The âoerumorâ was actually started by a Jan6 attacker who attributed it to a response to drag show. Question: did she post this before any indication of sabotage was public knowledge? It was before I saw reports of sabotage. So credit was actually taken for it already, but in a plausibly deniable way. https://wholistic.substack.com...

Each perspective adds more information, which leads to truth. I do not need to form a team. I search for truth, and as others also search for truth they become de facto on my team, but with no imperative. It is a declarative system: science. The Will to Truth is the key. The reproducibility of science is what allows it to be individualistic. Like how you cited a scientific paper, but I was able to read for myself that it supported your argument, but not your premise. Now we are discussing your premise, and we are closer to truth. That would not happen if you and I separated into teams, and we had no interest in sharing perspectives. Those who gather into teams independent of truth ultimately fail. There are extremes on both sides. I view the political left-right spectrum as a circle. Too far to the left, it looks the same as too far to the right. Tribalism on both sides. Communism and Fascism are effectively the same. I see being woke as in the middle top of the circle, and extremism as the middle bottom of the circle, and that is how Trumpism was able to get average Americans to attack centrists. It appears to be a center, when it is really an extremism. The political spectrum has rotated into authoritarianism, and that is how a democracy is turned against itself. The Democratic Party shifted much to the right. Institutional Hawk Republicans are openly campaigning for Democrats. Unfortunately, corporatists are taking advantage of both sides of the new political spectrum. Individualism is being left behind. That is where both sides can find truth.

Moral relativism isnâ(TM)t nihilism, but rather a pluralism. You are leaving out the aesthetic aspect of the difference, and that is why you are finding them to be the same. Moral relativism values multiple perspectives. Donâ(TM)t let fascists teach you that individualism is some sort of tribalist collectivism. To be able to determine your own actions outside of habit, that is the power of the individual aesthetic. Like the knowledge of good and evil, we do not need a priest to tell us what we can see for ourselves. A new culture can exist within a single person.

âoehelping others outside your team becomes ever more immoral. ( where moral approximately means evolutionarily effective habit )â That is tautological. You just defined morality out of the system.

You misunderstand equality. Being created equal means being born equal. That means no divine right. That is what liberal philosophy is. Harrison Bergeron is countering anti-individualism, not supporting fascism. If you are applying individualism in an anti-individualistic way, where cultures are nationalistically competing against each other, you are doing it wrong.

The data will always find a way out. Just allow registrars to salt records, like what is done with political donations.

We don't have kings. We can't have them. It is against the Constitu... Nevermind, there is nothing of any authority that says that we can't have kings.

I am currently being afflicted more and more with age. Treat it like any other medical fact.

Why does Amazon always pay people thousands of dollars to move into a very expensive area, and then pay them above market rate? (I don't work for Amazon, but it makes the point.) Because labor costs aren't a big deal when you are so well automated.

As long as the revenue per employee is so high... It makes much more sense to pay 200k to bring in 1,000k than to pay 50k to bring in 500k. You make 800k vs. 450k. Paying someone 0 isn't even worth it, because of management overhead. Dealing with people is hard. You deal with computers when you can. No matter how cheap that pay gets, as long as the difference in revenue is greater than the pay difference, it is a no-brainer.

This is why people who know how to automate solutions get paid so much. It isn't about productivity of coding. It is about business-level productivity. The relevant cost is not the cost of labor, but the ability to scale vs. the overhead of managing product and scale, which spreads that cost out until it is almost nothing.

This is why professional services is dying. Throwing people at the problem is a waste of everyone's time. Everything has to be able to work self-service, and at unlimited scale. Everyone doing that is making a ton of money.

I get job candidates that want more than 100k because they are programmers, but they have never automated a thing in their life. They come in after being in several failed startups, complaining about a lack of business plan. I wouldn't even pay them 0 because they bring failure. They don't even know how to do basic sysadmin stuff.

That is why devops is a thing now. The ops part makes the money. The dev is just a means to that end.

I don't believe that we will ever run out of "jobs". Even today, we are nearly fully automated in our survival needs. Even in the 1920s, philosophers were talking about forcing people to only work part time days because automation reduced the need to work to survive, and we are far more productive now than then. But nearly everything is about increased luxury and entertainment, even today. People will keep paying for that forever, even when they don't have to worry about survival.

The only economic issue is that the income inequality is so great that consumers can barely afford to pay for their consumption tech, and can't afford to risk the development of their production capacity. I think nearly everyone should be both consumers and producers. We don't really *need* capitalism or communism or socialism. We just need whatever system we use to share consumption with production. Let's face it. The only productivity issue we face today is environmental issues. We need to go clean, and incentivize that fast. That's it. The rest is just annoying foreign policy stuff that will be resolved when we can share consumption in a clean way, and no one will be incentivized to be violent anymore, even with silly religion memes.

Blackberry Passport has a nice dynamic function row above the physical keyboard, just like this. That combined with the keyboard being also a touchpad meant that I never had to touch viewport area very often. I really enjoyed that. This allows apple to push back against the touchscreen demand, and I like the design. It isn't exactly innovative, but that doesn't mean it isn't good product design. I wished for Blackberry to make a laptop. I guess I got it now?

Well, to be fair, the physical is usually minor news because it usually doesn't involve a brain damaging concussion used as an excuse in relation to a national security investigation. So maybe people would like to know the severity of it, since it relates to past, present, and future performances of her duties. Just a thought.

I have a very strong sense that this is so that they can hire more "family oriented people" (to get their count of women up), still make them work 50 hours a week, and still pay them less, but for not working 80 hours a week.

We are talking about economic fairness between generations, which is indeed generally understandable by looking at the well-documented flow of money between generations.

Straw-man arguments are exactly why I just point to the data these days. Since you are apparently so good at logic, that is all the more reason why you should be looking at the data.

I'm glad you asked. HTM is the first thing that I have seen that comes from the study of how intelligence works in connection to the physiological component.

The importance of the physiological component was first identified by Hermann Helmholtz, the founder of modern physiology. In the 1860s, he came up with a theory for studying any sense system, and basically created a modern aesthetic theory in order to study physiology. He described the aesthetic flow of information from the physical, to the physiological, to the psychological, and was the first to posit that proper psychology needs to interface properly with physiology, and that the philosophical error of ignoring the physiological component is what leads to problems in studying both psychology and physiology.

I found this while actually studying aesthetic theory to develop a proper descriptive music theory. In order to find anything on aesthetic theory, I had to read original sources going back centuries, and found that scientists back then spent a lot of time explaining their philosophical approach, because any major work involved the creation of a new scientific field, and this needed to be explained philosophically to be credible. So nearly all aesthetic theory is tied in with scientific work on the senses, and existentialist philosophy, and most of that is tied to destroying the philosophical error of mind-body duality, which, as you are probably guessing by now, is something that must be done for the field of Artificial Intelligence to make any sense at all.

To this day, the philosophical error of mind-body duality is still blocking a lot of Artificial Intelligence research. When you do not integrate your model of the mind with a model of the body, you can't get past one of the most famous philosophical errors going back thousands of years.

And this, of course, explains my skepticism that humans will be so easily replaced. It would first require a total defeat of the mind-body duality problem, and that has been a struggle dating back thousands of years. Even after it is defeated philosophically, it takes decades for this to produce its output on society. Historically, it takes about 50 years, and that is not limited by knowledge but by the speed that humans *forget*, meaning that people need to *die* for progress to happen. The ironic thing is that, as technology has increased modern lifespans, it has been harder and harder for real paradigm shifts to happen.

I mean, we in the US still can't get over our bad relationship with Russia, simply because not enough politicians have died of old age. The Baby Boomers are still afraid to hand over the reigns of the country. Sorry, I have a tendency to ramble off on tangents. I'll shut up now.