It is good provocation even if it is poor analogy.
This is because bacon is more like cigarettes than most people assume, even if far less dangerous in practice.
Like another example is "sugar is poison." which is also structured as a factual equivalence and also gesturing at something real and also designed to land as a stronger claim than the evidence warrants.
Modern industrial farming practices are so far removed from "natural" with how they are processed that an ultra-processed slurry of starches and oils is more far more "natural" by comparison.
If you want to simply go by societal resilience from biorisks then switching to more easily controllable substances like plant based meat for protein would be an absolute win.
I wonder if there is any evidence of the Iran war starting, in part, as a distraction from this. I recall reading somewhere that there is a long historical trend of countries and empires going to war - so much so that some of it can even be predictably modelled - once economic realities and discontent at home get too bad. War then acts as a form of national unity that helps keep the current elite in power.
Dubai is predictable evil. You know what to do to avoid trouble.
The Trump admin acts like it is on cocaine. Many people - and I think this can be a highly rational preference - prefer predictable more evil of chaotic less evil.
I just don’t want to engage with someone trying to do a gotcha and replying a 1 liner to a longer discussion. I don’t think they’re engaging in good faith.
It’s pretty simple. We give the government the power of force to help have a society. We have limits on that.
So, AI for terrorists, our enemies, wars? Unlimited.
AI that go against civil liberties for Americans? Bad.
AI that harms people. Bad.
The issue is “harm” is subjective and taken over by the wokeness comment. Harassing women shouldn’t instantly be flagged as harmful. Asking hard questions shouldn’t be seen as harmful. Asking how to make a bomb, harmful.
I’ve answered many questions and I’m answering yours. More than happy to stand up for my beliefs and work towards making my country the best it can be. I spent my career in DoD, I’ve written my congressman about DHS overreach on Americans. And I’ve been to active combat zones. I also find what’s happening in Europe disgusting and can’t believe how my ancestral home is being decimated. But when I go I see many who are scared to speak up in their repressive regimes and love how us Americans have freedoms.
You sound like you are laying blame at the feet of companies following employment laws when you should be complaining to the government that makes the employment laws the company is abiding by.
The safest version will still be better overall regardless, by definition. It is also a better future for most if it is inevitable that the war department is going to use a less safe alternative if they can't use the safer one.
The safest version will be the one most effective at killing dissenters without killing regime personnel. So yes, it will be better, for the people controlling the killbots, not for their victims.
Yea I know. I once went into MBTI in the vein of "it's not scientific but can I learn something useful out of it?" I tend to test close to ENFP/ENTP. I can notice tendencies of both in me. Then I went on the ENFP subreddit as I suspected many had ADHD and simply asked in a poll. A lot of them said that they did, as I suspected as I'm subclinical myself (and it becomes clinical real fast I even just sleep for 6 hours on one night).
So I learned that you can definitely glean some insights from it. One insight I have is: I'm a "talk out loud thinker". I don't really value that as an identity thing but it is definitely something I notice that I do. I also think a lot of things in my mind, but I tend to think out loud more than the average person.
So yea, that's how pseudo science can sometimes still lead to useful insights about one particular individual. Same thing with philosophy really, usually also not empirically tested (I do think it has a stronger academic grounding but to call philosophy a science is... a bit... tricky... in many cases. I think the common theme is that it's also usually not empirically grounded but still really useful).
This is because bacon is more like cigarettes than most people assume, even if far less dangerous in practice.
Like another example is "sugar is poison." which is also structured as a factual equivalence and also gesturing at something real and also designed to land as a stronger claim than the evidence warrants.
reply