We’re taught we’re all special unique snowflakes, forgetting that we’re all just weirdly shaped water.

The snowflake seeks to be cherished and preserved in its beauty. The water wants to be part of the avalanche or flood.

living through that kinda sucks.

when with others in public they acted saintly.

when none would see and fewer would believe, they acted far less so.

so there is a caveat to this otherwise not at all bad tip:

if your parents are abusive or if they enabled abuse against you, they don’t get a thank you or even a call unless you choose to do so.

gaaah /r/hailcorporate is spreading

this isn’t /r/hailcorporate, galen

so you don’t view her as a human.

gotcha.

you choose to live by deception.

may you live a long, dull, boring, lonely life.

let’s be specific:

excel is used in so many places you would not believe.

i like pages for my personal stuff but excel is so embedded within the business and government world. if

If it is unclear that the subject of my original comment uses a veneer of environmentalism as one aspect of his efforts to obfuscate his march down Umberto Eco’s ur-fascism list, it is due primarily due to a lack of skill by the writer, not the reader.

S’ok. Relearning how to write. Et écrit. Και να γράφω.

Though, it must be said, classical philosophy is often similarly constructed to how I wrote my message, and it similarly is misunderstood. “No thing” is not “nothing”.

eco is a prefix often affixed to connote or denote environmental credentials.

writing poetically is a method to gently say things succinctly with wit and brevity while not sacrificing veracity. the practice improves quality and increases capacity of speaking sans mendacity. helps with my loquacity and nudges perspicacity.

Definitely not flying from Oakland to SFO and complaining that publicly available information is being used to follow the movements of the private jet pumping out a looot of pollution.

tldr: you want the good stuff read 4. you want to actually get the good stuff read all this.

1: Just because one wants to speak does not require others hear them. If many people agree they don’t want to hear you, that’s not censorship. It’s society telling an antisocial person in a gentle way their opinions are unacceptable.

However, the person claiming they are being denied an audience then ups the stakes. Instead of being ignored on their soapbox, they grab the megaphones of newspapers, radio, TV.

It’s curious to consider that the promotion of the antisocial, either by algorithms that explicitly promote controversy or by the gatekeepers to the printing press and the broadcast studio, isn’t considered censorship of those who instead hold the seemingly bonkers view that treating people with respect does not mean treating their ideas that advocate inflicting pain on others and self respectfully, which necessitates exclusion of the person holding those antisocial views unless they alter their views to something socially acceptable.

I will point out there latter concept isn’t just fundamental to how human communities have worked for millennia. It’s identifiable as a means other species with high sociality operate. Bonobo society excludes individuals that act antisocially with return only permitted if they actually behave.

This does concede, though, that there’s an obvious hack to the concept of shaping up or shipping out.

Some hold antisocial views and merely act like they don’t in public. “Private vice and public virtue” is a well known concept. In public, they say all the right things for their social circle, but privately they don’t follow their own rules.

The “homophobic legislator who has a publicly accessible history proving his actual preference for the intimate companionship of those of the same gender” can be found in Congress as well as Hungary’s fanatically anti-queer ruling party. It takes no imagination to think of clerics who talk about protecting children at the public ceremony then violate children in their private offices, whether said cleric is named Priest, Pastor, Rabbi, Imam, Sri.

This also explains a phenomenon evident in modern polling. There is complaint by conservatives that polling is useless because polls don’t sync with results of the vote.

A person I know who has remarkable demonstrable accuracy in predicting poll results around the world (they called 49/50 states in the 2020 election and bang on 77 Labor seats with 52% 2PP in the 2022 Australian election) calls this “The Shy Tory Effect.”

Modern viewpoints that have become linked with conservative political parties are understood to be antisocial. Publicly, some who espouse antisocial beliefs either claim to be apolitical or they say they support progressive ideas. In the privacy of the polling place, though, where none know one’s true intention, they vote for the Tory that supports their actual beliefs.

2: I didn’t say he does it too. I said he actually does what others allege nobodies like this random chick do and I counter by saying I will entertain an actual rebuttal.

Today I’m bored though so ¯_(ツ)_/¯

3: Responsibility of being held accountable is simple.

If one chooses to advocate ideas that inflict pain on others and self, one should be excluded unless those antisocial ideas are renounced.

Millions of words published, printed, and transcribed going back millennia already exist on variants of this principal one finds central to philosophy and religion.

Wil Wheaton summarized this succinctly: “Don’t be a dick.”

The great philosophizers Ted “Theodore” Logan and Bill S. Preston, Esq. mused, “Be excellent to each other.”

Anons that advocate antisocial views are tolerable as long as the options to ignore the anon or to unmask the anon are reasonably available whenif necessary.

Visiting 4chan is a choice an individual can make. 4chan is the incubator of memes for this exact reason: anonymity allows those who come up with an idea to share it at the cost of instantly and irrevocably losing control over the idea.

A billionaire using shell companies and think tanks to advocate antisocial views on every platform while staying obfuscated via the legal fictions in between, that’s dangerous especially in a place that foolishly says money is speech.

(It is worth noting that Stevens’ 90 page dissent on Citizens United was prescient in accurately predicting the horrific fallout from that decision, including the current popular opinion SCOTUS is illegitimate. Law students may see it as footnote but philosophers should see it as a master class on logic.)

4: I don’t mind discussing things with anyone that holds any view other than a view that is diametrically opposed to my existence if they actually want to talk.

An antiziganist holds a foundational opinion that Roma should not exist. They believe in extermination of Roma. This person’s entire being is dedicated to that proposition. What does it profit Roma to engage this person?

That’s a very narrow window, though. Most people that hold antisocial views are not absolutists or zealots.

They can be reasoned with though the caveat that this is dancing a waltz backwards and in heels across a live minefield must be mentioned.

The misogynist self-indoctrinated those antisocial views on women and on who they are told is their political enemy, “the Left,” who they are told wants to inflict pain on them so they must inflict pain on them.

You would think that would preclude a person who calls herself a leftist from speaking to that person. That’s logical, right? Why would a leftist chick talk to someone who hates lefties and women and lefty women?

Lol nope. Try again.

I don’t talk to them. They talk to me.

I just act with genuine sincerity from the position of choosing to not inflict harm on others and self in all spheres of life.

I don’t attack people. Attacking people looks easy but is hard.

I consider myself violently nonviolent, though, because I am at war against ideas that advocate inflicting pain on others.

Attacking ideas looks hard but is obscenely easy.

All one needs to do is demonstrate a counterexample that challenges the premises underpinning the hateful view.

Sometimes one reflects, points to the mirror, and realizes the counterexample just needs to be.. you.

Writers call this concept, “show, don’t tell.”

I engage in deradicalization for fun. I know it’s a weird hobby, but my life is an exercise in absurdity to begin with, so I roll with it.

The most important lesson anyone going into derad needs to know is that no one can force change into another person’s mind if they acknowledge agency.

That is a contradictory concept and it’s toxic.

It also explains that certain style by those who spread hate online: they pay lip service to agency but did not believe others have it.

The alt-right YouTuber starts by saying, “I’m just sharing my opinion..” but leaves unsaid: …and I expect you to latch onto it, sheeple.

Public virtue, private vice. Shy Tory effect. Hey look, callbacks.

It’s almost like these are the same thing wearing different masks.

Turns out they are. They are all bullshit per the Frankfurt definition.

All one needs to do to counter is approach with sincerity and genuine openness and invest the time. (And actively avoid amygdala hijack. And have discipline that makes a drill instructor look like a slovenly civvie. But that’s in the advanced courses, which are conveniently available for the low low price of zero dollars for a limited time only, offer expires upon your expiration.)

If it takes me 48 hours of vulnerable, open conversations to help someone realize that, “wait, those ideas i supported, they are not what i actually believe,” and chose to give them up, beats any paycheque in my eyes.

…even if it makes it a challenge to feed the bills and pay the cat. Hours work for me but the pay is nonexistent.

You mean those who deny liberty to others?

Because the ones that are obsessed with “canceling” the speech of others are the ones that seek the liberty of speaking whatever they want without the responsibility of being held accountable for the words that they utter.

They do so by denying those who oppose them the liberty of calling out their lies and their bullshit (Frankfurt 1986 definition).

It is amazing that so many who claim to be “cancelled” on the political right somehow also have column inches and minutes of airtime to whine about it. It’s almost like it’s bullshit.

Elon Musk is a liberty denier. You criticize him, you are silenced. You point out he uses eco to conceal Eco, you are silenced.

Go ahead and criticize my argument. I’ve got little to do at the moment, but I won’t deny you the liberty to criticize anything I say. But if you do have a criticism, rebut my claims.

I might understand that guys apparent MO, but I’m nowhere near that guy in behaviour and attitude.

I’m fascinated by the sports analogy and the concept of unknowing.

I’ve befriended an elite level athlete. (I’m forced to take as a premise that my life is absurd as a first principle after rationally reflecting on all the improbable i’ve survived.)

I asked them, “If you knew the outcome, would the game still be worth playing?”

They said it would, actually. The end isn’t what matters. It’s how you get there.

Similarly, i disagree that it is not rationally possible to unknow information one has been exposed to. Dissociation, in my understanding, is a rational protective measure of a mind to an irrationally dangerous scenario such as extended and/or extreme trauma.

Dissociation is closely related to the well documented phenomenon that trauma survivors are the most suggestible cohort regarding hypnosis.

Absent these two premises it would make no sense how a person can rationally unknow information.

But, well, what do i know. I’m just a hacker.

In that vein there are multiple persons in the hacker community that go by nyms rather than their actual name. Adjacent to the hacker community are several other communities where nyms are de rigour. I know the legal names of certain individuals that prefer that information not be disclosed, for example. And thanks to the ability to dissociate, that information is deliberately inaccessible to me unless the very rare occasion pops up where I need it, such as a call for bail.

In other words, compartmentalization, which is merely another form dissociation takes. In my case, it is a conscious and conscientious effort to not know what i allegedly know, like i even know anything.

In the vein of the article, knowing someone by a preferred name except when a legal name needs to be known is a highly rational form of seeming irrationality.

It’s a kosher bacon cheeseburger because the bacon is tempeh, the burger is soya, the cheese is made cashews. (I’m just a hacker, as i mentioned before, not a Talmudic scholar, and every analogy breaks down at a certain point.)

my typical method is assuming any conclusions or theory is likely in error until demonstrated otherwise.

as an example, based on first principles, observation, and a little industry knowledge, i developed a theory regarding journalists falling into two camps: access journos who cultivate access, and ignored journos who seek veracity.

i thought it was just a tight until someone pointed me to the herman-chomsky propaganda model, a work i haven’t read (thank you multiple TBIs), where this is a component of it.

my kona ev with 62k km on the clock in less than two years would disagree with you but i can see your point

you made highly erroneous assumptions.

the claim of 10-20x efficiency for chargers vs swappers is intriguing

a swap station is bulkier and more expensive to build but at the same time is capable of continuously charging more batteries in parallel and testing all the batteries at the same time

additionally if you have five cars queueing for one 5min swap that’s 20min for the last car; if you have five cars queueing for four fast chargers, even if that fast charge is 10min, average wait time per vehicle is longer and that assumes full high speed delivery of fast charge which is dependent on multiple factors

this latter phenomenon is parallel to the walk left-stand right concept commonly used in escalators except statistically speaking standing on both sides moves everyone faster, both in teens of average speed and throughput and increases escalator reliability since the steps aren’t unevenly worn

the final bullet point is a good one, and there are multiple possible answers but a reasonable one is that access to the battery network is subscription based as in you pay a monthly fee for the batteries

additionally against your final point: swappable batteries aren’t structural but the frame around them most assuredly is, just like how the battery box at least should be structural but the batteries themselves cannot be for safety reasons

hi. nobody here. thank you for acknowledging atypical use cases that need to be considered as more typical if EVs are to be utilisable as general replacements for ICE vehicles particularly in less densely populated regions or for longer trips.

not everyone has access to charging infra at destinations. not everyone can charge where they live or work. not all grids can handle the additional base load of EV charging (looking at you, texas).

swappable batteries would also radically lower vehicle and battery fabrication costs, by the way, not to mention eliminate a worry every li-ion device nowadays has that didn’t use to be a worry: what happens when the battery’s lifespan is breached and capacity craters.

It’s a conscious choice.

Battery swap technologies for electric vehicles existed in the freaking 1890s in Manhattan. China is incentivizing battery swap vehicles now.

Car makers are choosing to not battery swap for $reasons, despite that it would be better four everyone if all that was needed to “recharge” was a 5min visit to an automated garage that swapped batteries.