
Trump administration rejects women picked for soybean board, appoints men instead reut.rs/4talwT7 reut.rs/4talwT7
Malaclypse the Tertiary
2.3K posts

@maltertiary
Become what you are, having learned what that is.

Trump administration rejects women picked for soybean board, appoints men instead reut.rs/4talwT7 reut.rs/4talwT7



This twitter classic "red button / blue button" [everyone who picks blue dies unless more than 50% do; everyone who picks red lives] question is cursed but we've learned a lot about people since it went around on the timeline the last time First to get this out of the way - there is zero actual reason to push blue - none - there is no "payoff to cooperation" being modeled since the payoff on offer - not dying - is the same for both choices. The only rational reason to pick blue is that you *hope* less than 50% of people pick blue so you can end your life and escape the person who is putting you in contrived hypotheticals for his own amusement With that out of the way - what we've learned in the 2 years since this hit the timeline the first time is that many, many people are simply next token predictors and when they see this example they say they will pick the "cooperative" choice (which isn't actually that!) We have also learned that when confronted with the stupidity of this position, they will simply costlessly double down and "argue" about it forever rather than admit error Really, the question is extremely revealing

Interesting.

This is language of the femael ENTREPRENEUR who easily repackages materialistic frigidity as calculated pandering to naive “based” males primed to think promiscuity is biggest problem of modern wimmin. In this case her reward is X engagement but others ensnare lives now

How this makes you feel …yes… I go nap








“They’re losing faith in humanity. Release the wholesome Japanese posts.”

Karma is finally coming for Meta, through the legal system. As we await a verdict in Los Angeles on whether social media platforms were designed to addict young people, it's important to note that TWO courts have already ruled against Meta in the past month. 1) Yesterday, a jury in New Mexico established that Meta's platforms are not safe for kids, and that their design enabled the exploitation of children. This is a watershed moment: This is the FIRST time a jury has evaluated the evidence. The evidence was so compelling that the jury said Meta should pay $375 million dollars in civil penalties for the harms it has caused to New Mexico and its citizens. See here: theguardian.com/technology/202… 2. But it gets worse for Meta: a few weeks ago, in Delaware, a court ruled that Meta's insurance companies do not have a duty to defend Meta or cover its costs in the thousands of lawsuits playing out in California because, under California law, if a company caused harm through "intentional acts" rather than accidentally, the insurers have no obligation to defend that company. Because the documents brought out in the NM and LA trials show intentional actions, Meta loses insurance coverage. That's what the insurance companies asserted, and the judge agreed with them. See here: insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-… Because of these two rulings, the legal and political landscape has changed dramatically. Going forward, social media companies will be judged like any other company whose product design decisions harm children. These two rulings mark a profound shift toward accountability. The legal system is beginning to catch up to what parents have known all along. Many parents are now more likely to get justice for what these platforms have been doing to children for many years.


A new diagnostic quiz 10 questions for you to think about. This is probably more fun for people who are relatively new to philosophy. Try it out and see! I am having a lot of fun creating these tools, quizzes, and resources. Enjoy! diagnostic.millermanschool.com