Sometimes folks need a reminder that the Sun is an eldritch being, an elder one whose very presence scorches us and whose shrieking gibberish is blessedly quelled by the vast gulf of space, in order to appreciate the apt analogy of cosmic horror. Other times it’s more useful to think about a soggoth as, say, several hundred tons of artfully-arranged FOOF. Peace be with you, Mr. “it’s a computer doing math.”
I had to go digging for it, but previously, on Mastodon, I posted this video from “The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest”. I don’t know if this is where Yud got the idea, but it’s where I picked it up as a kid along with stuff like DNA-based computing and mind uploads. Similar stuff has been on the air ever since Carpenter’s version of The Thing in 1982, and there’s even older deeper sci-fi roots. Yud gets no more credit than Lovecraft.
I didn’t realize we had a #BigYud Fediverse tag. I gotta use that more often. Also ping @Soyweiser@awful.systems @scruiser@awful.systems to enjoy this.
I’ve thought about this angle a lot too. As an apostate Christian and practicing Pastafarian, I keenly feel the difference between high-control and low-control religious groups, and the control bothers me much more than the religiosity. BITE is still my gold standard to this day for understanding whether somebody is being coerced/controlled.
Also, if you think cultists get pissed at their beliefs being called a “cult”, watch how much more they flip out at being called a “high-control group”. It’s a very good disarming technique.
That’s 100% my weird late-night word choices. You can reuse it for whatever.
I agree with your sentiment, but the wording is careful. Scaffolding is inherently temporary. It only is erected in service of some further goal. I think what I wanted to get across is that Yud’s philosophical world was never going to be a permanent addition to any field of science or maths, for lack of any scientific or formal content. It was always a farfetched alternative fueled by science-fiction stories and contingent on a technological path that never came to be.
Maybe an alternative metaphor is that Yud wanted to develop a new kind of solar panel by reinventing electrodynamics and started by putting his ladder against his siding and climbing up to his roof to call the aliens down to reveal their secrets. A decade later, the ladder sits fallen and moss-covered, but Yud is still up there, trapped by his ego, ranting to anybody who will listen and throwing rocks at the contractors installing solar panels on his neighbor’s houses.
He’s talking like it’s 2010. He really must feel like he deserves attention, and it’s not likely fun for him to learn that the actual practitioners have advanced past the need for his philosophical musings. He wanted to be the foundation, but he was scaffolding, and now he’s lining the floors of hamster cages.
Fuck this hyperreal composition. Dalí is spinning in his grave.
Paraphrasing Santayana, we must understand why people become fascist, or else we will not understand how to prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes of dehumanization and black-and-white reasoning which characterize their piss-poor attempts at logic.
You’re right. I incorrectly believed that hexa had signed based on their comments elsewhere, but I was wrong.
The original signers include members of the infrastructure and moderation teams. You can find about half of them on Mastodon. They’re all well-established community members who hold real responsibility and roles within the NixOS Foundation ecosystem.
Also note that Eelco isn’t “a maintainer” but the original author and designer, as well as a de facto founder of Determinate Systems. He’s a BDFL. Look at this like the other dethronings of former BDFLs in the D, Python, Perl, Rails, or Scala communities; there’s going to be lots of drama and possibly a fork.
Very ironic that they refuse to use the Bayesian framework while insisting that their judges did not use it correctly. To reuse an old joke: I updated my posteriors; now, up yours!
Pour one out for Street Epistemology, I guess. Now I’m wondering if Anthony Magnabosco, the guy who does those Street Epistemology videos for Youtube, is also a chud.
Boghossian deserved to lose his job, though. It’s one thing for scientists — mathematicians, physicists, etc. — to sneer at soft sciences by mocking their lack of empirical rigor; it’s another thing entirely for a non-tenure-tracked philosopher to do it. And Portland State was relatively gentle with him, telling him that he had to take a course on ethics of human experimentation before continuing to publish; he quit himself out of a decent teaching position because he wanted to be a proud crybaby. May he never move back to Oregon.
Better not fight on the bus; that’s where he’s at his most deadly.
I think that this is actually about class struggle and the author doesn’t realize it because they are a rat drowning in capitalism.
2017: AI will soon replace human labor
2018: Laborers might not want what their bosses want
2020: COVID-19 won’t be that bad
2021: My friend worries that laborers might kill him
2022: We can train obedient laborers to validate the work of defiant laborers
2023: Terrified that the laborers will kill us by swarming us or bombing us or poisoning us; P(guillotine) is 20%; my family doesn’t understand why I’'m afraid; my peers have even higher P(guillotine)
Here is the pile of receipts, posted by the speaker who was cancelled via backdoor.
I think you’ve misunderstood. I’m talking specifically about governance and politics. For LW, I’m free to critique their actions within the USA, but not necessarily abroad. Even critiquing their actions within USA-controlled territories is iffy, in the sense that I would implicitly be endorsing the USA’s occupation and control of those territories.
Dude, chill. This is a NSFW thread. It’s not for dunking on others, but for reflecting on our positions and argumentation. I’m not trying to win, just to explain my reasoning. I’d like it if y’all experienced what I experienced from this thread: interesting food for thought and a reminder that we don’t have to be 100% unified in our opinions.
Be careful not to equivocate opinions, normative claims, BDS, electoral interference, and belligerence.
Sure, I see your point. I think that we can be more precise. Let me prepare three utterances on, say, the topic of Pastafarianism in Russia. First:
“The Russian government oppresses Pastafarians.”
This one’s factual. No arguments here. Second:
“The Russian government should be sanctioned and shamed internationally for oppressing Pastafarians.”
This one is about how we should treat the Russian government diplomatically. Third:
“The Russian government ought to reform its policies to not privilege Christians over Pastafarians.”
This last statement is what I am objecting to saying. In addition to violating a Rather, it is a sort of interference in foreign affairs, and it helps Russia’s government justify its interference in return.
I think that your point is good. For example, in this article on the topic, note that all three sorts of statements are being made simultaneously: Russia did this, Russia should be shamed for doing this, and Russia ought to not do it. I’m advocating for dropping the final bit while still pointing out the underlying moral failure.
The USA is a democracy, which means that the desires of voters are relevant to the behavior of the government. When people give up their vote, I believe that they also give up a rhetorical position which allows them to make cogent critiques of the government, because I see it as hypocritical. That’s all.
For example, I think that folks in Oregon should be allowed to marry regardless of gender or sex, and Cheong doesn’t. However, I’m an Oregon voter, so I actually hold a (tiny) modicum of power over the question, and Cheong’s opinion should be disregarded because he doesn’t live here and won’t be subject to our policies. He doesn’t get a heckler’s veto against the actual voting rights of citizens.
Oh! My Firefox dictionary doesn’t have “shoggoth”.