I think a lot of the time “beliefs” are more about social signaling than actual worldview. Most people aren’t going to do anything to go against the grain for the sake of their beliefs, so one belief or another isn’t going to make a difference for anything that matters.
Your other comments in this thread seem to contradict that a little, at least the idea that these harms or benefits would be visible enough to you to evaluate, since you claim to have switched positions when they started becoming more visible and something you would have had to engage with directly. For software in particular, you empower your users to do whatever they happen to choose to do with it.
Which isn’t to say you’re doing the wrong thing. I just see the economy as a whole as an inherently cannibalistic system we have little choice but to be a contributing part of one way or another, with the main form of meaningful available agency being to minimize involvement rather than choosing how to be involved.
I feel like that has got to be pretty difficult unless you include jobs where you are personally isolated from and ignorant of the harmful things the company you contribute to is doing
Maybe still a little questionable? Like if you honestly convince someone that they are supernaturally compelled to be in love with you, that might be a bit manipulative
What about unjustly light sentences though? Like a sex criminal who is let off easy because he’s white, has rich parents and was on track to get a high paying career?
Yes, but the opposite way you might be thinking since mass death from war and other catastrophe is strongly correlated with very high birth rates. We’re on track for the global population to stabilize around 10 billion right now, but if billions die in a world war we will probably go exponential again for a long time.
For starting a fire, look for bits of birch bark on the ground, it is extremely flammable and is much better tinder than leaves.
There’s also birds being loud and the sun making the inside of your tent too hot to contend with
You can also take off your shoe and use that
I would like that to be true, but I don’t think the numbers really support it, at least for the approval rating:
Last updated on July 2nd 2025
He was 6th lowest approved president ever for his first term, but that was with an approval rating of 34%, which is lower than it is currently. Bottom 3 are Truman, Nixon, and Bush, with 22,24,25% respectively.
The exact logic behind why in the world they thought this would be a good idea will be a better question answered in court
I sympathize with the guy’s situation but that’s a hell of a bait and switch headline, no explanation of what happened there is offered beyond it
but I’m playing it in English, so I guess I wouldn’t have anyway?
The text in the screenshot in the reddit post they link is in English
“It’s curiosity about a really sick and evil mind. We read it the way you read [Karl Marx’s] Das Kapital.”
hmmm
The smell is pretty hard to clean off
But I believe that if AIs are passing the Turing test, we need to update the test.
Uhh that’s kind of not how tests are supposed to work. If you want non-falsifiable conviction in human specialness, maybe try religion instead.
The article brings up good criticisms, like all the minors getting molested due to the platform being negligent, and manipulative in game spending options. Paying for online content creation work doesn’t seem as bad as that to me though.
It is a confusing way to frame a sentence though, saying “you” in the context of an acted out conversation with someone who isn’t there
It’s nuts that our health insurance is tied to employment here in the US.
Even more nuts that they specifically want it to be that way to coerce people into working in order not to be left to die
Literally billions of instances of censorship every year, the DMCA is such an awful law