481092

His implementation may be new but the idea of interfacing with content in a 3D manner isn't. I remember trying out a 3D desktop program around 2003 and if I recall correctly, it came with a game demo disc.

Which place in it was this? I mean, there's just so many, would be good to know so I can avoid it.

You've never served, have you? The military is highly influential, especially among family, in influencing political views. Not to mention social media which gives us all a pen as well as a sword, proverbially. Either way, if you complain about being oppressed by powers, all the aforementioned are a potential force of it so it's mostly moot to complain of the bias of one without mentioning the bias of the others.

when in fact it's just the act of choosing the side that's winning

In a fairly benign way, maybe. But if you want to take the moral high ground then you should be careful not to steer people, friends and family especially, into an us vs them trap which inherently forces them to militarize their position. Myself, I have no issue with people who aren't for me or against me and I have no idea how the 'for me or against me' phrase could maintain popularity in any civil society. Some people truly do just want to get through life and feed their family without the bs of others trying to coopt their minds and bodies into fighting their personal battles for often petty reasons. I get militarizing against big threats, I served my time, but there's just so many petty battles out there that's not worth wasting energy over and better left to more productive energy.

There were conservatives who cared then. But yeah, traditional media tends to be more liberal so you heard about it more this time. I guess that's the tradeoff we have. In America, media tends to bias towards liberalism as we know it whereas other industries like military and police might have a more right-wing bias. At least in the former, it might hurt people's feelings when the media says things you don't like but the power the latter has over people's lives is even more worthy of mention, which it rarely is. Sorry about the whataboutism but that was also your argument.

Many sites don't accept Google Voice or VOIP numbers unfortunately. Or fortunately, depending, as it'd be easier to use GV for text spamming.

Is this the common view? I always saw "fittest" as that which is more fit for a niche regardless of what power trait was implemented. I mentioned this elsewhere in this [1] comment, being surprised that someone assumed "fit" was defined in a more malicious manner but I guess this day and age, the definition seems to be more biased towards competitive manners rather than socially inclusive.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20615981

What do they do with it once "used"? I know, search it, but it's a morbid topic I'd rather read no more about than possible.

Those strawberries were your aunt before she was born. Did you know strawberries and other foods go into producing humans? And when we die we, if given a natural death, we can go into producing foods again? It's always been that way. If you want to make the argument that @spinach's view is poisoned by futurism, you ought to take a look at yours which I'd argue is poisoned by modernity. You are the earth, you are of this earth and you'll go back into this earth eventually unless you opt for some expensive astro-death where you'll eventually land into some other material planet into that dirt. And shared memories are immaterial, detached from that person once they die. That's the beauty of those memories, that's what makes them special, the fleeting moments in the nows and thens knowing none of this will last forever. I get that it may make you nauseous as it does me to some extent but OP's view is far from "fucked up".

Does it? Maybe on the micro but at the classical macro level, it's pretty deterministic. Why not both? And in some beautiful Taoist fashion, perhaps they're mutually complementary, both opposites need to exist for reality to exist as is. But as a layman, I know enough to know how hotly debated this subject is so I digress.

Out of all the crises society has ever faced, you're talking about one of the most peaceful times in mankind. This is why people are getting annoyed at youtube's recommendations and part of the problem. People like you and Peterson trying to fight over people's minds and telling them you need to be offended by this or you need to do that. No, I just want to watch my nature docs, I don't need people trying to recruit me to fight in their own personal culture wars.

They should make youtube great again. It used to be that I could watch 911 videos on the anniversary and there'd be real heart-felt personal videos from actual people involved and now most of that's been censored by dramatic conspiratorial junk.

It'd also be great if it didn't recommend for every video I watch, Jordan Peterson on his social justice sprees complaining about the newest thing that he's offended by this week. That got old last year.

You could say the same of knowledge also as it is a power and one applied and accrued by relationship; by what material one reads, by whom and from which source it is linked from and to. Academics of various groups tend to have their own sort of tribalism. I think the mods came to the correct conclusion that politics, although annoying as hell sometimes, is a fabric of society which is nigh impossible to shed when discussing just about anything.

Hulu has some educational documentaries as well as Netflix. There's also curiositystream if you want all docs and even some on youtube. There's tons of educational streaming online, it's about all I watch.

The unifying principle of conservatism is: survival of the fittest

This isn't just a principle of a party but a natural law. This is displayed in liberal politics also. Life is a fight using powers as a utility, hard and soft powers. Liberals tend to bank on using the powers of certain ideologies, many as vague as conservative ideologies, in order for those ideologies to survive. Some use the soft power of love which may prove sometimes to be fittest when that power gathers enough political support, some use the hard powers of war and competition which may seem fittest in some occasions. And of course, love and warfare is seen and used in both/all parties even when they don't seem to realize it, sometimes hypocritically on the surface but often when you look deep enough, you see the forces of natural law shining through and it's not just love and war against each other, it's just organisms which may be ideological, biological, etc competing in what some would view as a thermodynamic machine racing towards entropic neutrality.

But to say only conservatives employ 'survival of the fittest' is such a vast simplification.

They host and indirectly disseminate media, just like a news network. Do you expect Fox or CNN to host views they don't find acceptable? If we're going to accept that biased media is legal (news networks) then biased media is legal (Cloudflare), although you'd have a harder time making a case of bias against Cloudflare in comparison to the former.

Do you complain when liberal writers don't get hosted on Fox News? Or when liberal guests don't get as much air time as conservatives? Do you want congress to clamp down and make all sides get equal air time and newspaper time? This 'everyone should host my political agenda and his agenda....ad infinitum, all equally in time and space', is not just ridiculous but impossible. They're a private company doing the same as CNN or Fox, deciding not to host what they don't agree with.

"Absolute free speech" is like anarchism. I've yet to meet someone who fully practices them both yet they will preach it and condemn others with their self-righteous hypocrisy. Would you want me to come up to your kid and cuss him out for no reason? Your mom? I wouldn't even have to use foul language to bother them. Any number of reasons I could really annoy you or your loved ones with free speech and in some cases really make them fear for their life, legal or not, especially if I was famous and had an internet army to "play" with them.

Free speech is the equivalent of "utopia". It doesn't exist because even the most ardent endorsers have shown kinks in their armor where they don't want people to use it against them at certain times and certain ways. You argue against the selective suppression of ideas yet you may reply to me and tell me this idea needs suppressed. Most people already see the kinks of hypocrisy in it and have long realized it, like all other freedoms, are best used moderately so as not to infringe on the freedoms of others.

You'll never have a search engine without bias. A search engine's job is just that, to bias various data, not soak up any and all data on the internet. That's why humans or anyone or anything in this universe is biased, because we can only soak up so much info from so many proverbial directories in a lifetime.

Did Gödel even prove step 1?. In Gödel's argument, it's relying on very arbitrary definitions of what many have defined as a god and that their god is "great". OP defined what is "great" to him, it's not necessarily what's great to you or me.

I think OP here is meaning "great" in some intellectual capacity, that you are just as powerful or great if you can make up your lack of greatness in one area with another form of greatness, something I don't see as greater but equally great. Is it greater to be successful by bootstrapping off the success of your forebearer or greater to be as successful when starting from nothing? It's a classical argument but to me it stands on just as rational ground as Gödel's argument.

A clown is not "that for which no greater horror can be conceived"

I don't know, some people are really scared of clowns.

Also as a reminder, your "proof" is something made up throughout history along with thousands of other denominations of thousands of other religions of thousands of other gods people have conceived through thousands of years. I can imagine many great things and it doesn't mean it exists, that's where this "proof" fails. Calling this "proof" is, if not a lie, but a big detriment to the notion of proofs already tested and held dear.

As an addendum, if you follow your logic then you're still left with the old 'who created God' argument because although you might imagine some great entity, any entity that god can imagine should surely be greater than the god you imagine so their god must be true. You still have the infinite egress problem diluting your "proof".

I read that and assumed there'd be a followup investigation of attempted mass murder but nothing. Was justice served, or even half-heartedly attempted and the article didn't mention it? The story lacks or justice lacks, hopefully the former.

So you're going to try to silence, or censor, a company into not choosing a more relevant algorithm? Their original algo changed and it "censored" more relevant content. I had a few videos on youtube giving my own personal experience of 9/11 but they quickly got overshadowed once the algo changed to prefer dramatic conspiracy content over regular content, even if it is more relevant. I don't like being "censored" either and I'd rather youtube change the algo.

If you watch the linked video, it seems the guy found them because youtube's algorithm suggested other conspiracy videos instead of more 9/11 videos like he was watching. Other people probably have more relevant 9/11 videos but they were "censored" because they probably weren't dramatic conspiracy videos as youtube's current algorithm "censors", as some see it, rational and less emotional content over clickbait drama.

It's not censoring, just changing the algorithm according to relevance. You could argue that other people were censored first so that youtube would suggest FE theory videos before their own which may have been more relevant. But it seems youtube's current algo is 'this is a conspiracy video, here's another conspiracy video' instead of 'this is a 9/11 video, here's another 9/11 related video'.

So much for intellectual honesty on this site. New user and I thought this was something praised here. The hypocrisy of upvoting the parent because they're against information propagators being linked to an administration while ignoring the elephant in the room.

Is that wrong? Maybe we should do something about Fox and Breitbart's link to the current administration then.

I think of it like inventing. It's not completely analogous but do you want to learn to invent something? No, right? Because you think of something to invent first and then get to learning how to create it. I've heard it's easier to get into coding if going this route, otherwise it can seem unmotivating if you're just doing it on your own.

This reminds me of Robert Sapolsky's lectures, brilliant and easy to find on youtube, where he mentions the most optimal or successful form of communication between parties where you may have miscommunication or misunderstanding is generally tit-for-tat with some amount of forgiveness. Seems analogous to various digital communication protocols where you use parity bits and if an error occurs, you say 'ok, that didn't compute well' and just try to initialize again.

I'm of the philosophy that love is a power.