Why did I read EMH as Eel Matrick Harris?

AKA a way to get rid of whatever’s been sitting there the longest?

If the big consideration is really sound, doing whatever is necessary to use larger, but slower (wide, high CFM per dB/RPM) and higher quality (fluid dynamic bearings) fans might serve the purpose regardless of other hardware. Some of them are rated to be <20dB, quieter than a whisper, and fluid bearings are supposed to be mostly impervious to the noise added by aging that hits a lot of fans.

Many, many things in this world make people wonder ‘How is this a thing?’ I don’t know of any where the answer isn’t simply, ‘Idiots exist.’

You ever hear about the US government funding experiments in mind control? One of the examples was a doctor who thought, since experiences are the key to who you are, if you could erase someone’s memories and replace them with selected others, you could turn anyone into a ‘good citizen.’ Turns out wiping someone’s brain can sort of be done, and will leave them without memories of the traumas of their past, but making them back into a whole person again isn’t so easy, and simply implanting whatever memories you want seems impossible.

Speaker on ceiling: Anyone detected using an emulator will hear from our legal department for stealing the product we have but refuse to make available for sale.

And to shit into that hand, first one must have a wish to do so. A wish is precisely as real as fascism or anarchism, and a necessary but not sufficient precursor to any of the above.

The manosphere is the biggest, most visible thing ‘for men’ anyone searching is likely to find. I’m not saying every sex-discrimination based division is innately bad, just that it’s best to be wary of individuals and organizations that try to claim that space. Many of them, and many of the most visible, are not really there for the benefit of the members. Heck, some of them start on one side of the line and then cross it at some point.

If the goal is to create a world where men feel they are emotionally supported, it would be better to seek a system/situation that enables men to be open with and supported by both men and women. It may be easier to start with a group that shares some identity marker, such as sex, but it creates a… misleading experience to have the supportive kindness in someone’s life come from men, or some other identity group, and risk the experience of women, or other outsiders to that identity group, being all/mostly/noticeably unsupportive strangers. Not everyone has the maturity to understand there might be a dynamic at play distorting their perceptions. Nothing is innate to a ‘men only’ space that encourages that maturity, especially given the world’s dynamics with sex and gender as already in place. Thus, one must be very careful.

I can’t necessarily make a nice day happen for you, I just hope your day goes well to the extent it can.

Haha, it was a well-wishing, short for ‘I hope you have a nice day,’ not a command. Have a nice day.

If enough people use a word to mean something different from what it used to mean, it literally does change the meaning, (e.g. radical meaning ‘connected to a plant’s roots,’ the reason people say ‘transwomen are real women.’ etc.) but fair enough. Have a nice day.

I’d start by being wary of anything that says it’s ‘for men.’ The male parts of reproductive medicine/endocrinology/etc. can be studied but real understanding in that area is college/post-grad level courses of material. Almost anything approachable will be over-simplified unless you really dive in. However, on the social side, (brains, emotions, support networks, etc) it’s usually a bad sign when the source says anything is exclusive to men. Most philosophy, psychology, sociology, emotional intelligence training, etc. is not served by framing it based on sex, and a lot of stuff that is framed that way tends to be propagandistic in pretending this or that understanding of sex-based social norms (a.k.a. gender) is the one true way. Studying psychoanalysis can be good, and i can recommend the Quarantine Collective on youtube as a nice place to learn about philosophy and a little bit of psychoanalysis, often presenting a secure, non-misogynistic masculinity. For emotional intelligence, it’s more about practice than study but Heidi Priebe has made some good explanations, though watch out for the woo in Jungian thinking. And while it might sound strange to some, finding a good (for you) teacher for vipassana and metta meditations can be very helpful in understanding yourself, regardless.

I brought a nicely written certificate saying their Christmas present was that a donation had been made in their name. None of them could read. It didn’t go over well.

Why would you need to be able to gift a free game? That’s all that people get there, isn’t it?

It’s a bit of a semantic grey space, like many words. For common use, anarchy and chaos are synonyms, hence why your initial comment could be read both ways. For a certain class of ‘rebellious’ individual, it’s used more like a naive, ‘lower case l’ libertarianism. For some, it means the absence of any social structure at all, a ‘state of nature.’ For some others it’s the de facto reality of all systems using a definition of ‘who has the most capacity for violence makes the rules.’ For those studying sociology and anthropology, it’s used specifically for a class of societal organizational systems that may be highly organized but share a lack of hierarchy. The shared element between the various uses is the lack of structure so I lean toward keeping it to that basic concept and hesitate to claim any of them are the ‘correct’ definition.

Why…?

Because why bother saying anything if you aren’t going to say anything? Offering correct information gives the other person a chance to correct and improve. Just saying ‘WRONG!’ is just a slap in the face that only serves to let you feel superior, masturbatory pretense.

As for the rest, those are all clearly issues, but none of them are of a sort where handling the one I raised and handling them are mutually exclusive. And at least the second item is actually a following point from the one I mentioned. People being tricked into thinking LLMs are capable of thought contributes to the thought by decision-makers that people can simply be replaced. Viewing the systems as intelligent is a big part of what makes people trust them enough to blindly accept biases in the results. Ideally, I’d say AI should be kept purely in the realm of research until it’s developed enough for isolated use as a tool but good luck getting that to happen. Post hoc adjustments are probably the best we can hope for and my little suggestion is a fun way to at least try to mitigate some of the effects. It’s certainly more reasonably likely to address some element of the issues than just saying ‘WRONG!’

The fun part is, while the issues you mentioned all have the possibility of creating broad, hard to define harm if left unchecked, there are already examples of direct harm coming from people treating LLM outputs as meaningful.

They’re both technically anarchic, (no hierarchy among rioters either) but things like this demonstrate the lack of hierarchy is clearly not the problem in either situation.

I keep wondering what the world would be like if the prices of everything were not subsidized by exploitation. So many industrial processes are done in places where they aren’t made to adhere to HSE regulations because it’s cheaper. How much would your day-to-day expenses increase if it meant all the bits and pieces involved cost enough to pay for vaguely safe and sane working conditions and environmental protections?

Good. I couldn’t be sure. ‘This is actual anarchy’ is just as readable as ‘this is the degeneracy of our modern culture’ as it is as ‘this is people acting responsibly without need of hierarchy.’

What do you think the most important issues with AI are? I see a lot of ‘you’re wrong’ but no indication as to how or why.