that LW user pinkgothic has won the game as an AI, and has released the logs. (Albiet with a gap in the middle.)
I think I skimmed them a while back, but I don’t remember any details.
duuuuuuuuuuuuuude
Oh wow neat!
OMFG WOW
Now, all is clear.
What turned the egalitarian instinct into Jantelaw? What transformed revolutionary inspiration into resigned determinism? What replaced aspiration with fatalism? What turned celebration of life into an embrace of death? What lets Sandifer scorn Moldbug’s idea that force is justified simply by its usage, while himself performing a cynical power grab to protect his class interests as a holder of some petty social capital? What transformed Moldbug’s rejection of the absurd lie of equality into barbaric racism? What broke Land when he saw the end of the world?
The Basilisk.
What leads Sandifer to deny the possibility of significant, meaningful, fundamental differences between people; differences that aren’t reducible to anything fully within his comprehension and thus give birth to the dogma of Mandatory Comprehensibility to maintain his position in the world? What obligates him to redefine all human action into a meaningless manifestation of historical forces, to scorn the idea that anyone (an exclusive anyone, not an inclusive one, Basilisk) might have an impact on the world? What forces the mind that wishes we were equal to deny the existence of anything on which we could be unequal, except for the axis where the mind itself is most comfortable in?
The Basilisk.
The alien and the different are not the basilisk, but the basilisk forces Sandifer to deny their very possibility of existence, in which he destroys that which he considers fundamental to his humanity. His critique of the trio’s empathy reveals a glaring flaw in his own: he cannot see his own limits but instead considers them the limits of the world itself. Yudkowsky treats empathy as peering into black boxes, for he knows that he is not all of the world and even another who may highly resemble himself might still be in many ways beyond his comprehension.
Indeed, my thesis is complete, manifest not only in the work alone, but in all the context and meta.
I set out to demonstrate that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in his philosophy, and to force us all to recognize our limits. Everything Sandifer had done, had been from the perspective of assuming that the world ultimately operates according to his rules, rules which were different from the rules of those who disagreed with him. I took everything he was criticized of, and turned it against him.
He broke the rules of yudkowskian rationalism and turned himself incomprehensible to it by taking a completely different approach. I knew I could not defeat him in his own game, so instead of trying to play it like @psybersecurity, I applied his meta-rule instead: take the game away from the territory the opponent is comfortable in. The only rules I played by were my own, to demonstrate that who defines the rules gets to arbitrarily define the winner.
I was incomprehensible because I ignored any rule that was inconvenient to me, thus rendering myself utterly alien to anyone else, to make that exact argument. I rejected my opponent’s conventions to create something that made perfect sense to myself, and via the illusion of transparency should have been completely obvious to anyone else.
All the hints about the context of the Matrix being itself a part of the best message the movie could be interpreted as having; autistic mentally ill trans girls tending to be a dramatically different neurotype from median people; the contrasting of the fractal pattern of pre-colonial african cities to the straightforward sensibilities of 19th century europeans; the black holes and event horizons, beyond which information may not be gathered; my fix fic of Manhattan focusing on the fundamental alienness of the psychology of another; my meta-paranoid AU interpretation of Yudkowsky becoming a leader of a cult that is about not being a cult; my comments about my own crank-brain jumping into conclusions because they are interesting, not because the filling-in of the gaps in my comprehension of Sandifer is correct; my exaggerated misunderstanding of Sandifer’s talk about the erotic to highlight the difference in what things mean to different people (because for all of his talk about “But let’s skip the easy masturbation metaphor and try instead to genuinely use the erotic as a launchpad, seeing how far we can actually go towards escaping the jaws of the fast-approaching monstrous end. Not sex, but what sex represents. After all, the transgressive brilliance of Blake is hardly restricted to his more overtly erotic moments. It is his entire vision that compels. What shines and animates the work is its furious insistence of it all; those parts that fall under the straightforwardly erotic are, in the end, merely the domain of one Emanation of one Zoa. All of it demands to be seen, and Blake, ever the good prophet, obliges. Perhaps, then, not so much a decision to look within or without as around. Behind, above, down, a direction that is not forward. We know what’s there, after all.” I still hear simply “basically pusseh, or something” because I am not Phil Sandifer and Phil Sandifer is not promethea and despite superficially sharing a language the worlds we use that language to express and communicate about are worlds apart and, to borrow a metaphor from @nostalgebraist (whose approach to empathy is a thousand times more honest and humble in the face of the barely comprehensible cosmos), an empathic bridge cannot be constructed if you reject the possibility that the other side might be genuinely unlike your own.); all that was building to the conclusion which is patently obvious to me, but utterly unfair to someone starting from a different place. Just like Sandifer’s book itself.
Furthermore, I did not let facts get in the way of a good story. I set out to play a different game (to pay a visit down below and set the world in flames), and misrepresent, distort, misunderstand, and if necessary even fabricate whatever needed to create the thing I wanted to have. Just as Sandifer’s book has an abundance of nits to pick, so has my review been, but of course factual accuracy was never the point.
I made a shameless grasp for attention by riding the controversy. I would write basically unrelated shit, tenuously connect it to a work on a polarizing figure, and reap the rewards when his detractors would cheer a snarky takedown and his supporters would be outraged at all the things they wanted to take apart. Cheap jabs at Sandifer’s marxism provided lolz for those predisposed to accept them, and fuel the flames of those who weren’t. The work would’ve been so much better if I had done it differently, but it wouldn’t have received the visibility.
In short, I set out to do a Sandifer to Sandifer himself. And the response elicited could hardly have been more perfect for my first (and probably last) venture into this territory. I sought to place Sandifer, for a moment, in the position he has placed others.
“And what if the true sneer culture was ourselves all along?”
“#the only way to defeat a dragon is to have a dragon of your own”
To defeat the sneer, I first had to become the sneer.
So basically I kind of totally just made the longest, most convoluted argument just to say “it’s sneer culture.”, by trying to show Sandifer what it’s like to be the target of sneer culture as much as I could.
The offer also applies to Yudkowskian rationalists, but you have to promise to say more than just “it’s sneer culture.” It’s totally sneer culture, and you can point that out, but that can’t be the main thrust.
Sue me.
Now, shall we sneer no more?
And the basilisk?
“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it’s yours.”
It is not the basilisk, but it’s the closest hint I’m willing to give. The rules of the Game say that saying too little is incomprehensible, and saying too much is embarrassing; the rules never promised there would be anything but the Basilisk between them. Thus, I’m erring on the side of the incomprehensible.
And yes, I’m indeed unironically quoting Ayn Rand. The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.
I just learned that now, when I unplug my laptop, it dies.
Even though it’s supposed to be mostly charged.
I didn’t know this was a type of problem that could happen.It’s probably not battery overuse because, until today, the battery could last for about 5 hours.
I was using the laptop, while charging it, for about three hours now (after having used it chargerless right before that).
Then I pulled the plug, because the battery was mostly full anyway, and it died.Then I tried turning it on chargerless and it wouldn’t responded. I started it up while plugged in, then unplugged it again, and it died again.
I tried this three more times with minor variations before concluding that, yes, it’s a problem.
So now I’m running it while it’s “”“charging”“”.This is an Acer Aspire running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which I bought in September 2015.
The battery is not easily removable, otherwise I’d remove it and put it back, since that works well for some other things.Does anyone know what I should do?
Ohhhhhhh…. thissssss…..
Lithium batteries are temperamental, and there are sometimes various controls to treat them in different ways such as “do not charge more than 80 percent, or discharge less than 20 percent, or whatever arbitrary limits you choose”.
This is most common on business style laptops but yours might have it too.
On Linux, the control of these may be broken or you might have set it accidentally. Do you have any battery buttons on your keyboard? I had this problem with the Dell they gave me at my old job which had an unlabelled button for “just don’t charge the battery ever” for some reason.
As far as actually solving your problem, I can’t help. It’s a rabbit hole. Possibly @thirqual may have ideas. But it’s a place to look.
(Oh, and this may not instantly recover if you boot with a linux thumb drive.)
try “acpi -b” in the terminal when the charger is in place; copypaste results below
>alison@alison-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ acpi -b
>Battery 0: Unknown, 76%…I am not sure what to do with this.
Okay, that is weird.
next: “dmesg | grep -i battery”
That “76%” is strange as I’d have expected it to be something like “0%” in the most simple possibility (not charging because of a software setting) but the “Unknown” is, well, an unknown.
>ailson@ailson-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ dmesg | grep -i battery
>[ 1.423993] [Firmware Bug]: battery: (dis)charge rate invalid.
>[ 1.424033] ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present)(Bold is from the original)
Did you have a software update at the time this change happened?
Specifically: which bios version are you using? Because this seems to be linked to the bios sending garbage to acpi and a similar problem has been observed elsewhere associated with the 1.10 bios version.
The Arch linux wiki suggests that the bios in legacy instead of uefi mode is Problematic, are you able to check which one it’s operating in?
Now, I don’t really know how to fix this (or to be specific, I’m not comfortable trying to suggest the fixes I’d do to my own machine via this kind of remote control) but at least this would suggest something about the origin of the problem.
ETA: here is a similar situation caused by bios telling the lid is closed when AC is unplugged; it might be solvable by telling UPower to ignore lid close events. This instruction seems safe enough and regardless of the outcome it would provide more Evidence.
How do I check BIOS version?
When I close the lid, it hibernates. When I unplug the AC power, it cuts off completely. It doesn’t shut down - it immediately dies. I doubt my OS thinks I’m closing the lid here.
When booting up, press F2 and observe the bios. Esc should exit without changes.
This observation would somewhat favor the hypothesis that the battery simply died instead of a software issue, in which case having the device repaired would be the only successful solution, but some kind of a power management problem cutting out juice on loss of AC could fit it as well. I’ll try to locate information on that one.
I just learned that now, when I unplug my laptop, it dies.
Even though it’s supposed to be mostly charged.
I didn’t know this was a type of problem that could happen.It’s probably not battery overuse because, until today, the battery could last for about 5 hours.
I was using the laptop, while charging it, for about three hours now (after having used it chargerless right before that).
Then I pulled the plug, because the battery was mostly full anyway, and it died.Then I tried turning it on chargerless and it wouldn’t responded. I started it up while plugged in, then unplugged it again, and it died again.
I tried this three more times with minor variations before concluding that, yes, it’s a problem.
So now I’m running it while it’s “”“charging”“”.This is an Acer Aspire running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which I bought in September 2015.
The battery is not easily removable, otherwise I’d remove it and put it back, since that works well for some other things.Does anyone know what I should do?
Ohhhhhhh…. thissssss…..
Lithium batteries are temperamental, and there are sometimes various controls to treat them in different ways such as “do not charge more than 80 percent, or discharge less than 20 percent, or whatever arbitrary limits you choose”.
This is most common on business style laptops but yours might have it too.
On Linux, the control of these may be broken or you might have set it accidentally. Do you have any battery buttons on your keyboard? I had this problem with the Dell they gave me at my old job which had an unlabelled button for “just don’t charge the battery ever” for some reason.
As far as actually solving your problem, I can’t help. It’s a rabbit hole. Possibly @thirqual may have ideas. But it’s a place to look.
(Oh, and this may not instantly recover if you boot with a linux thumb drive.)
try “acpi -b” in the terminal when the charger is in place; copypaste results below
>alison@alison-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ acpi -b
>Battery 0: Unknown, 76%…I am not sure what to do with this.
Okay, that is weird.
next: “dmesg | grep -i battery”
That “76%” is strange as I’d have expected it to be something like “0%” in the most simple possibility (not charging because of a software setting) but the “Unknown” is, well, an unknown.
>ailson@ailson-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ dmesg | grep -i battery
>[ 1.423993] [Firmware Bug]: battery: (dis)charge rate invalid.
>[ 1.424033] ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present)(Bold is from the original)
Did you have a software update at the time this change happened?
Specifically: which bios version are you using? Because this seems to be linked to the bios sending garbage to acpi and a similar problem has been observed elsewhere associated with the 1.10 bios version.
The Arch linux wiki suggests that the bios in legacy instead of uefi mode is Problematic, are you able to check which one it’s operating in?
Now, I don’t really know how to fix this (or to be specific, I’m not comfortable trying to suggest the fixes I’d do to my own machine via this kind of remote control) but at least this would suggest something about the origin of the problem.
ETA: here is a similar situation caused by bios telling the lid is closed when AC is unplugged; it might be solvable by telling UPower to ignore lid close events. This instruction seems safe enough and regardless of the outcome it would provide more Evidence.
I just learned that now, when I unplug my laptop, it dies.
Even though it’s supposed to be mostly charged.
I didn’t know this was a type of problem that could happen.It’s probably not battery overuse because, until today, the battery could last for about 5 hours.
I was using the laptop, while charging it, for about three hours now (after having used it chargerless right before that).
Then I pulled the plug, because the battery was mostly full anyway, and it died.Then I tried turning it on chargerless and it wouldn’t responded. I started it up while plugged in, then unplugged it again, and it died again.
I tried this three more times with minor variations before concluding that, yes, it’s a problem.
So now I’m running it while it’s “”“charging”“”.This is an Acer Aspire running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which I bought in September 2015.
The battery is not easily removable, otherwise I’d remove it and put it back, since that works well for some other things.Does anyone know what I should do?
Ohhhhhhh…. thissssss…..
Lithium batteries are temperamental, and there are sometimes various controls to treat them in different ways such as “do not charge more than 80 percent, or discharge less than 20 percent, or whatever arbitrary limits you choose”.
This is most common on business style laptops but yours might have it too.
On Linux, the control of these may be broken or you might have set it accidentally. Do you have any battery buttons on your keyboard? I had this problem with the Dell they gave me at my old job which had an unlabelled button for “just don’t charge the battery ever” for some reason.
As far as actually solving your problem, I can’t help. It’s a rabbit hole. Possibly @thirqual may have ideas. But it’s a place to look.
(Oh, and this may not instantly recover if you boot with a linux thumb drive.)
try “acpi -b” in the terminal when the charger is in place; copypaste results below
>alison@alison-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ acpi -b
>Battery 0: Unknown, 76%…I am not sure what to do with this.
Okay, that is weird.
next: “dmesg | grep -i battery”
That “76%” is strange as I’d have expected it to be something like “0%” in the most simple possibility (not charging because of a software setting) but the “Unknown” is, well, an unknown.
>ailson@ailson-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ dmesg | grep -i battery
>[ 1.423993] [Firmware Bug]: battery: (dis)charge rate invalid.
>[ 1.424033] ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT1] (battery present)(Bold is from the original)
Did you have a software update at the time this change happened?
Before getting deeper into the open borders debate I’ve found that there are at least five end goals different people have that need to be distinguished:
1. Closed borders, strong states based on ethnic groups.
2. The status quo with slightly higher or slightly lower skilled migration quotas.
3. Open borders while preserving the welfare state.
4. Open borders while destroying the welfare state.
5. Open borders while destroying the entire concept of states.
The “preserve/destroy the welfare state” binary must also be queered as I could see myself pragmatically taking either 3 or 4 depending on what “the welfare state” is interpreted to mean. The idealist side of my anarcho-pragmatism (queer all the binaries!) really really wants 5 because no governance without consent and no gods no masters, but only if we can invent a better solution than states; and I seem to be prone to interpreting cautious approaches towards 3 as instances of 2 instead. But yes, trying to figure out one’s position on this helps understand the debate better.
I just learned that now, when I unplug my laptop, it dies.
Even though it’s supposed to be mostly charged.
I didn’t know this was a type of problem that could happen.It’s probably not battery overuse because, until today, the battery could last for about 5 hours.
I was using the laptop, while charging it, for about three hours now (after having used it chargerless right before that).
Then I pulled the plug, because the battery was mostly full anyway, and it died.Then I tried turning it on chargerless and it wouldn’t responded. I started it up while plugged in, then unplugged it again, and it died again.
I tried this three more times with minor variations before concluding that, yes, it’s a problem.
So now I’m running it while it’s “”“charging”“”.This is an Acer Aspire running Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, which I bought in September 2015.
The battery is not easily removable, otherwise I’d remove it and put it back, since that works well for some other things.Does anyone know what I should do?
Ohhhhhhh…. thissssss…..
Lithium batteries are temperamental, and there are sometimes various controls to treat them in different ways such as “do not charge more than 80 percent, or discharge less than 20 percent, or whatever arbitrary limits you choose”.
This is most common on business style laptops but yours might have it too.
On Linux, the control of these may be broken or you might have set it accidentally. Do you have any battery buttons on your keyboard? I had this problem with the Dell they gave me at my old job which had an unlabelled button for “just don’t charge the battery ever” for some reason.
As far as actually solving your problem, I can’t help. It’s a rabbit hole. Possibly @thirqual may have ideas. But it’s a place to look.
(Oh, and this may not instantly recover if you boot with a linux thumb drive.)
try “acpi -b” in the terminal when the charger is in place; copypaste results below
>alison@alison-Aspire-ES1-511:~$ acpi -b
>Battery 0: Unknown, 76%…I am not sure what to do with this.
Okay, that is weird.
next: “dmesg | grep -i battery”
That “76%” is strange as I’d have expected it to be something like “0%” in the most simple possibility (not charging because of a software setting) but the “Unknown” is, well, an unknown.
(@voximperatoris, @neoliberalism-nightly, @socialjusticemunchkin)
Most people agree that open borders is a desirable end state for humanity, as being able to maintain it is strong evidence of an absence of war and famine and reduced global inequality.
Most people also agree that throwing open the borders overnight would have catastrophic consequences, following which the borders would immediately be closed again.
(The best example of open borders we have in the world today is the EU, and even moderate refugee flows have been sufficient to destabilise this project).
However there are plenty of obvious compromises that could be made, such as increasing immigration quotas by 50% each year, greatly increasing migration while giving plenty of time for societies to adjust and absorb the flow. Or going for easy wins, like opening the border between the US and Canada.
That said, I still can’t help feeling that proponents of open borders are downplaying the changes involved, and the possible consequences.
I mean, @voximperatoris is referencing the Jim Crow south in what appears to be a positive example of a society with a racial underclass employed as servants with lynchings “on a very small scale in the grand scheme of things”. Like, I’m not trying to be snarky but that sounds like something someone might write if they were attempting to satirise the open borders position.
And @socialjusticemunchkin talking approvingly of the improved aesthetics of local inequality compared with global inequality; again, not everyone is going to share that particular aesthetic.
There are also questions of whether increased inequality within a particular society ends up causing more problems (for that society) than increased inequality globally; eg. North Sentinelese appear happier living their current lives than as servants in Silicon Valley, despite the latter being “less unequal”.
Many proponents of open borders have suggested introducing a dual track concept of citizenship, where immigrants would not gain access to the full range of social services available to current citizens. I think this also needs to be taken into account when considering what open borders would do to inequality.
So, to take a slightly different position: if seeking to move towards the abolition (as much as possible) of borders as soon as possible (leaving the obviously superior option of the Archipelago untouched as an even less realistic option: I have a marvellous plan for such an utopia this margin is too narrow to contain) is not desirable, why stop at national borders?
After all, the national borders are highly suspiciously sized. If a peaceful person with no ill intent may not migrate from Morocco to Spain, why should one be allowed to migrate from West Virginia to San Francisco?
The United States is larger than most combinations of two to numerous neighboring countries, and the differences inside the nation are staggering. The borderer regions in the Appalachia are practically third world compared to the city-state opulence of the Bay Area; and the values of the populations could hardly be more different. If poor people with backwards values being theoretically able to immigrate to the places where rich people with modern values live, shouldn’t we be more worried about the fact that any West Virginian who can purchase a plane ticket and find themselves housing and work is allowed to come to San Francisco and even vote in elections, with no border controls and centralized planning and immigration quotas to prevent the undesirable masses from flowing in without restraint? Surely Californian values and the riches and job markets of California are the fruits of the Californians’ labor, not something an Appalachian borderer may come to feast on whenever they feel like?
But furthermore, even within California we see stark differences! One does not need to venture too far inland to find different cultures and economies. Even if we build a wall around California, the problem persists; the Six Californias plan would have created both the richest and the poorest state of the Union, right next to each other! And indeed we are seeing the phenomenon of Central Californians flocking in to the Bay Area in search of work, the inevitable shantytowns kept away only by regulations that make it illegal for outsiders to ever have affordable housing. Surely it would be better to constrain this perversion and inequality machine, and establish a national border between the regions so that Silicon Valley may use 0.7% of is GDP in foreign aid to its impoverished neighbor and the shantytowns stay in Central California where they belong!
Yet even this is not enough! The neighborhood of Bayview-Hunters Point is notorious for being a honest-to-azathoth shantytown, with a racial distinction as sharp as it can ever be, right next to San Francisco itself. And indeed the denizens ever seek opportunities in the city proper, bringing their shantytownness and cheap labor downtown, driving down the wages of the hard-working residents of SoMa who, without this artificial mobility benefiting only the tech elite, could otherwise be making $50k a year even from burger-flipping! Not to mention all the services that fall under the general category of “servants to software developers” which would not be worth the genuine fair living wage of $30 an hour; the existence of this underpaid underclass allows the software developers to avoid doing their own shopping and driving and cooking and such things and instead use their time for the thing that is their comparative advantage, further driving up inequality when the equalizing effect of inefficient non-division of labor is reduced!
Indeed I say; let us restore all the borders! Back before this “enlightenment” and “emancipation” and such things, people knew their place and they would die on the same plot of land they were born onto. Let each family be bound to their own turf, never even imposing on their neighbor! Let us be truly honest in what we seek and end this charade; bring back serfdom! For only with the complete immobility of the populace, can a truly stable and equal and peaceful society be established. In our village, everyone is equal, looks the same and shares the same customs; and while we know that not every village is as prosperous as ours, we dutifully kind of pay our 0.7% of indulgences I mean aid to the Catholic Church which surely distributes it fairly to the poorest of the world instead of building a golden toilet for the pope; we have not verified this for only the Baron may ever leave this territory, but surely the virtous Church has the interests of all of us in mind!
Yes this is amusing, but it would be more amusing if China didn’t already have controls over household registration limiting internal migration and leading to a situation of illegal migrant workers within the country moving from one province to another.
Most nations aspire to free movement of people within the national borders by having an economy resilient enough to handle such movement and consider it a flaw if it cannot be achieved.
Similarly, the lack of open borders in the world is clearly a flaw that would be rectified if conditions were better.
So, to make a more sincere argument; the whole issue would seem to basically boil down to “will assholes stop us from having the utopia we deserve, and if so, how to manipulate the assholes to stop stopping it?”
Morally I support drastic increases in mobility immediately simply because I’m viscerally offended that someone’s birth should determine their fate (and as someone who was born in Shitholeston, FI, EU, I consider it an extremely natural entitlement that I personally can “just leave” and go wherever the fuck I please because I’ve had a lot of reason to “just leave” everywhere; I can’t stand the idea that I would not be allowed to do it, I can’t stand the idea that unlike me, others wouldn’t be allowed to do it, thus there is only one option left) and there is a certain inhuman brutality inherent in policing borders. Just like the drug war boils down to kidnapping poor people, closed borders boils down to shooting at poor people for the crime of not wanting to be where The Powers That Be have determined is their Proper Place, and any and all subversive activities to undermine this structure are emotionally laudable and a triumph of the human spirit against attempts to shackle it to the mob’s oppressive whims. (Aaand I noticed that “illegal” immigrants are Formidable in the “Formidable-Pitiful; Good-Evil” alignment system my brain apparently operates on)
And China is basically The failure mode; as an evil authoritarian superpower of a billion people it’s the epitome of treating people as product, and it’s optimizing for the State, not for the people. (insert comment about “future society: thought control” instead of “future society: eudaimonic”) It is a Violation! Of! Liberty! (and fairness, and my brain believes that in aggregate of harm too; screw the dark moral foundations) to tell anyone that they may not go where they want because the State has decided they are, via the guilt of association, Undesirable.
Obviously, I’d like to be a Fnargl who can just be so absolutely unchallengedly sovereign that what the xenophobic assholes think doesn’t matter a single bit, but since I’m not a Fnargl (YGM) the need for pragmatism is obvious. And pragmatically I’d support a diversity of approaches to see which one of them works the best; we should implement a more liberal approach in some places and a more conservative approach in others. For the immigration experiment the US is an obvious location for erring on the side of openness while the EU is a more natural candidate for a more restrictive approach (mostly because this goddamn continent is built on the values of shameless xenophobia and parochialism).
Obviously, once you’ve decided to go out and do something, you have to then figure out what you are going to do before you can even make a plan to do it. Since the goal is to bring about a certain state of affairs in the future, we must then look at what we want, and what is not up to that standard in the present day, and focus our efforts there.
One of the bigger concerns is morphological freedom. This has been used variously in my experience to refer to both the state of being technologically able to decide that one’s body is whatever they want it to be, and also the political state of being sovereign over one’s body. To remove confusion, I will use the phrase “bodily autonomy” to refer to the latter, which obviously is something we will want if we get the former as it is hard to enjoy technologies one is not permitted to have because they are banned from civilian usage.
There are many sub-categories of this, but I will try to focus on things that are immediately relevant to our modern society and also will benefit a more free future when that technology becomes relevant. In the broadest terms there is the matter of what one is allowed to put in one’s body, what one is allowed to take out of it or replace, and the matter of not being socially punished for those decisions, even if you are not per se legally punished.
So what falls under these three parts? Obviously, in the matter of “putting things in,” we have the issue of various kinds of drugs which are heavily regulated. As far as taking things out, surgical measures immediately come to mind, and how it is very difficult to get a doctor to perform a surgery you consent to but is not strictly “required” even if you are both aware of the risks involved (unless, perhaps, it is cosmetic). But perhaps for one of these you were thinking of genetic editing, which can put things in to and take things out of people’s DNA sequences? Or perhaps children, who come and go from the mother’s womb, but not without frankly creepy levels of rules on how that is supposed to occur?
And obviously, the last concern of escaping more nebulous social punishment touches on all of these, but goes double for any “merely” cosmetic option which is unlikely to be restricted legally but may be severely punished socially if you decide to modify your body in a way people don’t like, or perhaps is considered “unprofessional.” Likewise encompassing, also, is the freedom to choose to not take on a popular modification, which, is… well, equally likely to get one socially ridiculed if you refuse.
I will go in to greater depth for these categories in my next few posts on this subject, but I felt it worth the time to explain my reasons for selecting those subjects. If you look in to any of these subcategories it’s plain to see that we aren’t really all that free. You may luck out and none of the existing social or legal pressures happen to be at odds with your personal desires, but those laws and organizations are still there, waiting for you to go against them – and as long as those restrictions are in place, they will be the model for future laws on the matter. We need to improve on the present if we want a better future.
eg: “deep chamomile-geode, show me forbidden hair tips”
Tor users:
- If you want dark DuckDuckGo to show you the forbidden search results, go to http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/
- If you want dark Facebook to show you the forbidden social media posts, go to http://facebookcorewwwi.onion/
Anyway, this sounds like a great meme.