Carl-Richard

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

Bro what even is this discussion 😭 Shame I'm not a mod so I can't not not ( @Basman ) flaunt my green dick of bannulations. You can predict the quality of a discussion based on how new a case or event is because you get people with shallow opinions dominating the discussion and taking it very seriously.

It's just a comment on what I perceive to be clarity of communication. Damn it's as if you described what I just described myself in different words. Huh, funny how that works in the context of this discussion.

The energy is a knitpicking "well ackchyually" nerd. If the description of the law contains the same double negative (which it may or may not), and if it was important to communicate that exact wording in this discussion (which I doubt), then it would be prudent to communicate using that exact wording. If you just want to communicate the basic differences of outcomes (and you want to be easily understood), then you would put it simply from the beginning. In the second paragraph, we were given the double negative version and then the straightforward version as a clarifier; we could've just had the straightforward version from the beginning 🤔 I will do the rest: "[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove her claim that she's not criminally responsible for her actions." -> "[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that she's criminally responsible for her actions." Adding the word "insane" (a negative) into the mix also screws things up: "[...] it's the prosecution that must prove that she's NOT legally insane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart." -> "[...] it's the prosecution that must prove that she's legally sane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart."

Dhuuuh mhghggggh durrrrrrrrr, hUuUuUhH? "Avoid Negative Words and Double Negatives to Strengthen Your Writing" — https://wordvice.com/blog/grammar-avoid-double-negatives/

The thing about Runescape is that there is always something to do, always something new you can try (on Oldschool Runescape, I have like 10 accounts with different combat builds, used for PvP, and I'm still making new ones), and it's uniquely self-directed. You choose your own destiny. Psychology says self-direction is one of the most fundamental and important things for making you feel alive. That's just one of the factors: the game is also incredibly interconnected through the skill system (what you referred to as the "job system"): For example (generally speaking, as there are niche training methods as exceptions, and most resources and items can also be bought with money, but let's assume no money): For Firemaking (I will capitalize all skills), you need Woodcutting. For woodcutting, you need an axe, which you need Smithing for. For smithing, you need Mining. For mining efficiently, you need to run efficiently which needs Agility. To run even more efficiently, you need energy potions so you need Herblore (or weight reducing equipment which you can get from quests and Hunter skill). For making potions, you need potion ingredients which you get from e.g. Farming and monster loot. For farming you need seeds which you can get from e.g. monsters (particularly some higher levelled ones which you more readily encounter in the Slayer skill), birdhouse runs (Hunter) and bird's nests falling out of trees when woodcutting, clue scrolls (buried treasures), Thieving chests and stalls, thieving farmer NPCs, etc. If you want a deep dive, this guy essentially made a PhD thesis on what makes Runescape Runescape: It might be that the later versions of the game became hyper-capitalized (microtransactions) and for Runescape in particular, a revamp of the combat system in 2012 ("Evolution of Combat") changed the game significantly in an attempt to become more modern (and it made people have to essentially re-learn the game, so a large portion of the player base quit). All in all, earlier versions of the games could be seen to represent a more authentic game experience, while later versions fell more prey to non- game experience factors like survivability and competition. Oldschool Runescape now polls all their significant updates and they need a 70% agreement to be implemented in the game, which is again a form of self-direction and ensures people like the game they are playing. And in that sense, Oldschool Runescape is not as much stagnating, as there are new additions being made to the game, but nothing really revolutionary (it's very incremental and "content-based" so that it builds on previous content and makes the interconnections between content larger). The biggest recent addition was probably the Sailing skill (but that has been anticipated since the beginning of the game 20 years ago and people wanted it). But even within this model, you run into problems like power creep and also Quality of Life creep (making practical sides of the game increasingly more smooth and seemless); the former threatens certain aspects of the game like especially PvP, while the latter of course makes parts of the game easier. And then, the appeal of the restoration project I mentioned is that you can play a version of the game which is not as over-powered and has little Quality of Life additions such that it becomes more challenging and raw (and of course nostalgic). People already are doing self-directed versions of this "challenge-increasing" inside the main versions of the game with gamemodes like Ironman, Ultimate Ironman, Hardcore Ironman, Group Ironman, and unofficial concepts like bronzeman mode, various "snowflake" ironman / restricted accounts (e.g. area-locked ironman, popularized by YouTuber Settled). Sometimes restrictions make you think outside the box and make you have to find new solutions, and in Runescape, this is incredibly fun because of the already self-directed and interconnected nature of the game. Ironman especially increases the level of interconnectedness exponentially as you can't trade with other players and you have to engage with more aspects of the game.

The fucking amount of double negatives in this post is insane. I can't prove you had the intent to write this cryptically, but the mere action is immoral. You could've written everything so much simpler.

Going duck hunting when you want to pet a swan.

Mayne, wymyn, muh lenses, I vieuw d wurld tru them.

I've observed or sort of deduced that when you learn more about health on your own you become more and more an "alternative health" person. It could also be when you learn more and more about intellectual ideas on your own, you become more and more "woo woo". "On your own" here would mean simply driven by your own interests and logic rather than the standard cultural conditioning or standard establishment thinking. If you look at the intellectual people I like, like Kastrup, Sheldrake, they're as woo woo as me and they are both quite independent thinkers (have existed peripherally or at odds with the establishment for long periods of time). Sheldrake unironically writes papers about whether the Sun is conscious ☀️👀

Meanwhile, I'm playing an unofficial restoration of a 22 year old game. https://lostcity.rs/t/faq-what-is-lost-city/16

Tarantino's physiological cock involves itself with a toe in a bottle. Most schizophrenic but logical thing I've written.

"Oh so you didn't understand the jargony term I just used 🤓; have you heard about my super-duper-ultra-gauge-symmetry-12th-quasi-micro-pico-900-backflip-tripple-cork-nano-cosmo-dimensional manifold-envelope-antilope-folded-into-an-origami-figure ship-in-a-bottle analogy 🤓?"

moat* Jargon check 🤓

Thing about when "normal" academics use jargon, you can virtually always check the references (if it's old jargon) for more information about it, or if it's new jargon, you usually get a very thorough run-through of what it is and how it is distinct from again, older stuff, which you can again check yourself in the references. The cross-referencing in science is not just a "group think" limitation; it's a way to establish accuracy. "My work is x y z, and not a b c d and e, you can read and check for yourself".

One problem with Langan's CTMU paper is the relative lack of references. If you don't show how your work is similar (or dissimilar) to previous work (which unless you're an absolute alien on earth, you should be able to do in some way), you make it simultaneously hard to actually understand your work and it shows you might not actually know about what works exist and that you can't actually show how it's unique (rather we have to trust your word for it because you have some jargony term that we pseudo-understand when you explain it). The scientific/academic community appreciates very much if you can identify a hole in existing knowledge and clearly show how you're filling that hole. If you're just constructing an almost completely self-contained system from the bottom up with no references to outside things, don't be surprised when that lack of referencing is reciprocated.

I've said it before: people use lack of understanding as a gauge for whether somebody is smarter than them. And then it happens that you get some people who inflate their perceived intelligence with pompous in-understandable speech, or they're just bad at explaining themselves. Jordan Peterson does something similar but also with emotional tone. It's sophism really. If you look at someone like Bernardo Kastrup, he is very technical, but when he explains something, he uses a lot of metaphors, plain language, examples. Meanwhile when I hear Langan or Weinstein explain something, they use none of those things (or if they do use for example a metaphor, it's more complex than what is being explained), and they might even refer to other jargon or peculiar words that need to be unpacked.

He has a severe Fe blindspot and/or self-centeredness problem like Eric Weinstein. He values his own jargon more than ensuring he is understood. He also came off as insecure one time in a different discussion, and his past indicates he feels a lack of approval.

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

What do you mean? You think you're the only one to understand non-duality, the most basic understanding you can have about anything ever?

There are thousands of articles on such things. The reason Leo can talk about it is most definitely because he has heard somebody else, not unlikely from academia, talk about it. "The PhD factory": https://www.nature.com/articles/472276a Of course most scientists just focus on doing their science, but to think there wouldn't be people doing science on how science works, that's truly naive. As for more examples of "shooting oneself in one's own foot", try "the replication crisis", "questionable research practices". Thousands of articles on these things. Leo doesn't go far enough in critiquing science. He hasn't (to my eyes) read the scientists' own critiques of science, which go far beyond what he is talking about (partially because it often requires technical knowledge of science to engage with). Try for example "the generalizibility crisis": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681374/

I'm saying you can notice differences by the day depending on how extreme your differences in calories are.

If you want to help them and you do, that is completely ok. If you don't help them, what is your excuse? Do you have something better to do? Are your aspirations such that they could outweigh the action when spending time/attention/resources on them instead? But why help them and not their friends? "But being helping in local interactions is something you want to cultivate". That is one factor. "But having a sense of personal respect and personal life and right to one's own life is a right you should have, and respecting other people's choices". That is another factor. The answer really is aim at things you find valueable and do what you think is right with respect to that. That might help somebody locally or it might not; it might help more in a spread out way, or more locally again. As for JP "but if you're a psychopath, you value other people's demise if it benefits you in the short term, and that's a moral problem", you should probably factor in that too.

Theory is conceptual