Urrrgghhh
They killed him. Nothin
North Korea killed him.
What now? Probably nothing, which is exactly the problem!
The prisoner that came back in a coma?
Because Hope my man, we are not going to war over one guy. You’ve seen where that World Policeman beat goes.
I’m getting annoyed at that shoplifting fandom because it’s distracting people from who we really should be stealing from, our employers.
Well, that IS where the big bucks are in stealing shit from retail.
But shoplifting fandom isn't about effective crime, it’s about performative class/femininity. Effective criming would be work and uncool.
Tag yourself, are you a heavy industry Asia or an E commerce Asia?
reblog if the Asia on the left is heavier than the Asia on the right
Huh, I didn’t realize anyone else was getting this ad. I wonder if it’s to do with blogging about China/Singapore/Japan etc?
Something weird just happened apparently
Also it was reported on Saudi state TV, not just al-jazeera. which is currently having issues with the Sauds
@diarrheaworldstarhiphop You seem to actually have some idea what’s going on in the area. Is this a good thing?
Reflecting a bit more on the “Death: Woke or Joke?” topic, I guesspart of the gap is that the people who feel strongly about eliminating death see it as a major source of surd evil, whereas it just doesn’t seem to me like very much suffering comes from mere fact of death so much as the particulars.
It seems to me that the bulk of the suffering caused by death is the result of prolonged and unpleasant deaths, which can largely be addressed with euthanasia, or else it’s either a matter death being used as coercion and punishment (which I expect would get worse in a world with indefinite lifespan) or of large numbers of people dying at once from the same thing (which isn’t something I would expect most death-cheating technology to help with). From where I stand it looks like nearly all suffering is caused by what I would call “samsaric” issues – competition over limited resources, Red Queen’s races, and incentive structures that make suffering beneficial to us, or make it beneficial for us to make others suffer. It seems more likely that technology that permitted indefinite lifespan would make all of those problems worse than that it would ameliorate them, though the exact way this is likely to happen would vary greatly depending on how the tech worked.
If you use that as a moral principle, though, you can justify almost arbitrarily-short lifespans.
what’s even the point of living once your wavefunction collapses, really? you can never get those days back.
more seriously: my position isn’t exactly “living is terrible, and the less of it the better!” Rather, my concern is that there are fairly serious risks in circumventing humans’ senescence limit that don’t apply when simply helping more people to reach that ceiling, so if you have a mild preference for people living longer but are very wary of those risks, the safest lifespan seems to be “as far as you can get it without senescence-hacking”.
There are two separate angles on this. The first is that the more capital-dependent staying alive is, the more that dependency threatens quality of life by enabling extreme inequality and coercion. Most death-cheat proposals are extremely capital-intensive in ways that simply reducing incidental mortality is not. The second issue is that senescence is a feature, not a bug: lifespan varies widely in nature, and there are non-senescent animals, so we obviously evolved this lifespan for a good reason. Now, of course you can’t just stop at “God/evolution knows best” or it’s the naturalistic fallacy, but it seems to me that understanding why we have the lifespan we do instead of some other lifespan, what problems are likely to arise if we change that, and how we can get out in front of them, should be step one of eliminating death, and there appears to be significantly less interest in that topic than there ought to be.
Well, I mean there are two things here,
The first is that human lifespan is probably not as evolutionarily meaningful as human sexual dimorphism and various other traits are, because, like the Sherman tank, you expect to lose humans to the environment over time even without aging (including to insufficient resources), and that you’re making an engineering tradeoff for longer designed lifespan for each additional decade and if the tiger population is high and random diseases are high and there is parasite load, etc, it’s just not worth the effort.
That things like bridges aren’t designed to last forever is not a feature, it’s just something contingent on available resources, so I don’t find this particularly compelling.
The other thing is that I don’t expect those philosophers and pundits and whatnot to actually come up with much good. What I’ve seen so far has not impressed me, so it hardly seems worth increasing my risk of death just to be told some half-baked explanation about “human temporality” or some other hogwash.
Practical risks are the better argument, but, it lacks many of the worst possibilities of Transhumanism, since it’s just regular humans, but for longer.
The biggest risk I see is probably that people don’t accept limits on reproduction, but I think they’ll come around.
Reflecting a bit more on the “Death: Woke or Joke?” topic, I guesspart of the gap is that the people who feel strongly about eliminating death see it as a major source of surd evil, whereas it just doesn’t seem to me like very much suffering comes from mere fact of death so much as the particulars.
It seems to me that the bulk of the suffering caused by death is the result of prolonged and unpleasant deaths, which can largely be addressed with euthanasia, or else it’s either a matter death being used as coercion and punishment (which I expect would get worse in a world with indefinite lifespan) or of large numbers of people dying at once from the same thing (which isn’t something I would expect most death-cheating technology to help with). From where I stand it looks like nearly all suffering is caused by what I would call “samsaric” issues – competition over limited resources, Red Queen’s races, and incentive structures that make suffering beneficial to us, or make it beneficial for us to make others suffer. It seems more likely that technology that permitted indefinite lifespan would make all of those problems worse than that it would ameliorate them, though the exact way this is likely to happen would vary greatly depending on how the tech worked.
If you use that as a moral principle, though, you can justify almost arbitrarily-short lifespans.
The capital police officer who was shot in the attack on the congressional baseball practice has a gofundme to raise money for rehab, and I just want to reflect on how fucking sad that is.
Someone needing to beg money from the public after suffering injury from defending the US congress is like something out of a hamhanded parody of classic war propaganda. “Don’t lay down your lives for the US congress. US congresspeople don’t care about your sacrifice, they will let you die in disability and poverty and also are fucking your wife.“
What I wanted: US congress ready and willing to die, guns in hand, to defend this nation. National honor.
What I got: Political class both unwilling and unable to resolve the difficult challenges this nation needs to overcome to not only survive but thrive. National shame.
What I want now: A totally new system of selecting legislators that imposes radically different incentives.
gun-toting-greyshades-deactivat asked:
mutant-aesthetic answered:
I don’t wanna be a scientologist though
Look deep inside you, Mutie. Lord Xenu already resides in your heart.
You may have heard that Twitter is changing their Privacy Policy to stop respecting Do Not Track, and some other stuff. I looked into this and found that it is incredibly slimy and reeks of desperation.
They sent an email announcing this and claiming that it was protecting your privacy. This is obvious lies, but basically SOP so whatever. But it gets worse. There are two main pages linked:
Transparency and control: We’ve launched new Personalization and Data settings and expanded Your Twitter Data to give you more transparent access to your information and more granular controls over how your data is used by Twitter. These enhanced settings will replace Twitter’s reliance on the Do Not Track browser setting, which we will no longer support.
And then when you look at the heading Data Sharing, you see this:
Data sharing: We’ve updated how we share non-personal, aggregated, and device-level data, including under select partnership agreements that allow the data to be linked to your name, email, or other personal information if you give the partner your consent. You can control whether your data is shared under these partnership agreements in your Personalization and Data settings.
So if you read this, you’ll probably think that if you’re concerned about your Twitter data being shared with advertisers, you should go to the page linked there. (https://twitter.com/personalization). So, like a sensible, privacy-conscious human bean, you go to the page:
Handy, a Disable all button. Cool, I’ll press that and then move on to the rest of the settings to check. Unsurprisingly, it makes you click again to confirm. *leaves page*
Oh Wait. I want to check the wording on one of those. Wait, what? It didn’t change!
Oh, this is what’s up:
There is a second button you need to press to actually make changes. It doesn’t warn you if you try to leave without saving, and the extra confirmation that would normally be associated with this is moved to the Disable All button instead. Slime.
Also, take a look at this:
Share data through select partnerships
This setting lets Twitter share certain private data (which will never include your name, email, or phone number) through select partnerships. Partners have agreed not to link your name, email, or phone number to data shared through these partnerships without first getting your consent.
That sounds good, but compare with some text on the next page we’re visiting:
Tailored audiences
Tailored audiences are often built from email lists or browsing behaviors. They help advertisers reach prospective customers or people who have already expressed interest in their business.
You are currently part of 390 audiences from 156 advertisers.
You can opt out of interest-based advertising in your personalization and data settings. This will change the ads you see on Twitter, however it won’t remove you from advertisers’ audiences.
So, you can depersonalize your ads on Twitter, and ostensibly stop them from sharing your data, but they’ll still be sharing it with the advertiser lists they’ve already placed you on. Shiny.
This is that page, by the way:
Other than the paragraph mentioned above, this doesn’t look deceptive. In contrast to the totally deceptive first page linked, this one is annoying and awkward to mess around with, which is slimy, but the main concern I have is just how much data they’re collecting, which I am significantly less OK with than previously when I thought they might not be slime.
In conclusion, don’t trust Twitter further than you can throw one of their mainframes. Ceterum censeo Twittrem esse delendam.
Anonymous asked:
diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:
ie okeokokie okie doke
Bah, have these people not noticed what the Chinese government does in its own country? Because Chinese Imperialism is the real alternative.
