Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
One can’t be both pro-individual and pro-equality. Individuals are different and develop in different directions.
If you're forced to work out every day, you'll be physically fitter after a year. The outcome is the same (well, probably better) if you do so voluntarily. But the mental and physical abuse during that year makes all the difference. Morals aren't just about outcomes.
But if, for the sake of argument, a voluntary "lockdown" had somehow had the same results, my criticism would not be the same, because it would mean that people wanted to lock down, so there's no moral issue. That's why we can't just ignore coercion and focus only on results.
Well, if it's voluntary, it's not really a lockdown, because no-one but the government has the power to lock things down on such a scale. That's a big problem to begin with: that those with the monopoly on violence have this kind of power.
@Mona99299788 @truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Ich habe noch nie gehört, dass in einem Fitnessstudio der Lehrer darauf besteht, dass Leute zur Begrüßung aufstehen. Aber nehmen wir mal an, das ist wirklich so. Dann gibt es dennoch einen entscheidenden Unterschied zwischen Fitness- & Kochstudios etc und Schulen, oder nicht?
So, if it is true that the lockdown did not hinder that project “significantly,” that implies that it hindered it at least a little bit?
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Es hat schon mit der Unterrichtssituation zu tun, denn das Szenario ähnelt in mancherlei Hinsicht einer Schule für Erwachsene. Also bleibt die Frage, wenn Sie gerne möchten.
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Das beantwortet leider meine Frage nicht. Sie ist nicht rhetorisch - mich interessiert wirklich, wie Sie sich dabei fühlen würden.
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie werden bei der Steuerbehörde vorgeladen. Sie dürfen dort im Büro Platz nehmen, bis Sie drankommen, und sobald Ihr Sachbearbeiter eintrifft, besteht er gegen Ihren Willen darauf, dass Sie zur Begrüßung aufstehen. Wie würden Sie sich dabei fühlen?
RT @joebosphilos:
My live report from Hillary Clinton's abortive victory party in 2016: youtu.be/_XplhB9HIrU
RT @joebosphilos:
It's an odd fact, isn't it, that we live in an age in which using the wrong gender pronoun is thought to traumatise someo…
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Das war hypothetisch gemeint. Wenn naechstes Mal einer nicht aufsteht.
Do you think that freedom and wealth are conducive to creative endeavors such as vaccine development or counterproductive?
@truewhitemount @paedabasics @Keksios
Welche Konsequenz ziehen Sie, wenn einer Ihrer Schueler nicht aufstehen moechte?
@HeuristicAndy @tomhyde_
Yes, true. Sleep helps solve some problems. Hopefully whatever it does can be automated and run subconsciously while awake.
I don't think Deutsch's sustainability critique applies to this pandemic as it stands.
Right, but why not?
No. I think it would have been reasonable to advise people to wear masks, keep a distance, stay at home, etc. Those willing to take the risk would then have been able to take it, and to continue working. Others could still have stayed home.
That sounds amazing. One thing I look forward to is the ability to temporarily turn off auditory and visual channels for a complete sensory-deprivation experience.
"Temporary" government measures often don't remain temporary because it's much harder to win back control once it's surrendered.
Lockdowns are like when children are grounded. Allegedly for their own good. Objectively disgraceful.
Those people don't work in a vacuum. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if their work would be greatly aided by having everyone else work normally. We cannot predict what discoveries might be made by others currently locked down that would help develop a vaccine.
@realchrisrufo @realDonaldTrump @RussVought45
You’re crushing it hard!!
Agreed. Though I love sleep, it’s one of the few areas in which our genes exert near-total control over us. Places a limit on how much progress one can make in a single period. And could still be optionally available once we transfer to machines!
Lockdowns keep us from pursuing those things. Therefore, lockdowns are counterproductive in our fight against the virus—let alone utterly immoral.
Right there, through that one elegant paragraph, it becomes clear how much lockdown thinking is really static-society thinking. People are hoping that a lifestyle—lockdowns—will protect them. In fact, only the creation of knowledge and wealth and the freedom to pursue them can.
"...But note that this lifestyle did not, when it was tried, prevent the Black Death. Nor would it cure cancer."
— David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
"...A society which did this would not be able to afford the kind of scientific research that would lead to new [medicine]. Its members would hope that their lifestyle would protect them instead..."
Prescient lines re the pandemic:
"The prophetic approach can see only what one might do to postpone disaster, namely improve sustainability: drastically reduce and disperse the population, make travel difficult, suppress contact between different geographical areas..."
👇
What’s the big deal? Even assuming animals are conscious, the animal picked up the cigarette itself and “decided” to smoke it. There was no coercion or cruelty. The worst that happened here was littering.
It's not quite new to see it seeping into tech, either—given the major tech companies' location and demographics, it's not surprising that they'd be left-leaning. But having political messages shoved down your throat while programming is a whole different ballpark. It's nasty.
Google and Apple are perhaps the two most powerful companies on the planet right now. They don't have to signal this stuff. I highly doubt anyone would stop buying their products for lack of such signals. Yet they signal it anyway. Which means they must actually believe it.
...but it's much worse to see it seep into tech, an area normally so wonderfully devoid of messy human affairs, so egalitarian in nature (without trying to be). It's sad seeing this industry I love devolving.
That's how pervasive the cancer that is social justice has become. It follows you into your professional life. I've always been aware that academia is politically motivated and left-leaning...
It's a bit like a plumber reaching for his hammer on the job and the hammer having a sticker on saying "black lives matter," reminding the plumber of the meme on the job.
It is one thing to place political signals in ads, as Apple did today (twitter.com/dchackethal/st…; though even there I'd much rather they didn't). It is quite another to put it in the documentation.
Google knows this, of course. Yet that doesn't stop them from placing a banner at the top of every page in the documentation for one of their tools saying: "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities. See how."
developers.google.com/apps-script/re… https://t.co/qh56pPIy6z
That documentation is available online and searchable. While perusing the documentation, you're in programming mode. You don't think about political matters. You came there to solve a problem, to look something up. You don't want to be distracted by political messages.
While programming, if you're using some tool you didn't develop yourself (which is frequently the case), it is common to go that tool's documentation to look up how things work. The documentation is a bit like an owner's manual. It contains technical information.
Hoffentlich keins.
Es ist wirklich erstaunlich, wie viele Kommentare unter diesem Foto die Antifa gutheißen.
I'm still exploring this area myself, but I think when discussion, criticism, and persuasion are possible and effective, we should prefer them over penalty. Could there be exceptions? Maybe.
Yes, good point. Practically unfireable. Also because of public perception.
I just learned that Spotify has a “Global Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging.” It doesn’t get much more “feel good” than that. All they need now is a Global Head of Ponies and Warm, Fuzzy Feelings.
It’s a start. No mention of the moral poverty, though. twitter.com/cowboyInNY/sta…
The coercive ideas surrounding the containment of COVID employ the same trick. If you resist being forced to stay at home, you're considered a grandma killer. Arguably, anti-rational ideas about the virus have spread much faster and are more harmful than the virus itself.
Once you understand this trick that such ideas use, you don't feel bad as easily anymore, and you'll have less of a problem criticizing them. The next step is to do so publicly, to help contain the spread of such ideas, and to show others they don't have to feel bad.
There are ideas which, through their defining attribute of the opposition to something evil, make you feel bad if you question them (that includes BLM, Antifa, etc). Such ideas should make us extremely skeptical. Penalizing criticism is about as anti-rational as it gets.
We should be careful not to romanticize the horror that was Soviet Russia.
Comments on the original post indicate that this was propaganda, and the poster agrees.
It’s a bit ironic that this message would be presented in a classroom setting forced upon kids by the state in the first place.
“People will die unless...” is easy to vary externally. twitter.com/DanielJHannan/…
Schnitzel mit Preiselbeersoße & Kartoffelsalat. Schweinshaxe. Oder ist das alles österreichisch? So oder so könnte ich mich jedes Mal reinsetzen. Ach und Maultaschen. Königsberger Klopse...
FWIW, many of those who are said to resist wearing masks actually just resist being forced to wear a mask. The difference is important because it brings out the real source of frustration and the actual point of contention: force vs persuasion.
I'm curious, does the "induced" happiness wane over repeated applications?
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Perhaps we are able to turn subconscious ideas into conscious ones through careful thinking, though. And then go from there.
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Ah, yes, and in that sense, death from earthquake is also caused by a lack of knowledge, of course. What I mean is some ideas may evolve completely subconsciously, and I'm unsure as to how much careful thinking could help tackle ideas we don't know we have.
One of the better articles I’ve read on the lockdown issue.
One minor note: even if there were evidence that lockdowns work in terms of controlling the virus (the lack of which is rightly bemoaned), we’d still need a good moral explanation for why it’s okay to lock people down twitter.com/MichaelPSenger…
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Yes, although I'm not sure I'd put it in terms of a lack of careful thinking. I wonder if sometimes bad ideas can evolve in minds undetected, and so careful thinking couldn't always help. Then some of them may be bad enough they lead to what we call "illness." What do you think?
In that book, Deutsch gives a refutation of a similar idea which says that people acquire new behaviors by imitating them, which can't work because you need the idea/explanation of the behaviors to enact them in the first place. It has to happen in that order. Same with AGI.
Well, AGI is a creative process. But overall, yes, I think so. + I'd add emphasis on not imitating humans. explanation > imitation
A useful rule of thumb from Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity": If we can already build it, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
Without such an answer, advocating neural nets over some other arbitrary "learning" algorithm is irrational, because any of them might lead us to AGI.
The difference is that evolution is creative, neural nets aren't. And before we dump millions into neural-net-based AGI research, shouldn't we first have an answer to the question: why and how would AGI arise from neural nets?
There are self-replicating ideas in our minds as well, and all they "want" to do is spread, too, yet that's how we come up with solutions to problems. In evolution (mental or biological), solutions are always created without regard for the problem situation.
Because an explanation of the human mind is the program that's needed.
It's very rare to stumble upon an explanation by accident/by doing something completely different.
Instead of asking yourself, “how do I know if I’m choosing the right thing?”, ask yourself, “how can I make it as easy as possible to detect when I haven’t chosen the right thing, and then change paths accordingly?”
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Got it, but... in the case of earthquakes, ideas seem to have nothing to do with it, whereas in the case of mental issues, it makes sense to me that they'd have something to do with it.
If ideas are software, couldn't bugs lead to symptoms we associate with mental illness?
Is there a no-go theorem à la Balinski and Young that mathematically proves that there can be no perfect representation in groups of people using a sufficient number of dimensions such as gender, race, age, etc?
Ein grosser Verlust im Kampf gegen Verfechter der "sozialen Gerechtigkeit" war der Tag, an dem der Duden das Wort "cisgender" uebernahm.
I don’t think so, because the greater the danger, the easier it is to persuade people, and so no force is needed.
I think there are parallels there to the weakness of character of the people acquiescing in or even eagerly accepting government-enforced lockdowns.
@ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat @mgoldingmd
Why is that a worse explanation, and of what?
No, problems are, and in a broader sense creativity.
@ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
I think what you’re describing would also be a software issue. Also, I’m not sure there is such a thing as a “fear center” and “object recognition center”—it’s all ideas about what to fear and what objects to recognize.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Erfolg, die, wenn sie ernst genommen wird und wie aus der Geschichte nur allzu gut bekannt ist, nur zu Zwangsenteignung und Gewalt fuehren kann.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Daher haengt die urspruengliche Frage “Koennen wir uns die Reichen noch leisten” nicht nur vom angeblichen (und nicht existenten) Nullsummenspiel der Wirtschaft ab, sondern hat eine ganz ueble Grundeinstellung gegenueber wirtschaftlicher Taetigkeit und dem wirtschaftlichen...
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Die Vorstellung, dass die Wirtschaft angeblich ein Nullsummenspiel ist, hat schon zu viel Intoleranz und Leid gefuehrt, weil dann die Frage ist, auf wessen Kosten Fortschritt gemacht werden soll, und wem man Geld wegnehmen darf (den Reichen).
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Er ist das Resultat kreativer Arbeit und Zusammenarbeit und erfordert keine Kosten anderer. Die Wirtschaft ist kein Nullsummenspiel – da wird staendig etwas Neues erschaffen.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Es kann deshalb nicht stimmen, weil Reichtum nicht durch Umverteilung (von zukuenftig Armen zu zuekuenftig Reichen oder wie auch immer) erschaffen werden kann. Reichtum entsteht durch kreatives Schaffen ex nihilo.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Damit Ihr Zweifel stimmt, muesste man also irgendwie zeigen, dass Reichtum nicht erlangt werden koennte, ohne dass das auf Kosten anderer geschieht. Das kann aber nicht stimmen.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Um zu diesem Zweifel zu gelangen, muessen Sie also irgendeine Erklaerung gehabt haben (die ueber bloße Postulate aus der Literatur hinausgeht), von der Sie zu wissen meinen, dass Reichtum nur auf Kosten anderer erlangt werden kann.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Dass Sie kein Fachmann sind, macht uebrigens ueberhaupt nichts. Ich will mal versuchen, die Lage zu erklaeren. Sie zweifelten urspruenglich an meiner Aussage, dass der Reichtum eines anderen einen nichts koste.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Auch Bauarbeiter koennen sich ein Haus bauen, wenn sie den dafuer notwendigen Wohlstand erreicht haben (oder es finanziert kriegen). Und auch dieses Beispiel erklaert nicht, inwiefern Reichtum nur auf Kosten anderer erreicht werden koennte.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Angenommen, es ginge nicht ohne diese Mechanismen (was die auch immer sein moegen). Dann stellt sich erneut die Frage: Wieso muesste der eine arm werden, damit der andere reich werden kann?
Das ist uebrigens keine rhetorische Frage, sondern sie wendet sich direkt an Sie.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Naja, das ist ja nur die gleiche Behauptung, nur anders ausgedrückt. Also bleibt die Frage: warum ist das angeblich so, dass einer nur auf Kosten anderer reich werden kann?