His implementation may be new but the idea of interfacing with content in a 3D manner isn't. I remember trying out a 3D desktop program around 2003 and if I recall correctly, it came with a game demo disc.
is this sort of brain-dead Redditor "humor" what HackerNews has devolved to? At the risk of making a unsubstantive comment myself, I sometimes wish HackerNews remained a smaller discussion forum, mainstream online visibility seems to inevitably attract flies.
>when in fact it's just the act of choosing the side that's winning
In a fairly benign way, maybe. But if you want to take the moral high ground then you should be careful not to steer people, friends and family especially, into an us vs them trap which inherently forces them to militarize their position. Myself, I have no issue with people who aren't for me or against me and I have no idea how the 'for me or against me' phrase could maintain popularity in any civil society. Some people truly do just want to get through life and feed their family without the bs of others trying to coopt their minds and bodies into fighting their personal battles for often petty reasons. I get militarizing against big threats, I served my time, but there's just so many petty battles out there that's not worth wasting energy over and better left to more productive energy.
> Some people truly do just want to get through life and feed their family without the bs of others trying to coopt their minds and bodies
Sure. Everybody wants that. But not everybody gets it. And if some people are getting paid because other people are getting exploited, then their peace is coming at the expense of other people's pain.
If the Facebook guy is comfortable with the fact that he is making a living working for a company that is morally dubious (even ignoring that they make their money selling their users up for manipulation), then he should own that. But we aren't all obligated to pretend that isn't happening just so he feels better about his fat paycheck.
I used to make a lot of money working for financial traders. But I don't do that work any more because it was at best zero sum, but in practice I think it was mostly parasitic on society. Now I do work that I think is more valuable, even if it pays less. Nobody owes me the difference in pay, just like if I had stayed, nobody would have owed me participation in the fiction that I was doing something worthwhile.
There were conservatives who cared then. But yeah, traditional media tends to be more liberal so you heard about it more this time. I guess that's the tradeoff we have. In America, media tends to bias towards liberalism as we know it whereas other industries like military and police might have a more right-wing bias. At least in the former, it might hurt people's feelings when the media says things you don't like but the power the latter has over people's lives is even more worthy of mention, which it rarely is. Sorry about the whataboutism but that was also your argument.
> At least in the former, it might hurt people's feelings when the media says things you don't like but the power the latter has over people's lives is even more worthy of mention, which it rarely is.
The military or police don't really play a large role in deciding who's going to be elected though.
You've never served, have you? The military is highly influential, especially among family, in influencing political views. Not to mention social media which gives us all a pen as well as a sword, proverbially. Either way, if you complain about being oppressed by powers, all the aforementioned are a potential force of it so it's mostly moot to complain of the bias of one without mentioning the bias of the others.
> The military is highly influential, especially among family, in influencing political views
That's something very different vs the media. If you break it down to "they can influence somebody", then well, kindergarten teachers have influence over elections.
> so it's mostly moot to complain of the bias of one without mentioning the bias of the others
As soon as the military starts a coup and takes power, you'll be absolutely right. Until then, they don't decide domestic elections.
Is this the common view? I always saw "fittest" as that which is more fit for a niche regardless of what power trait was implemented. I mentioned this elsewhere in this [1] comment, being surprised that someone assumed "fit" was defined in a more malicious manner but I guess this day and age, the definition seems to be more biased towards competitive manners rather than socially inclusive.
I've filled out the forms for myself lately and it depends what you choose.
You can choose for the body to be kept indefinitely if you want or returned to the family after a period, in the UK at least.
Those strawberries were your aunt before she was born. Did you know strawberries and other foods go into producing humans? And when we die we, if given a natural death, we can go into producing foods again? It's always been that way. If you want to make the argument that @spinach's view is poisoned by futurism, you ought to take a look at yours which I'd argue is poisoned by modernity. You are the earth, you are of this earth and you'll go back into this earth eventually unless you opt for some expensive astro-death where you'll eventually land into some other material planet into that dirt. And shared memories are immaterial, detached from that person once they die. That's the beauty of those memories, that's what makes them special, the fleeting moments in the nows and thens knowing none of this will last forever. I get that it may make you nauseous as it does me to some extent but OP's view is far from "fucked up".
Does it? Maybe on the micro but at the classical macro level, it's pretty deterministic. Why not both? And in some beautiful Taoist fashion, perhaps they're mutually complementary, both opposites need to exist for reality to exist as is. But as a layman, I know enough to know how hotly debated this subject is so I digress.
They should make youtube great again. It used to be that I could watch 911 videos on the anniversary and there'd be real heart-felt personal videos from actual people involved and now most of that's been censored by dramatic conspiratorial junk.
It'd also be great if it didn't recommend for every video I watch, Jordan Peterson on his social justice sprees complaining about the newest thing that he's offended by this week. That got old last year.
No, it did not. By some takes, society is in its most dire crisis ever and he's telling people they can do something other than panic. That's popular, get over it.
Out of all the crises society has ever faced, you're talking about one of the most peaceful times in mankind. This is why people are getting annoyed at youtube's recommendations and part of the problem. People like you and Peterson trying to fight over people's minds and telling them you need to be offended by this or you need to do that. No, I just want to watch my nature docs, I don't need people trying to recruit me to fight in their own personal culture wars.
> Out of all the crises society has ever faced, you're talking about one of the most peaceful times in mankind.
The crisis is beneath your nose.
> No, I just want to watch my nature docs, I don't need people trying to recruit me to fight in their own personal culture wars.
That is a healthy attitude, good for you! Jordan Peterson's not reaching out to people who are well adjusted and who have something going on in their lives. He's presenting an alternative to resentment, the particular kind of resentment that lends all too well to scapegoating.
If you are not put upon by his ideological opponents, that's great; but many people are, and I like personal responsibility as a message a heck of a lot better than blaming a merchant class, a race, or an unfalsifiable conspiracy: the latter of which seems to be the popular alternative to a narrative of self-ownership.
The fact that you, a particularly unusual person, are not interested in his work is no indication of whether or not it is popular enough to warrant promotion by YouTube's algorithm. Because people YouTube considers similar to the natural audience of that work, will tend to watch it at length when given the choice, YouTube figures it ought to promote it. That seems like the way a recommendation engine ought to work. If not that way, then how?
Added: to sum; I think it is at least morally acceptable that YouTube has a recommendation system based largely on how much time you are likely to spend watching the content. If that content is monetized, it is not pleasant that they would prefer monetized content, but it is at least defensible. The fact that you do not like the particular content mentioned by the parent comment is neither here, nor there.
What is he telling people they can do? Other than stand up straight and ignore the crisis until they’ve cleaned their rooms? (I’ve already read the book.)
