FaceDeer

The risk I try to avoid with this sort of wording is the religious connotations of “belief.” When people believe in a religion they generally do intend that to mean “with no chance I’m mistaken” so I don’t want anyone to mistake me as having a religious belief in an objective reality. It’s not like that.

So do you believe in an objective reality, or not? You said a couple of opposite things there.

I don’t think I did say opposite things. I don’t believe in an objective reality because there’s no way to prove it. But it does seem like a very useful concept, and well supported. I generally behave as if there is an objective reality and I’m not sure how I’d manage if there wasn’t one.

It’s the same as how one shouldn’t say the “believe in” any particular scientific law, because it’s always possible that evidence will come along later that disproves it. I suppose you could say I believe it’s the best idea I know of, but I don’t like getting that sloppy with terms like this when actually discussing the concept of “objective reality.”

That happened to Conservapedia too. It’s a poster child for Poe’s Law, none of the editors over there really knows whether any of the other editors are true believer lunatics or highly creative trolls making up nonsense in the style of true believer lunatics. For all we know the true believers are a minority at this point and the whole thing is mostly trolling, there’s no way to tell it apart from genuine lunacy.

Reminds me of various old sayings, such as: “The truth is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” And “if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

I don’t necessarily believe in a purely objective reality, personally. I don’t know for sure that there is some kind of platonic ideal structure of all things that exists apart from observers and always has and always will, it’s a hard thing to figure out how to even start to prove. But there sure does seem like there is one, some kind of underlying pattern to reality that everyone who makes honest rigorous measurements seems to be measuring the same way. So if you just do straightforward science it seems like you automatically end up participating in a single common shared worldview.

Whereas if you just make shit up based on your beliefs, you end up with a worldview that’s divergent from everyone else who’s also making shit up based on their beliefs.

It gives an inherent advantage to the reality-based people. They end up working together and supporting each other even if they have absolutely no way to communicate with each other. Physicists doing experiments on opposite sides of the planet with no awareness of each other can produce results that, when they’re later brought together, click into place as if the two of them had directly collaborated all their lives. It’s awesome.

Does it need to be repeated over and over, though? The answer is there.

Funny to find comments like this in a thread whose root point is basically “don’t be a dick to people in the comments.”

My hope is that they’ll sell off all the smaller IPs to make money fast, hopefully setting some of the ones I like free.

And why sometimes when a writer becomes immensely successful the quality of their output suffers - they become “too big to edit.”

The Star Wars prequel trilogy is a case in point, IMO. Back on the original trilogy George Lucas had people who could tell him “no, that’s a bad idea.”

You can tell the voices aren’t right, the pictures are soulless, the prose is stilled and often self-contradictory.

And you can’t tell when the voices do turn out right, the pictures are fine, and the prose works well.

This all reminds me a lot of how people railed against CGI in movies, claiming that CGI scenes or actors would always look “uncanny valley” and that they’d always be able to tell. Many people continue to claim that to this day, unaware of just how much CGI is in each frame that they don’t recognize as CGI. Or worse, they look really hard for things to complain are bad CGI and end up accusing non-CGI shots of being CGI.

“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing,”

And screw those people who make a living washing dishes in restaurants or doing maid service in hotels, their jobs aren’t special like mine are.

This headline could be so easily flipped on its head; “Clients rejoice as custom art becomes cheaper and more accessible for their projects.” But we’ve put artists on a pedestal for so long that such views are incredibly unpopular, and so those headlines don’t get the clicks and views like it get crushed out of social media.

Those places aren’t public places, so of course I’d turn it off or leave.

If I was in public and someone told me to stop recording, I’d likely say “no.” Hasn’t that been a major point of pushback against police demanding that we not record them, for example?

yeah, no, we still disagree.

Okay, then, we’re in disagreement. But I’m still able to use it, so.

Call it creepy if you want, that’s fine, that’s your opinion. It’s not infringing anyone’s rights.

no one is saying you don’t have “the right” to wear this

Okay, we’re in agreement then.

But my comment about how people have the right to do things you personally disapprove of is even more pointful.

It’s not universal. Where I live it’s one-party consent.

Unfortunately we live in a world where people often have the right to do things that we personally disapprove of.

Well, don’t use it then.

Sure, but are any of these “don’t worry guys I torrented a database dump, it’s safe now” folks going to go to the trouble of actually doing that? They’re not even downloading a full backup, just the current version.

You need to devote a lot of bandwidth to keeping continuously up to date with Wikipedia. There’s only a few archives out there that are likely doing that, and of course Wikimedia Foundation and its international chapters themselves. Those are the ones who will provide the data needed to restart Wikipedia, if it actually comes to that.

My point is that the alternative isn’t “no solution”, it’s “the much better database dump from Internet Archive or Wikimedia Foundation or wherever, the one that a new Wikipedia instance actually would be spun up from, not the one that you downloaded months ago and stashed in your closet.”

The fact that random people on the Internet have old copies of an incomplete, static copy of Wikipedia doesn’t really help anything. The real work that would go into bringing back Wikipedia would be creating the new hosting infrastructure capable of handling it, not trying to scrounge up a database to put on it.

Force Lightning is a Sith technique, not a Jedi one. Unscientific!