Holy fuck, "Space logistics simulator with some casual space piracy" the game.
For the receptive kind of brain that's some premium crack.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 418
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.
I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?
Like in a religious sense, wouldn't claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god's intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you're a prophet ).
Now, on to the actual response.
It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.
It's clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don't you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.
I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.
The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.
Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.
A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.
Send me a link when you've published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
This where we disagree and the communication broke down.
It seems we do disagree because even in this reply you provide no justification for assigning a must to an argument that is provided as a should.
The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses.
Agreed.
Though technically™, and for a very literal definition of homelessness, that is correct.
The arguments that followed look like they are providing counterarguments using a less literal definition, like "modern day homelessness and the causes thereof"
The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution
Agreed, emphasis on the not enough, meaning, still partially enough.
and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.
This is where our interpretations differ.
I'm reading this as :
and that in order to solve more of the problems that homeless people face, they should
mustalso receive the other assistances listed.They were providing a possible suggestion to increase the effectiveness of the solution, that's not a must that's a should also
Less of a "It won't work at all without this" vs "yeah, ok, but we should also do this as well"
I'll concede it is a very strong should but it's not close enough to a must to come to "So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research" as a conclusion.
ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra.....
I am familiar with it, boolean algebra doesn't help if the values you are using are faulty.
At this point, I’ll stress I’m not arguing for or against any of the points raised in the actual discussion, my original reply consisted of: "housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only"
The only thing i've been doing is taking the examples you've provided (and in the original case, the request you made) and pointed out where they seem to rely on faulty interpretations or information not provided.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?
The portion contained in the reply you were responding to.
You were asking for sources in response to a specific reply, sources that included only housing and not accompanying mental health support.
i was just saying that the reply you responded to mentioned "housing-first" not "housing-only", so it seemed like you were asking for sources for something that was never mentioned ( in that reply ).
But i'll respond to your reply , point by point.
First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;
It does not, it posits that mental health support will help a greater proportion of people, there is no must in there.
Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:
So i'll concede that this person does seem a bit confused, given that they seem to be arguing the same point as the person they were responding to in what seems to be a fairly hostile manner.
But they still seem to be championing a housing-first approach.
Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:
Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
One is a proposed solution, the other is a somewhat pointless statement, but it's not contradictory.
So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.
I'm not sure how you're getting from "I think these two things would solve the problem " to "Only thing one is required, thing two is useless and possibly detrimental to the goal".
ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?
Confusion or misunderstanding probably.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
Not me you're replying to, but I assume "housing-first" doesn't mean "housing only"
I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.
I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.
Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.
And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.
My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.
I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.
I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.
Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.
Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.
The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.
There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.
Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.
"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.
As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).
The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.
Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.
I'm not saying there is an issue. My issue is that the comic is trying to make out that teachers don't abuse.
That's certainly one of the takes of all time.
I'm fairly certain all the comic is implying is that the person talking about pushing for youth pastors in school secretly has csam on their computer.
But im legitimately interested in how you got that take, just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I don't see how a pastor who has passed the same necessary background checks as a teacher (this is required in the UK) is any more of a risk than the secular teachers.
This I agree with in principal, though I would also add that the church (organised religion in general, really) has reputation for protecting it's members for a reason.
I would also add that the equal checks standard isn't in every country.
Assuming the odds are the same for both to be a perpetrator, one of those is anecdotally ( possibly statistically ) more likely to receive protection.
She entered into the agreement of her own volition (as far as we know) and was of an age to do so.
If her intention was to provide sex (and companionship, because that's sometimes an important component) in exchange for the payday after the 2 years then I'd classify that as sex work, though a more long term contracting kind of work.
If she was in it for the relationship and it just didn't work out then no, it's just a failed relationship with a bonus payout.
But i'll concede that my perspective isn't necessarily the norm, as i put quite a bit of emphasis on intent.
To me it's weird to classify sex work as something different to any other job from a labour perspective.
I understand there are unique challenges, but i think a lot of that could be solved with decent regulation and support.
The fact that there's a whole bunch of legal (and cultural) moralising around it is a big part of the problem, though not all of it.
All of that said, this isn't even close to my area of expertise so I'll assume there's a whole bunch of things I've not taken in to consideration.
Where how and when ?
I said the context was about that, rather than what other tools could be used to do the same thing.
I never claimed a position on whether that has or has not occurred.
Im pretty sure the issue was incompetence rather than malice. But if you have something that proove malice i would love to see it
I have not stated a position on that, so I have nothing to defend or prove.
Though I will say that tacit endorsement in this case doesn't. require malice, just inaction.
Claims of action don't count until proven.
Sure, but the context isn't about the ability, its about the accessibility (ease of doing the thing) and the tacit endorsement of the act.
Saying "yeah but {X} can also do that" isn't really relevant here.
I understand that some LLM's have this capability.
I thought you were comparing two similar things, like Gemini was integrated with another social media platform somewhere providing the same, easily accessible, integrated means of creating these kinds of images.
Seems that it's just vague whattaboutism on your part.
From what i saw gemini also did it.
Citation?
Or Perhaps:
- They have a large corpus of context files to help with all aspects of how the output is generated
- They're using a model with specialised fine tuning for the task attempted
- They have a series of MCP servers with access to relevant tooling available
- They have many many hours of prior experience with the setup and usage of such tools
- They used multiple tools manually and pulled the bits they needed
- They just said "Make me a thing" and it just worked like magic
they mention reinforcement learning, pre-training and other general LLM concepts, but none of these are related back to the tasks they are talking about.
The point is, there was no explanation of how any of this was achieved, which can lead to confusion about what was actually achieved.
The LLM wrote some docs vs the LLM rewrote the library from end to end are very different things.
It's very much a "Don't give up on X, look at what can be achieved" but without any actual details on what is required to achieve those results.
That's a very narrow slice of a supply chain to be using it as a basis for conclusions like that.
I don't disagree that the "shortage" is artificial, i'm just saying that your local store having stock and raising prices isn't a good basis for determining overall supply chain health.
Like looking out your window and seeing rain, so obviously it must be raining everywhere.
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn't arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren't related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren't going to agree on interpretation so let's just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point.. in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that's my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you'd go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you'd argue against positions never taken, but we've already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That's a more complicated discussion and i don't disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn't apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn't take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
TL;DR;
Your reply doesn't make sense because it seems you didn't understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.
That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.
OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn't relate to it at all.
This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…
Translation:
The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a "well regulated militia" , so to speak.
And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.
So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:
2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
Nobody was attacking gun rights.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else's rights.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.
I'm not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone's opinion of me, laughter included.
You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
As we've established above, this is also unrelated.
Also, "anybody who doesn't agree with me is a lefty" is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
OK so, benefit of the doubt.
You know that statement wasnt asking for protection right?
I would consider "Only people in a coma wouldn't come to the same exact interpretation as i have" to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
That's a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it's also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
"I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so"
If your reasoning boils down to "because god said so" that's not a conversation, that's a dictate because you can't reason with someone who's only basis is faith.
To me, that's almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
I'm not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
Isn't going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
or "it is, because i/god said so"
Isn't a basis for arguing objectivity, it's hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on "My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don't understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don't understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct"
That's not a good faith conversation, that's a repetitive statement.