mozz

Dude I would fuckin LOVE to. Spending extensive time whining about moderation decisions is rarely productive, but I was definitely a little salty about it and I'm happy to discuss. Disclaimer; I'm aware that I was being a cockhead at certain points during the thread, which certainly factored into the decision, but also some of my perfectly reasonable comments were being deleted and a lot of people who were way more (and are way more consistently) cockheads didn't earn a permaban for it. It remains sort of a curious moderation decision to me.

Here's the thread. There was quite a lot of discussion in it about the presence of shills clearly distorting the discussion. I'll reproduce some of the threads including restored versions of comments that were deleted by mods (you can verify all of this on the modlog.)

I'll indicate deleted comments with a strikethrough.

OP: These framings we see in the media have absolutely nothing to do with which candidate is more qualified to run the country

Me: Actually I would add to that that these framings are specifically inserted into the discourse by corporate media to elevate some candidates and depress some candidates, with the depressingly effective aim of making people dislike the corporate unfriendly candidates

Posters ITT: Hey like 20 or 30 of us have the exact same new framing we’d like to present that has nothing to do with which candidate is more qualified to run the country. It might be a much much better framing than, which candidate is better to vote for, or factual things about the candidate’s record. We all feel that exact same way about it being important to look at it this way.

You can have the best product in the universe, but if you can’t sell it, then it doesn’t matter. When trying to argue a douche is better than a turd, you really need your presentation going. None of the American politicians (except maybe Bernie) are remotely qualified to run a country of any size, so stop trying to make it about who is the most qualified.

~~Aw man~~

~~I tried to set you up to say something like, yeah but what has Biden even done other than “not Trump” (as if that “doesn’t count” somehow as a reason to pick him instead of Trump), but you didn’t take the bait. You just came out with conflating “which product is best marketed” with “which is the product we actually want”, and somehow came down on the side of best-marketed. Idk what that’s about. And then you simply said that no one is qualified.~~

~~Idk, that’s a little bit close to teeing up what I wanted to say (talking about Biden’s qualification), so I’ll go ahead and put it up anyway.~~

• ~~40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030~~
• ~~15% minimum corporate tax~~
• ~~Actual labor people in charge of the NLRB for the first time in God knows how long leading to all these union wins~~
• ~~Hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan forgiveness~~
• ~~Big wage gains at the bottom end of the scale even when adjusted for massive historic inflation~~

~~That’s a partial sampling. And that was with a pretty hostile congress and Supreme Court; most of it was watered down versions after he tried to do more aggressive stuff.~~

That's a weird removal, no? Reason given was "stalking."

I'll have to reply to myself to talk more about the stalking; I'm meeting the character limit. Ask me if I'm still salty about these events. 🙂

I was permabanned from !politicalmemes@lemmy.world for pointing out (quite rudely, tbf) that some of the accounts had been recycling transparently laughable propaganda. E.g. they had said elsewhere that they were upset that Biden had undone Trump's insulin price cap, and now they were showing up trotting out some somewhat more subtle talking points (you know the ones...)

Dude I just had my weird idea about us all living in a simulation and wanted to share it; I wasn't expecting it to be scrutinized to this level of detail

But sure.

Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.

... seems like it summarizes it best. So GTFO out of here with trying to tell me that some particular interpretation is definitely right, and incompatible with what I said. Thanks.

a nail in the coffin for the simulation hypothesis

Aw man

I'm NEVER gonna get that Nobel Prize...

this assumes a QM interpretation which includes wavefunction collapse

Imma stop you right there

"The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the 'Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory' conference in August 1997. The main conclusion of the authors is that 'the Copenhagen interprtation still reigns supreme', receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations: 'The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll.'" -Wikipedia

I don't necessarily agree with all of the rest of it (incl the assertion that this thought experiment proves the many-worlds interpretation), but right out of the gate if you're saying wave function collapse isn't part of QM, you gotta tell the physicists that, because they haven't got the message yet that I know of.

Hey, so I had a weird conversation this past week that I'd like to share with all of you:

You know those garbage articles that are like "new cosmic ray experiments prove we're living in a simulation" that are invariably garbage?

Well, think a little bit about the computational complexity of operating a full scale simulation of something as big as the world with as much resolution as you would need to simulate real physics and the world we experience.

What would you do, if you were someone with enough sophistication who wanted for whatever reason to set up that simulation? If you were trying to make the whole thing computationally tractable on computer hardware that could even exist in some plausible universe at an achievable cost... one obvious answer would be to conditionally render everything in the simulation, not just to run every subatomic particle at all times to no purpose out where no one could see it.

The physics you would come up with, if you were trying to make that the general guiding principle but still make the simulation a rigorous model of the world, would probably operate along the same general lines as QM does. Everything renders at full resolution if you're looking at it, and if not, it just uses rough aggregates and totals and sums them up, because who cares.

The operation principles of QM make no sense as physics for a "rational" physical world. Absolutely none. To the point that they sort of irritate professional physicists (or at least they did while they were being discovered), like "it can't possibly actually work this way; this is nuts."

But they would make perfect sense for a simulated world. Absolute perfect sense.

Someone else had one, it was great, Facebook bought it, and then they (to their credit) made it available for free to everyone for quite a while, and now they've decided you know what maybe we can have a little disinformation and it's okay, you guys understand, right?

I feel like a lot of these people are unprepared for the civil war they claim to want

When you live your whole life in a cushy environment with more competent people than you making sure that the lights stay on and the food keeps coming, it’s easy to have this weird fantasy that you are God’s chosen person and you can wander around believing and doing whatever you want. Just looking at this woman’s face, though, I feel like she would be the first to abandon her convictions and say yes judge I’ll do whatever you want once the cell door swings closed for real. Maybe I am wrong but that is the feeling I get from looking at her.

Hm maybe. Idk if you’ve ever been close to a massive fire like that but I feel like anyone inside the tank is unlikely to be ok for doing anything once the top of the tank looks like that. I thought US military doctrine was to keep shooting until the tank you’re shooting at either catches fire, or changes shape, and I think this qualifies.

But IDK; you might be right and I don’t really know. And it would be a real shame to decide not to blow the tank up completely with one $100 drone, and then they’re able to recover it and put it back into action later (even if all the crew was killed by the fire) or something.

Does Donald Trump understand how

Imma stop you right there

I feel like hitting it with the second drone may not have been necessary