InternetJenkins

@Cory38702438622 @AliceFromQueens No, what you don't want is legitimate criticism.

@InternetJenkins @AliceFromQueens We don’t want you in our institutions. Build your own. We sure as fuck ain’t letting any of you in ours.

Yes, you dipshit coward, that’s the entire point of my post: you won yet you keep sounding the same hysterical alarms about wokeness.

@RDT39933040 @ChristianHeiens Like, you specifically.

@RDT39933040 @ChristianHeiens Utter nonsense. The average progressive desperately wants to think of themselves as a “good person.” The average MAGA just wants you to leave them alone.

Liberal Democracy in America is ultimately doomed in the long run because the Democratic Party fundamentally believes that any attempt to roll back the various pillars of Progressivism constitutes a morally illegitimate breakdown of the legal order itself, and the only appropriate response is to blow up the entire system in order to prevent that from ever happening. No system can survive when one side believes that they’re never allowed to lose and that any deviation from eternal victory constitutes some sort of cosmic-scale crime that must be rectified by any means necessary. That’s what Progressivism is. It treats itself as the necessary precondition for what makes a Liberal Democracy legitimate. It does not see itself as merely one rival among many competing worldviews, with each fairly operating within a democratic system. It views itself as the political manifestation of pure morality. Almost no one in the Democratic Party actually believes in “Liberal Democracy” anymore. It’s just an empty catechism that’s invoked because no one has the balls to publicly say “I want my side to impose its will on the entire country.” But that’s exactly what’s going on, and no amount of flowery euphemisms about “the will of the people” or “the rule of law” can hide this fact for much longer. If “the people” voted to overturn Progressivism, Democrats would cite “the law” to nullify their decision. And if “the law” conflicts with Progressivism, Democrats would cite “the will of the people” to nullify it. And if both the people and the law are against Progressivism, Democrats would simply ignore both and force it through anyway.

The new jobs need people to creatively make them up. Yes it's absurd to say there will *definitely* be new jobs, but if there are, they will be created in the same way all jobs have been, which is people created them. All knowledge grows this way, and it is fundamentally unpredictable. So the question is kind of dumb because it's holding knowledge growth to an impossible standard. If you could predict it you would already know it.

I have never seen a good answer to this question. Just a lot of squid ink

@jessesingal It makes zero sense to me to talk about this as if it's something that happened in the past, which we are moving away from. Publicly questioning DEI today at 99% of white collar jobs would be career suicide.

2/ ...peak of the racial reckoning it was very hard, within these institutions, to question the DEI fix du jour! I think that can partly explain what happened here and why the NYT finds itself in a legally vulnerable situation. jessesingal.substack.com/p/on-the-new-y…

1/ Wrote about the white-guy discrimination case at NYT (link in next tweet). It's being slotted in as some sort of deranged MAGA legal hail mary but it isn't. I do think it reveals certain things about the bubbles that exist within left-of-center institutions. During the...

You don’t see it stated quite this literally often, but they really do think of the world through the lens of “good people” *must* do certain behaviors. Like Maddow with the mask thing

@DBZYuYuYasha @3RenChengHu @xwanyex You are my friend.

@InternetJenkins @3RenChengHu @xwanyex If not the government, then who is?

Georgism disgusts me because it’s the ultimate case of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Private property is good for its own sake, not merely as a means to some productive end. “Leave the shell, take the kernel” is amongst the most cynical and repulsive lines in all of political history.

@DBZYuYuYasha @3RenChengHu @xwanyex Yes it’s clear you think that.

@InternetJenkins @3RenChengHu @xwanyex Government is the steward of society.

@DBZYuYuYasha @3RenChengHu @xwanyex You mean what you owe to the government

@3RenChengHu @xwanyex Nobody said owning land was a sin. We're saying LVT is the best way to calculate what you owe to society because land is the most essential component of consumption.

@BarEve8git @NUCLRGOLF The gap between your friend and a pro golfer is wider than the gap between you and your friend.

@NUCLRGOLF When they can smash the ball 300+ yards every time, hardly ever miss a fairway and finish 2 over for the round and that’s after not playing for 6 months. That’s what one of my friends did, crazy thing is he’s no interest in going pro and is happy just playing the game for fun🤯

🚨🏌️⛳️ #DISCUSSION — What are the most subtle signs that someone is a really good golfer?

"It is in the irony of Providence that the more man comes to control the material world about him, the more does he lose control over the effects of his action; and it is when he is remaking the world most speedily that he knows least whither he is driving." - Hilaire Belloc

@alexkaplan0 Ain’t nobody want those leads

To find the best SEO agency, you should simply search "best SEO agency"

@xwanyex When I lived in the Mission, I only saw a raving crazy guy on the sidewalk slashing the air with a knife once or twice a year. That was enough to make me want to move my family the hell out of there.

There's also a zero-to-one affect that's persistently underrated. You can live in a society where this basically never happens. Or you can live in a society where this sometimes happens. Big difference (even if they don't look that different on a chart).

@dchackethal And yet, you and I managed to have a productive conversation without coding anything up.

@InternetJenkins Maybe that could work. Would need to code it up tho

Which of these three ideas is hardest to vary and why? 1. Pop-Tarts got their name because they pop out of the toaster. 2. They’re called that because the filling tastes tart. 3. They’re called that as a nod to the then-current Pop Art movement. Score/rank/weigh them somehow

@dchackethal @greatirl What if you thought of HTV as a filter for nonsense, rather than a metric with a score?

Then you disagree with DD that HTV is central to progress. You seem to be saying it’s just one of many reasons to prefer a theory. He says it’s THE core of science and the enlightenment generally. Regardless, you didn’t answer my question. GIVEN some set theories, how do you tell which is hardest to vary?

@dchackethal @greatirl > Saying the choosing is the growing is like saying picking a card from a deck makes new cards. This is wrong because you choose a theory *for a reason you have created*. Whatever reason you think applies. That could include HTV or anything else you can think of.

@InternetJenkins @greatirl Most theories aren’t knowledge, I agree, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Saying the choosing is the growing is like saying picking a card from a deck makes new cards. GIVEN some set theories, how do you tell which is hardest to vary?

"Growth" of knowledge doesn't mean just making new theories. You could make infinitely many theories (inspiration), but that would not improve your understand of reality unless you were able to identify one or more which actually help you solve a problem. That is why the choosing (which takes perspiration) is the growing. The "algo to determine which is HTV" is the same as "also to determine any new knowledge" which again is not possible. The only tools we have available are conjecture and criticism. And just because we cannot program them, doesn't mean we can't use them.

Choosing isn’t creating. Creation is a big part of the rational process, I agree, but it’s not 100%. Here I’m interested in the parts that are not creation. Inspiration vs perspiration. Life isn’t 100% inspiration. And no I don’t think HTV should be an algorithm to determine what’s true. You’ve misunderstood me. There should be an algorithm to determine which explanation is HTV. *That* is not an impossible standard. On the contrary, it’s the standard DD himself suggests for all computational tasks: if we can’t program it, we haven’t understood it. Choosing rationally between ideas is a computational task. So if we can’t program HTV, we haven’t understood it, either. You already proposed an alternative decision-making method. Now you’re claiming not to know one. Anyway. If you’re interested, read this article, where I dive deep into this topic. blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-… If you then have something new I haven’t considered, let me know.

I won't try and argue against the downsides, there are def unintended consequences to tech products. But there is a massive *present bias* here. It's like how people talk about having children: Day-to-day, parents are stressed, sleep-deprived, and less happy in the immediate sense. But nobody looks at a family and says it's a failure because the toddler is screaming. Present bias means we look at the past + future with a sense of meaning and solutions, but we judge the present solely on the problems. In some sense we are always in the "screaming toddler" phase of tech. If we judged the Industrial Revolution in 1840 the way you’re judging tech today, we’d have dismantled the factories and missed out on the gains you've pointed out.

I’m still an extremely pro-market guy, but I think we’ve sort of lost track of why we want markets. A certain kind of guy thinks that it’s entirely about the outcomes that markets produce, that it’s about, to echo the video, “letting technology rip” so that we get all these great inventions that make our lives better. That’s just so obviously a mixed bag now that it’s making a lot of technology enthusiasts look foolish. There has to be something underneath it all, something deeper, that justifies markets. And I think there is. And we need to remember what that is really quick or the populists are going to win against markets, because if you keep talking about outcomes — man, I just don’t know what to tell you. People can see that you’re increasingly wrong about the outcomes. You can’t ride on the back of the big improvements to quality of life that were developed during the industrial revolution forever. You’re not going to win that argument. All future technology is not rendered good and desirable just because we created the refrigerator and the dishwasher in the 20th century, or even because we got better at fixing broken bones or preventing heart attacks. Those gains are already built-in. You need a better story.

I’m sorry, I know this bums a lot of you out, because you’ve built your personality on being to pro-market, pro-technology guy, but technology is just very clearly making us less happy