I fear this is a problem that may never be solved. I mean that people of any intelligence fall for the mind’s biases.

There’s just too little to be gained feelings-wise. Yeah, you make better decisions, but you’re also sacrificing “going with the flow”, acting like our nature wants us to act. Going against your own nature is hard and sometimes painful.

Making wrong decisions is objectively worse, leading to worse outcomes, but if it doesn’t feel worse (because you’re not attributing the effects of the wrong decisions to the right cause, i.e. acting irrationally), then why should a person do it. If you follow the mind’s bias towards attributing your problems away from irrationality, it’s basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Great article.

Of course there’s a best solution… it’s whatever you end up with

Why do you have to reducr it to one? Isn’t it simply all at the same time to varying degrees?

Even with the external mind it’d be irrelevant. As long as we have no way of knowing the future or being able to predict it, having or not having free will is observed in exactly the same way.

Totally fair. Sounds fun :)

I just kinda wonder why when you’re in a browser or node, you wouldn’t just do

const json = {...};
json.friends.filter(f => f.age >= 18);

why learn another language when you already literally got the language to process JavaScript Object Notation right there.

https://jqlang.org/

I’ve been using that for all my JSON extraction and processing needs. Let me automate a bunch of my builds for JS stuff for FoundryVTT https://gitlab.com/foundry-azzurite/pings/-/blob/master/build/build.sh

If you use it in the web version, I have LULs, a script which makes all Lemmy links that point to a different instance which you encounter while browsing, to point to your instance.

The will of the people

Sure, the fans… But the majority of the viewers are people like my parents, who are entertained by it for a week, don’t really care all that much about anything but the national rivalry and the cool shows and music, and then it clears off their mind until the next year.

Lol, no

Most people won’t ever see this news, and even then, many people wouldn’t care.

While I said it’s completely fine to be selfish, I didn’t say it’s completely fine to be completely selfish. I think I made it pretty clear that I think some level of selfishness is completely fine, not every level of selfishness.

Can you honestly say that you sacrifice everything for the environment? Have as little/positive carbon footprint as in any way possible?

I’m saying that eventually stopping to sacrifice personal benefits for the common good is fine. I.e. being selfish.

There is no “hook” though. We shouldn’t be fighting against each other.

Every person has a different level of personal sacrifice for the greater good that they are ok with. It is completely fine to be selfish. If that means that we’re fucked as a species, then that’s what that means.

If we militantly blame people for still eating animal products for example, it’ll just create hostilities that are further entrenching the sides. Instead we need to push to compromises, everywhere. Make animal products more expensive, using the tax or whatever to offset their carbon impact. People that still want to buy it can buy it. Or say it’d be best to not eat animal products, but if that’s too hard, how about just a little less, however much is acceptable.

It’s not optimal, absolutely true, but it has a much higher chance of working.

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

But who else is to blame? Seriously…

Where do you think these 57 companies get their money from to continue doing their shit? By individuals buying their shit.

What do you think these 57 companies consist of? They employ hundreds of thousands of individuals. Each of which could theoretically decide not to continue with that.

Of course I realize it’s not that easy, individual situations may be complex, and that there’s different amounts of blame to go around. You’re correct, these companies have concentrated blame to them and it’d be more impactful to regulate them specifically.

But my statement is simply also true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.

Ideas are incredibly cheap. It’s absolutely unlikely that no one ever had your idea. It’s even likely that someone had your idea and it failed, and you don’t/can’t even know about it because no one bothered to record the failure.

Other people have mentioned all kinds of ambitious/proper ways to do this. I’ve got a different view: if you truly think this will work, do a basic version yourself.

Learn basic blender, design 3D printed parts yourself and let someone print them. Use some app builder and tutorials, or hire a programmer for a very rudimentary prototype work. Buy generic electronics. Just get it working once. Then show it to people, let them use it, ask if they would buy it, preferably let them sign a slip of paper not to talk about this product or compete with it (there are standard NDA/non-compete contract clauses online available) or talk to people you can trust.

If you do all this and get positive feedback, then you can start doing this properly and get more people on it, like the other commenters mentioned.

No. Just no. You’re talking about perfectionism basically. Who cares about continuing maintenance? If you get the product out there and working enough to last the 2 years warranty, you’re completely fine. One programmer is perfectly capable of learning the most basic things about the disciplines you mentioned, it doesn’t need to be good, it just needs to do its job mostly.

You have no clue about the scope of what this guy’s idea is since he gave no info. Maybe it’s so simple not even one programmer would have to work on it for very long.

Of course, what you say is perfectly possible to be “correct”, but you just have no way of knowing.

“me reducing my carbon emissions won’t change anything” said ten million people.

I don’t necessarily think people can be evil.

I know of some of my abusers that they were abused themselves. They knew what they were doing to me wasn’t right but it gave them feelings of power in a world where they otherwise felt powerless.

For others, bullying me was a social sport, just something you did to “belong” to a certain group.

I think what they did was evil, but I don’t think they were evil people. They were normal people with inadequate upbringing put into painful situations that resulted in bullying/abusing me being the only perceived “good” outcome for them. For almost all people who do evil things, this is the case.

I think we all possess the ability to do evil acts in response to certain stimuli, many are just lucky enough never to receive the set of stimuli that causes them to be evil, so they can allow themselves to think they are different, i.e. “good”, and start labeling other people a certain way, i.e. “evil”.

Conversely, I also think all the people who do evil acts are also able to do good acts in certain situations.

What we then call a “good” or an “evil person” is just a person where we perceive a larger share of behaviors attributed to that adjective. But are they evil or good people, is that a quality inherent to them? Or is the environment they grew up in evil or good? Or are humans in general evil or good? Is our perception of the share of each set of behaviors even right?

I think no one deserves for their whole self to be called evil. I think you can call actions evil, and some people may have a lot of these actions, and they’re worthy of being avoided because of that, but I believe they’re the same kind of person than everyone else, just put into terrible situations. So no, I don’t think people can be evil.