I understand why you feel that way, and I’m certainly not trying to persuade you that you should feel optimistic about the world. It sounds like giving up hoping might be a thing that helps you to cope with the awfulness of the world — it’s reasonable to want to shield oneself from inevitable disappointment.

I think that at the core of my own resolve to keep resisting terrible things is my sadness at how it’s not helpful to try to persuade people like you that things are worth fighting for. I think that, at my core, I agree with you. We’re both so jaded by what we’ve seen that it’s hard to imagine anything better. To some extent though, I don’t need to — my own coping mechanism is to hold onto the abstract hope of future people being able to effect change (and to think in terms of how I can best set the groundwork for them). Effectively, I am setting aside the question of whether people are worth the effect now, and imagining a future where people are worth the effort.

I recognise that it’s irrational, but it helps me to get by — in terms of my own life, I’ve found it’s a mindset that helps me to grow in a way that I like, so it’s a useful guiding principle if nothing else. I emphasise again though, I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. There is so much awfulness in the world that I’m just glad that you’ve been able to continue existing, even if you feel hopeless about things.

This is an area where failure is not a binary. As bad as things are now, it can always get worse. The more people give up, the worse things will become.

Thanks for sharing this. I’ve still got quite a few chapters to go, but I wanted to comment this thought before I forget it: it’s so incredibly striking how powerful the small acts of kindness are. I’ve cried more at the little gestures of kindness than at all the cruelty.

Despite not owning one, I really like the Steam Deck because I suspect it has made my transition to Linux far smoother (for a while, I dual booted because I was fearful that gaming on Linux would be difficult.)

Thanks for sharing this. I’d heard of this before, but being reminded of it bolstered my spirits a little.

Damn, that’s pretty dangerous, right?

I don’t think we’re awful as a whole. To some extent, I need to believe this, in order to avoid breaking down and killing myself. However, I do think it counts for something that there are so many people who want humans to be better, and are doing what they can. I think that resigning oneself to humans being awful will lead to a world with more awfulness.

My cat would sometimes act as if she was anxious for our wellbeing while we were eating (this started after she surreptitiously tasted some food that she clearly did not enjoy the taste of.)

“if you can accurately call it “scraping” then it’s always fair use.”

I think you make some compelling points overall, but fair use has always been more complex than this. The intent is taken into account when evaluating whether something is fair use, but so is the actual impact — “fair use” is a designation applied to the overall situation, not to any singular factors (so a stated purpose can’t be fair use)

Yeah, this is where I’m at. I love it when people are weird as hell, even if it’s not inkeeping with my own aesthetic preferences

I saw a paper a while back that argued that AI is being used as “moral crumple zones”. For example, an AI used for health insurance acts allows for the company to reject medically necessary procedures without employees incurring as much moral injury as part of that (even low level customer service reps are likely to find comfort in being able to defer to the system.). It’s an interesting concept that I’ve thought about a lot since I found it.

Ugh, Andreeson is such a creep.

Although I recall that some of them don’t include links to explanations or info about the falsehoods; I like that this aviation one did do that.

Thank you for the learning! Before this thread, I didn’t know enough about altitude to care about this question, but now I’m like “neat! Cool learning!”.

I still can’t believe Amazon named it’s gig work platform “Mechanical Turk”. It’s beyond parody

In a general sense, rats have most definitely adapted around humans in similar ways. They’re smart little critters

“Guard labour” is a fairly new-to-me phrase that makes a lot of weird things about modern society making more sense.

You’re right that I didn’t sufficiently consider the “was” in that sentence. Perhaps there’s something I’m missing though, because I haven’t seen anything that would suggest X is left. When I put my right hand in the position indicated in the OP, my index finger (Y) points upwards, with my thumb (X) pointing right, making an L shape. My middle finger (z) comes out towards me.

However, most of my experience with coordinate systems is with abstract, mathsy stuff, and I don’t have much experience with any of these softwares; there may be something obvious that I’m missing.

I don’t think that’s correct. Here’s a drawing I did when trying to get my head around this.

drawing

I find that trying to make sense of terms like “to the left” tricky when we can rotate the directional cube any way we want. For example, in my drawing for “Y-up, left handed”, the red X axis is pointed leftwards. However, we could rotate the unit vector cube so that the X axis is pointed right, and the Y axis is pointing up (i.e. the orientation we’re most familiar with for 2D graphs). The Z axis would then be pointing away from us, into the plane of the paper/screen.

In contrast, if we oriented the Y-up right-handed cube in the same way, then the Z axis would be oriented as if to come out of the plane of the screen/page, towards us.

These distinctions only matter when we add a third dimension, so the left or right handedness is basically a question of "when we add the third axis to a 2D square made by the other two axes, does the third axis come towards us or away from us? I apologise if this hasn’t made things any clearer — I am able to make things make sense by imagining the rotations in my head, but not everyone is able to visualise them like that.

I don’t think that’s right. The post that you linked to includes this link, which includes this snippet:

"First, instead of labeling coordinate axes with X, Y and Z, we’re introducing more descriptive axis names:

Left (was -Y)

Up (was Z)

Forward (was X) "