There are many things I consider to be deeply immoral that I nevertheless cannot change. My political activism is merely performative.
Power and wealth are already so entrenched I think we have little chance of effecting any lasting change without violence. So either I become a literal terrorist, or I enable Daniel Plainview mode. It seems to me like the rational move is to try to get rich by any means necessary so I can fuck off to somewhere isolated and never have to deal with the rotten society I hate ever again.
To do the first one perhaps, although how many have really explored locally in full. To have fun is all dependent on your view on life and have human to human experiences can be had any time you step outside the door. Just talk to people and be friendly.
That's exactly what No Man's Sky is though. There are entire communities centered around colonizing entire regions of the procedurally generated space. People build some seriously intricate bases and it really makes the worlds feel lived in.
The last time I tried Minecraft, from the point I dropped into the world, I could start punching dirt and trees and placing stuff around and building things.
In No Man's Sky I got dropped in some world that felt empty with tutorial on how to collect some stuff and how to get to the ship.
The first impressions weren't the same between these 2 games.
I made this point earlier in the comments, but I think the main difference between Minecraft and No Man's Sky is that Minecraft does not push the players towards specific gameplay systems, while No Man's Sky does, making No Man's Sky feel much less like a box of legos and more like a collection of specific tasks/activities.
I think biggest issue is that you are not constrained to single world. But instead directed to be mostly directionless... Some players just feel no reason to comeback. Where as with Minecraft being in single world you are more forced to comeback to various locations you build things in.
That sounds like an argument for anarchism. I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion.
What seems to me to have worked is understanding that a government is necessary, that it has the potential to misbehave, and therefore we should carefully design laws and processes to constrain it. I would like to see opponents of mass surveillance do this, which seems more productive than what I normally observe.
Fundamentally impossible. Power structures are inherent to all human social activity. Even if we instantaneously abolished all governments and all power structures, new ones would spontaneously form immediately after.
> I am very unimpressed by political philosophies that take arguments to their logical conclusion.
People's inability or unwillingness to take things to their logical conclusion is why mainstream political philosophy is doomed to fail. If you want to test principles, then you must assign extreme values to all variables and see how the system copes. Everybody breaks under this simple test.
> we should carefully design laws and processes to constrain it
Those already exist and are routinely ignored. The US government routinely disregards the rights of its own citizens, and nothing happens, all it has to do is say the magic words "national security" and it all goes away. Every once in a while, evidence of abuses somehow surface and they are so egregious that they have no choice but to do something about it, but due to survivorship bias you must assume the abuse is far more prevalent than what you're actually seeing.
Only structural solutions meaningfully change this calculus. It must be impossible for the government to abuse you in any way. Anything short of that will fail.
No, it is an argument that the best way not to abuse something is to not have access to it. If you enshrine a ban of total surveillance on a deep and universal level in a country, it'll be a lot more difficult for a future bad actor state to reinstate it. We need the most extreme legal hurdles that can exist. More importantly, if the technology isn't actually physically installed, it becomes even more of an uphill battle for a future corrupt government. Your proposal is for surveilling everyone but making a pinky promise that no one in the chain will ever be corrupt at any point in the future, because all it would take at that point is changing some words on a page, refusing to prosecute an abuse of power, using some loopholes or pushing a software update.
The modern legally bound nation state has done much better at guaranteeing rights and protecting freedoms than any other configurations despite the fact that it's constained largely by "pinky promises" (i.e. laws, courts, etc).
A lot of those exist because of fairly strong “don’t get close to this” rules or culture. There are certainly areas where our democracies had good properties that slowly erroded too.
> The moment code gets written and read back, the decisions made are often treated as gospel by frontier LLMs, even if it was just something that the LLM optimistically created itself.
In my experience, it's even worse than that: the LLMs constantly assume that all existing code was created entirely by me.
They generate code, then suddenly start talking about that exact same code as if I had manually and deliberately written all of it. They assume every single technical decision was made by me. They don't just treat it as gospel, they assume it's my gospel.
Honestly this is the best part and even more notable than the awesome house.
LAN parties? Wealth's not really required, it's possible to have those with laptops and a router. High school friends that not only kept in touch but continued to game together for over a decade? That's rare.
It's Scheme's default undelimited continations that are bad to the point of uselessness.
reply