That's an interesting question. I will open a Jira ticket to schedule a meeting with the Product Team, and they will assign you several stories with acceptance criteria written by AI.
I think if you empathized more with the scolder, you would see that they DID empathize with the shovel-eating-class-hater, and realized, via empathy-bond, that person was not empathizing downstream enough.
I'm pretty sure you meant "obligatory" word count. But "obituary" is an awesome accident. Like Copilot is waiting, happy to sum up your life in a tidy paragraph, when the time comes.
You're right, it's about ideas, but the original article handles the interesting case where we fail to form or handle our ideas using "reason."
> The power of reasons is an illusion. The belief will not change when the reasons are defeated.
So privilege plays an interesting role. Unaware privilege - failing to see ones own circumstances, failing to assess how we fit in the world - is almost the same thing as non-reason. I suppose there could be a class of people who are like, "I am totally privileged, and somehow I delude myself and don't notice, but in every OTHER way I am totally reasonable." That could be a subgroup. But probably not a big one?
Mimesis is one side of a coin, it seems like contrarian tendency is the other. They both involve you making a little theory-of-mind for each of your friends/enemies/associates. To the point, it disturbs you that people are malleable and/or unreasonable, but why do you care at all?
I just wondered. Because you are a rando on the internet, and I constructed a model of your mind, and I don't quite understand it.
There's a core good idea at the heart of the NFT hoopla. Or at least I would say there's a core very interesting/powerful idea there. That is -- you can bake in an enforceable mechanism where the original seller gets an X percent cut of future sales.
The current implementations are often broken. Downstream sales can skirt the royalty. But that is, like many problems with crypto, a solvable engineering problem.
I call this primary-sale royalty a "good" idea because it seems like an obvious, almost intuitive way to benefit original artists. And it also just clears out mountains of regulation and royalty regime that currently track, enforce and account for royalties, and do a terrible job of it.
The problem is, you can use the same mechanism for anything, such that rich people can bake in an "I continue to get richer" royalty whenever they sell their property.
Both the good and bad side of this mechanism are just one thing you can do with programmable money. Does anybody think it's the only one -- the only new mechanism worth developing?
I think you're right that Web3 won't come close to displacing existing last-resort dispute handlers (courts, laws, etc). But it's dangerous to overlook the revolution lurking in "remove some friction from the system."
Uber removes some friction from hailing a taxi.
AirBnB removes some friction from finding a room to rent.
The internet removes some friction from sending messages.
To someone with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Web3 seems like it's primarily a horde of crypto-maxis running around hitting every damn thing with a smart contract, and see what sticks.
This is, arguably, going to be better than violently caging people, in some circumstances.
I take the GF comment to be maybe virtue-signally, but mostly pointing out that our legacy law system has an awwwwwful lot of people in jail. Maybe that jail-shaped hammer is not as useful as you think it is?
I've had success running swc on the output of esbuild, with a swc target of IE11. We do this only for the IE11 build. So at app startup, we check for IE11, and then load a polyfill from https://polyfill.io, and then the IE11-specific build.
The goal is to make it to September, when we have decided we can completely pull the plug on IE.
I guess there's a time premise to a painting. The artist is not necessarily asserting -- but I implicitly assume -- that the artist deems any given painting "a thing upon which to dwell." A stamp of good aesthetic housekeeping -- trust me, says the painter, your viewer's mind and soul can rest herewithin. I mean, the painter certainly did. Day upon day of slowly creating the thing in which their visual cortex swam, lived, breathed and had its being.
I am standing next to the artist. Seeing what she saw, imagining what it must be like to arrive from the other direction, without all the layers of preconception and intention that she baked in. And hopefully, from her direction and from mine, the good housekeeping seal, there is something "good" about this meeting of two perspectives.
Your project throws that good-housekeeping seal out the window. Which is not to say that a given image is bad. Rather, that the social contract between one viewer and one artist, is missing. My viewer's eye keeps assuming it exists, and my brain reminds me -- no, this is all fake, there is no humanity behind the curtain. There is nobody to connect to. Maybe it's still art, but not the kind I... emotionally expect from a thing that looks, at first glance, beautifully painted?
So, the infinite aspect definitely "helps" the experience. The exhaustion helps one feel viscerally how big is the problem space.
The further down the page I scrolled, the more I got a kind of despair. To realize that the space was infinite, and I would never reach its end. Each individual image is pretty cool. As a collection, they're sad.
What's funny is that I then tabbed back to HN, where I was deep down the comments tree, and momentarily I forgot that real humans make these comments. I thought "I shall never reach the end of the HN comments. It's all AI - generating a pastiche of plausible opinions and sentences-that-appear-sentient." Same despair. Quite a relief, then, to get to the end of the page.