• 1.42K Posts
  • 842 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 7th, 2026

help-circle





















  • If people want to adopt religious views about computers, algorithms, LLMs or the kinds of optimization problems that are best suited for them to solve as inherently more holy than other things in life fine and if people want to idolize the ability to measure things and quantify them beyond any meaning, well it isn’t like I give enough of a shit to want to stop people from practicing astrology, so I am not going to be a hypocrit about it… but it is supremely dangerous for people with religious views about computers, the logic they operate on and all of the nonsense that surrounds it to be put in positions of real power when they are completely convinced they hold no irrational religious beliefs at all and thus are perfectly suited to make choices for others.

    I believe in the separation of church and state… which also means I believe in religious freedom (which includes the freedom not to believe in religion) even for the tacky scifi fever dream ones.

    This is really the fundamental argument for “organized” religion, not that god exists but that every overconfident asshole in the world thinks they are jesus, so people begin to prefer to subscribe to a belief system that reacts to every overconfident asshole proclaiming they are jesus once they get power with “No, you really aren’t, you are delusional and you have a hammer so all you can see are nails.”

    I am not saying religion is great at this, or even adequate, but it is one of the fundamental motors at the heart of what drives people to adhere strictly to organized religions and tolerate their endless bs.

    Effective altruism to me mostly seems like a bunch of libertarians deciding once again that they cannot be sure everyone else just isn’t dumber than them unless they prove to themselves the hard way what the lessons that have been passed down by humanity for the last several thousands of years are.

    We could just skip all of this if we directly acknowledged that they cannot find it within their tiny imaginations to perceive that knowledge can exist outside of spreadsheets and yet they desperately need something to cling to beyond the material and thus inevitably resort to turning spreadsheets into religion to save themselves from their own catastrophic lack of education in the humanities… and then for some reason we are supposed to think they are geniuses or have come up with something new we all have to focus on?





  • War always happens in a political context and the political context must be two faced otherwise how could something be allowed to happen that makes every single individual it touches put their life into doing what they perceive will make it stop?

    Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death. — Wernher Von Braun

    There are a lot of reasons Pynchon put this quote at the beginning of Gravity’s Rainbow (the vast majority of them secular) and one of them that is easily missed is to function as a darkly humorous and existentialist critique of the idea there can truly be a righteous side in war or that the enemy generals ever really “lose”.








  • This response is also more easily put in place and accepted since it aligns with Modernity’s narrative of “progress” that asserts human ingenuity will help to make tomorrow better than today through its overcoming of problems in perpetuity. But this is more than simply an elite narrative; it is a deeply held cultural belief and one that is leveraged by the high priests of our modern world.

    It is additionally attractive to the ruling elite since it helps deflect attention away from the structural causes of diminishing returns and the systemic reforms–simplification–that might help mitigate them. If the problem is not enough innovation, then more education, infrastructure, and research and development is needed. The elite can avoid discussions of unsustainability of status quo arrangements and structures while portraying themselves as captains of industry and champions of progress.

    Finally, the ruling elite find this perhaps the most appealing response to pursue as it can be used to create new profitable ventures. They benefit greatly from this response–whoever controls the patents, capital, and infrastructure required to produce new technologies can gain much in the way of wealth and thus power and prestige. The benefits that flow from this response, however, are marketed as universal. Massive investments in technologies that promise convenience and salvation from problems–even just everyday menial chores–are easily justified and quickly supported by the masses.





  • in fact the entire point of mechanized armored maneuver is to enclose large swaths of enemy fighters

    So do tell, genius - what happens to those “large swathes of enemy fighters” after you’ve enclosed them, eh?

    These are baby questions about war, go do some basic reading about it.

    What happens is hopefully for everyone’s sake they surrender.

    Maneuver seeks to inflict losses indirectly by envelopment, encirclement and disruption, while minimizing the need to engage in frontal combat. In contrast to attrition warfare where strength tends to be applied against strength, maneuver warfare attempts to apply strength against weakness in order to accomplish the mission.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare

    A common thread runs through these critiques: the relationship between tactics and victory. The maneuver versus attrition dichotomy treats some tactics as inherently bad and others as inherently good. What matters is whether tactics can translate to strategic effect that serves to achieve the political end state, a relationship rendered opaque by the imposition of the operational level of war. Finally, the actions after tactical victory is achieved determine strategic effects. Tactical victory is insufficient as an end state.

    https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/maneuver-warfare-a-defense/

    If Ukraine were to start slaughtering surrounded, defeated, starving russian fighters not only would it be a war crime, it would also NOT break the fighting will of russians and russian fighters, it would do the opposite and strengthen their resolve to fight to the bitter pointless end, that is why Ukraine isn’t doing it… on top of it being inhumane and also resulting in traumatizing their own soldiers.

    None of this is to say Ukraine is perfect, war is a disgusting thing and everything gets messy, but as a pattern no, Ukraine is not needlessly killing russians when they attempt to surrender that would backfire spectacularly for Ukraine on so many levels it makes my head hurt. I have also never seen credible evidence Ukraine is systematically mistreating their prisoners of war, conducting genocide and human rights crimes against occupied territories nor systematically targetting russian civilians in acts of mass terror that do nothing to change the frontline reality russia is losing… all things it has been well established russia is doing by independent international entities.