"Your honor, I could not have possibly shot that person, because yesterday might not have been before today, or at least, there is reasonable doubt that yesterday was before today, according to some physicists on crack. I treat those physicists with high regard personally though, and they have degrees that you don't have, so the court must reasonably conclude their opinions should be entertained."
I guess that's a joke, but it's actually kind of serious that causality, personhood, identity, free will, etc. are all social constructs.
They are useful to us, but every now and then it's helpful and humbling to remember it's a fiction we assign, rather than fundamental.
Criminal justice or the concept of culpability is one of these areas. I know I've seen material by Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist who does not believe in free will, talking about how off the mark criminal justice and punishment for crimes can be.
I think it's unclear what kind of determinism you are presuming. Determinism in the universe? Determinism in consciousness? Certainly a deterministic machine can exist in a non-deterministic universe.
However I didn't just assume a lack of free will. I also assumed a lack of identity. Do you realize that who you are is socially defined? When you breathe in, the air in the room around you becomes part of you. When you breathe out, you lose certain gases. When you eat your food, similar story. There's a good case to be made that "you" are in the entire room or the entire food chain. That does make causality and culpability hard to assess objectively. When we do so, we do so subjectively.
Don't be silly. I didn't say anything about shamans. I'm saying human existence is subjective. Culpability, like the courtroom joke above, is subjective. They're useful models for how the world works but it isn't objective reality.
We would do well to remember that every now and then. People who get too into pretending their perspective is objective reality tend to do stupid things.
Isn't identity exactly defined as what one perceives as part of oneself? Food becomes me as soon as I dis-member it to make it to be part of myself. Other food becomes you. This doesn't make food not within my sphere of perception a part of me; before digestion, it stays separate, like a virus doesn't become part of me -- the immune system acts a biological discriminator between what is part of me, and what is not. You are not me, and I am not you; we are physically attached to different matter. I understand people play mind games based on varying definitions of identity, but ultimately you will find that you have control over certain things comprised of physical matter, which then together with your mind makes up "you", and you're not in control of other things, which make them "not you". That's how I would say it is defined, after all. I am not in the entire food chain, because my perception and control simply doesn't reach that far. If I could control objects with my mind, it would be reasonable to say that they are a part of "my body", which makes them a part of me. If you use these language constructs differently, we lose the ability to communicate over them?
Seems like a long-winded way to say you suffer from anxiety.
> like a virus doesn't become part of me -- the immune system acts a biological discriminator between what is part of me, and what is not
But what about symbiotic organisms? What about your microbiome? Or the mitochondria, which began its existence as a separate organism? Or, they say our DNA includes many viruses that our ancestors contracted. A number of these things do stick with us and we sometimes even become totally dependent on them to function.
Exactly? I agree that identity is a fuzzy construct which includes socially constructed elements, and is not a fundamental "thing" that can be observed externally and then named "identity". I disagree that it is therefore "fiction"; as a concept, it is very real? My point was that I don't see how you can claim that identity is nonexistent ("lack of identity"), since the moment I use the term, I "create" and "have" it; it is a flexible enough umbrella to include the distributed system of my body, since I cannot exist separately from it? What "belongs to me" contributes to my identity.
To pick one possible simple and broad definition from WP, "Identity is the set of qualities, beliefs, personality traits, appearance, or expressions that characterize a person or a group." -- you made it sound like that set is empty, which doesn't make sense to me. My identity is part of "I". Every being has an identity; it's not something you can get rid of?
An interesting corner of philosophy for me is when people worry about perfect clones with all your memories. The only reason it bothers us is because we're not used to our doppelgangers turning up and claiming our sofas and relationships. In a polity where clones are commonplace and provision is made to inform the source and the perfect copy that their material possess will be divided or some stuff will be provided, the shock value would fade away.
It's been several years and I'm not fresh enough to summarize it, but some time ago I read Carlo Rovelli's "The Order of Time" which is a pop science book on why that isn't true. Ymmv. I'm sure many reading this know more than I do about the topic.
It’s more a philosophical book than a physics book. I’ve only skimmed it, but it presents philosophical views that don’t reflect a scientific consensus.
Well, it's just a joke. :) It doesn't necessarily have to make a lot of sense.
In any case, I find your comment very interesting. I'm studying quantum computing at the moment, and I've had to read the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, including Everett's many-worlds interpretation. As a non-physicist, I've found the different interpretations fascinating.
The many-worlds one, as far as I understood it, says that all the possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually "happen" in different worlds. I have the impression that you would be able to give a much better explanation.
In any case, in the joke the gun is shot in the macro world, not in a quantum state. It's possible that it is a quantum gun, but probably not.
The many-worlds theory says that the time-evolution of the (universal) wave function according to the Schrödinger equation is what's real. Different "slices" ("branches") of the wave function correspond to different "worlds". (A "world" is basically defined by what is quantum-entangled together.) The wave function thus decomposes into the different worlds.
Collapse theories, in contrast, state that at specific points in time (the "measurements"), the wave function stops following the Schrödinger equation, and instead collapses to a single slice/branch/world, thus upending the natural proliferation of branches implied by the normal time-evolution of the wave function according to the Schrödinger equation.
Even in many-worlds, however, the wave function doesn't necessarily contain all conceivable worlds. It only contains the worlds, following from some initial quantum state, that follow from the Schrödinger equation. While it's true that all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement become real (because they are all contained in the wave function in superposition), "possible" here means specifically what the equations allow, not any imaginable world.
Who in their right mind wants that? UBI just means signing your soul away to the state, who then can mandate your lifestyle completely including health procedures and even military conscription. No thanks.
During COVID, my friends and I were temporarily retired. Lamenting every moment since having to come out of retirement. We were all laid off and received about $2k/mo for awhile and what happened was we ended up hanging out every since day working on whatever we were working on, and feelings of inadequacy faded into the background. It was a micro golden age for us and that period of time has cemented UBI for us. It was a small amount of money and we lived with our parents but we were never more productive and happy.
Hopefully before I die I can witness a strong implementation of UBI. It would directly reflect in culture in terms of music and the arts. Little funding for the arts currently combined with massive rent nearly everywhere leaves little room for cultural phenomenon that was possible in places like the lower east side bowery for example. Or arts funding in the USSR and other soviet bloc countries.
East side bowery was very cheap back then (it was also a pretty rough part of town, which is easy to forget). You just need to convince a hoard of like minded folks to congregate somewhere cheap and you can live like this. There's plenty of cheap places to live in the US. I kind of feel like we need to learn how to build new cities, we have the land, it's mostly cheap, we just continue to choose to reside in expensive places chasing jobs that help us cover the rent while working us to death.
Idk man, I wouldn't call bowery rough or cheap by any stretch - 20 years ago, during covid, or now. For rough during covid or now, head to east new york. For cheap, head deeper into the other boroughs.
Absolutely. More generally, as a taxpayer, I'm very unlikely to vote for anything that is justified in terms of how great the USSR was. One of several comments in this thread that give away the game: scratch a UBI bro, find a commie.
You were the beneficiary of a bullshit short term policy that has wrecked the global and national economies and think that means it was a good thing to replicate?
Your fun time was extremely damaging to people everywhere but of course, we can pretend "it was necessary because COVID" which we then knew and now it's undeniable, was an absolute farce of hygiene theater.
The people who worked paid for you to do nothing at your parents home. That's all there is. Meanwhile, there also were massive transfers of wealth with the same excuse, from tax payers to the wealthies company owners.
The only good Soviet art was the stuff that expressed the suffocating oppression of the communist regime and warned the world to never to do it again. Some of it was oblique, but all of it was human. If you and your friends lack the taste to understand that, then I am really glad that my tax dollars are no longer funding your arts and crafts projects.
> Or arts funding in the USSR and other soviet bloc countries.
This is pretty good example why UBI is dangerous. Those funded artists were very happy to suck it up and go along with the regime. The censorship was in place, but self-censorship was even stronger.
Meanwhile a lot of art existed outside of the system with people working some shitty jobs and doing arts in free time.
Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was published.
The premise was that people were self censoring even outside of what was being officially approved, so not really.
That book was published during Kruschiov era. Which was definitely not representative of the rest of Soviet era. Let alone that the book was peanuts compared to Gulag archipelago.
Eventually Solzhenytsin was kicked out from USSR and had to take exile in west. Do you really want to use him as an example of Soviet artistic freedom?
So, one dude did not censor himself, during a cultural warm up era, ended up being kicked out to exile. Which was a fortunate outcome due to his previous fame. Hmmm, is that an example how people were free to do whatever in USSR? :) Is that more like an example how dangerous it was to not self-censor even to well known people with support (for some time) from the ruling elite?
Hearing parents and grandparents stories... And having talked to older artsy people who did grow up before the fall of USSR... Self-censorship was the default modus operandi. Sure, few didn't do it. Most of those paid the price either in gulags in earlier years or mental asylums later.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Edit: Several of your recent comments are in breach of the guidelines and are being flagged by other community members.
We need you to keep to the guidelines if you're going to keep commenting on HN, thanks.
Born in USSR and growing up in then ex-USSR I’ve pretty good experience of arts created during USSR period and both official and underground artists.
But yes, maybe some delusional USSR loving academics in west wrote some BS study how awesome life in USSR was. Which is very funny because those people would have ended up in KGB blacklists if they were on the other side of the iron curtain.
the problem here was the USSR not the UBI. you need to disconnect the two. the USSR and the associated political repression came first and it's no surprise that any handouts thereafter were in service of that political system.
we are discussing UBI in a democratic system, and i feel it is rather unlikely that implementation of UBI would turn a country into something like the USSR.
I agree. It was OP up the thread who brought up USSR artists funding as an example.
USSR and UBI is an interesting combination though. Being unemployed was illegal. And for common man it was very hard to get laid off. Just show up, even if intoxicated (and continue drinking at work), sleep at work (e.g. drive your tractor to the field and just park there) and you'll still get paid crappy salary as anybody else and roof over your head. I guess it was closest it was to real UBI. Yes, it was not exactly UBI, but it was still universal income where you get food & shelter regardless of your work performance.
Regarding UBI turning countries into USSR, I don't think UBI would turn countries into totalitarian regimes. But it may turn countries into similar inefficient slacking-off culture where vast majority of people do as little as possible in least involving way.
Sure, some of them may claim they're super productive and creative in their hobby adventures. But if thousands of programmers create awesome ToDo apps in their free time... Is that really productive from society perspective? Society needs a lot of bring stuff, not thousands of great ToDo apps...
i accept that the risk of turning into a slacking-off culture is there. the problem is the exploitation and the lack of perspective for a better future. this can be addressed with better education. we need to teach people to motivate them to do something meaningful to the benefit of humanity. see my other comments here for more thoughts on this.
Better education or propaganda to brainwash people to keep producing? :) Funnily enough, USSR loved all sort of propaganda of the worker of the month, stachanovists and all that jazz :) Yet it didn't work. Maybe the real better education would be to teach people to enjoy peaceful idleness and live with less?
Ultimately people don't need that much to live. Once you remove consumerist desire to keep up with the jones, the only motivation is to get roof, food and some supplies to have fun with. Currently passing this threshold requires quite a bit of effort. Then there's relatively little extra effort to get somewhat nicer toys. Yes, some people will work extra hard and make €€€€, but vast majority of people ain't workaholics. If that base threshold was removed with UBI, then it'd be a massively different effort to get somewhat nicer toys. This would change the equation a lot. I've a feeling the jones might be in trouble then.
Particularly if you live overseas on base. The military provides everything for you, albeit often through vendors such as AAFES. But yeah, free healthcare for sure.
Those living in poverty. Speaking from personal experience.
> UBI just means signing your soul away to the state, who then can mandate your lifestyle completely including health procedures and even military conscription.
I trust a functioning government over free market human participants. People always overweight their own ability to succeed, when the stats tell a different story.
How are the governments and economies in the happiest countries structured, for example.
(I think it was probably downvoted because it was too far over the line into ideological battle and other things that the site guidelines ask commenters to avoid here.)
lol the state(aka society's strong arm) will always have an immense say in your life even if you are so oblivious to it. Government exists to redistribute money, might as well distribute it to the poor and do it universally.
This study didn't say, we gave 1200 to people and then dictated their lives like a dictator.
Read a constitution and tell me where it states that the goal is to redisteibut wealth. I've read significant parts of the constitution of my country and it absolutely does not state that.
The goal of the government is not stated as such. It's not "the social contract".
But hey, your phrase sounded confident so you have that going for you.
> who then can mandate your lifestyle completely including health procedures and even military conscription. No thanks.
Entirely unlike modern America, where utility providers for food and water are regulated for what's healthy and representative legislature decides when to draft you for Vietnam 2.
The state gets more power over you without UBI (assuming a social safety net of any kind already exists) - without UBI it needs a larger apparatus to decide how to distribute funds, and it can pick arbitrary reasons to cut off your funds. Under UBI administration would be far simpler and cutting off your income for political reasons would be far more noticeable, since it's supposed to be universal.
I don't understand why you're downvoted. I grew up in a country that did exactly this, until collapsed. Strong social nets, free housing, free medicine for all, free education, no unemployment, sounds like heaven, right?
The only problem is that every person is a government-owned livestock unit. Their thoughts, knowledge, career paths, kids, even their private life, everything is controlled by government, that also obligates you to watch after your neighbours and co-workers. You can't even leave the country without government permission. You can expelled if you don't like the government though. You can't work where you want after getting your degree, government will send you where they think they need you to be. School is never ending propaganda. We literally had "political information" every Monday, since grade 1. Also, since grade 1 you're in one of the tiers of the only allowed political party of the country. There's tier for grade 1 to 3, then for 4 to 8, then from 8 to 10. Every 18yo is drafted for 2 years for armed forces (3 for navy). I can go on and on.
I remember it too well and would never trade messy and chaotic capitalist society to that labour camp with "free" rations.
It's frightening that so many people in 1st world want to live in a cage with 3-times-a-day meal.
that is a false dichotomy, just because a bad government that didn't give you any freedom implemented these benefits doesn't mean that any government implementing such benefits will automatically take everyone's freedom away. the freedom was taken away first. it did not understand that benefits are not enough and that freedom is also needed. we are discussing UBI as a means to give people more freedom, and not as a way to turn them into slaves.
It’s not executing JS. The names map to JS methods but both the HTML and JS call into C++ (or rust or swift whatever the browser is written in). Arbitrary JS code execution cannot occur. Of course if you’re ingesting user generated content you should not allow these attributes on buttons (but for proper security you should already have an allow-list of tags and attributes on any user generated content).
Nice project. I would appreciate putting some common content in the demo, such as videos, dropdowns, large amount of text and large size text to show how they can be handled.
Also is there a version without window chrome, just panes?
After tinking with some similar toy projects, I feel like iframes with a well-defined APi to use with postMessage() (and maybe a small library to provide frame-internal matching toolbars/controls) are definitely the way to go here, since they remove the need to tightly couple your "OS" with your "apps".
One way is to find at least 5 instances of people complaining about something online using a phrase 'take my money', or 'if only there was a company selling this'.
