This is exactly it and why I hate seeing all the self congratulatory gotchas on social media as if they care about the logical consistency of anything they are saying.

You didn’t just get one over on them, you expended precious mental effort arguing against a firehose of bullshit, and not fighting against it.

See, what all these gotchas miss, is they have absolutely no intentions nor pretense of caring about consistency.

If you’re an out group, they hate you as an out group, and thats it.

Any words that happen to come out of their face holes or their slender typing sausages are just there to batter you down until they can do what they really want to do and what they are increasingly becoming emboldened to do (violence).

The MAGAts are happy to see ICE committing violence against the out groups. This is the primary thing they voted for. They’re happy to see Donald enact discriminatory laws against trans people.

People have gotta realize that any time spent arguing against bad faith points is time wasted on burning yourself out accomplishing nothing and or time that could be spent trying to get people who don’t pay attention to pay attention rather than trying to argue against people who actively wish you physical harm for your inalienable traits.

I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify"

Isn’t that already what cynicism prescribes?

Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others.

Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness.

Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity.

Skeptical of the integrity, sincerity, or motives of others.

It would seem, at least to me, we might not be disagreeing much but instead at a point of not quite getting our ideas across to each other, which is fair because words can have multiple meanings even within the same context.

I would say my point of contention are these 2 sentences

I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me.

I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be.

As to me, they seem somewhat contradictory, as the first with the benefit of the doubt seems contrary to the second with looking for the signs that they might not be worthy.

I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not

I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.

I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky

What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.

Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity.

I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.

If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?

What is the use of a rule of thumb that is only useful in exceptional cases and requires so much additional filtering?

More than, that, I’m not sure I agree as many types of manipulative behaviours thrive of people using your ruleset. Think many things sales people do, basically most police questions, and on and on.

Pen testers for companies regularly abuse the fact so many people think like this to breach companies with tactics as simple as “aw shit, I forgot my badge at home”.

I imagine due to media beauty standards being quite racist

Gwyneth seems to mean well albeit ignorant,

Giving this much benefit of the doubt to people will be the end of us all.

I’m serious. Hanlons razor, that stupid rule of thumb, has probably caused the most harm of any phrase ever uttered.

It commonly is, because it’s logical and they understand it. When will the criminally online leftists get that too?

The goal is not to have your balls tickled by politicians, it’s to do the best you can with what you have availible.

You aren’t eating the rich any time soon, so you vote for change in primaries, local and state politics, and fall in line for elections, senate races (where it’s too close).

Different for politicians etc who can’t afford to lose that outreach

For users, absolutely.

This just… isn’t true though. There are tons of things we spend time on and don’t become snobs about.

Many people watch a ton of movies but don’t care all that much.

Hip Hip, Hurray!

The only sad news is he will never face justice for the horrors he directed.

First time they’re being honest.

The harms and atrocities that come from dairy and eggs are arguably worse than meat itself

Certifiably cap, just from the scale of it all. Meat production has a non insignificant amount of environmental impact.

Dairy does too, but meat, you need more animals to kill.

and the former industries drive the latter to some extent

This is exactly backwards

Vegetarianism is neither ideologically or functionally different than any other form of animal commodification.

This is so absurd on its face that I don’t think you’re reasonable enough to bother arguing with, and don’t think anyone reading this will think you are, so I’d just be wasting my time.

To me, this seems like pretty much what they were expecting to do in the first place, and a classic case of pushing too far on purpose, just to back track to pretty much where they wanted to be; A plan that is a classic among big corporations.

I don’t think this is good enough, because it still would make future customers wary of buying their products, just to have support for new features dropped, in some cases, just days after they buy the product.

Some could argue that they don’t “owe” anyone that, but this is how the tech industry has worked for a while with its fast moving software pace. If NVidia, their only major rival, and even Intel, both continue to offer full fledged support for far longer than AMD, this continues to really dampen the reasons one would go for an AMD card.

Now AMD cards will have:

• Shorter prioritized driver support

• Less game support from devs (due to their lack of market share)

• Fewer games covered by their game specific features (FSR4 Suite) than their main competitor (NVidia with DLSS and FG)

• Trailing feature development (on average) when compared to their main rival NVidia

And users will be expected to accept this, all for a discount of typically just 50 dollars for GPUs of similar raw performance.

That seems like a very raw deal to me, and that is very unfortunate given the already greater than 90% market share NVidia commands in gaming and even higher market share in enterprise compute (AI included).

To me, this seems like pretty much what they were expecting to do in the first place, and a classic case of pushing too far on purpose, just to back track to pretty much where they wanted to be. A plan that is a classic among big corporations.

I don’t think this is good enough, because it still would make future customers wary of buying their products, just to have support for new features dropped, in some cases, just days after they buy the product.

Some could argue that they don’t “owe” anyone that, but this is how the tech industry has worked for a while with its fast moving software pace. If NVidia, their only major rival, and even Intel, both continue to offer full fledged support for far longer than AMD, this continues to really dampen the reasons one would go for an AMD card.

Now AMD cards will have:

• Shorter prioritized driver support

• Less game support from devs (due to their lack of market share)

• Fewer games covered by their game specific features (FSR4 Suite) than their main competitor (NVidia with DLSS and FG)

• Trailing feature development (on average) when compared to their main rival NVidia

And users will be expected to accept this, all for a discount of typically just 50 dollars for GPUs of similar raw performance.

That seems like a very raw deal to me, and that is very unfortunate given the already greater than 90% market share NVidia commands in gaming and even higher market share in enterprise compute (AI included).

But… that isnt what happened here

Except the other person is most of the way with that viewpoint, hence me calling it a purity test.

Given that we are a social species, that sounds like a terrible way to get literally anything you want accomplished by anyone else.

More than that, it absolutely sounds like you hate people given the vitriol you spat at that person who clearly agrees with you a majority of the way.

You also, even if you don’t care about social norms clearly understand the difference between not, for instance, participating in a silly tradition, and being unnecessarily and unhelpfully rude and aggressive.

Personally I feel that the hate for AI is misplaced (mostly, as I do get there is a lot of nuance regarding peoples feelings on training sourcing etc). Partially because its such a wide catch all term, and then mostly, by far, because all of the problems with AI are actually just problems with the underlying crony capitalism in charge of its development right now.

Every problem like AI “lacking empathy” is down to the people using it not caring to keep it out of places where it fails to accomplish such goals or where they are explicitly using it to strip people of their humanity; something that inherently lacks empathy.

If you take away the horrible business motivations etc, I think its pretty undeniable AI is and will be a great technology for a lot of purposes and not for a lot of the ones its used for now (this continued idea that all UI can be replaced such that programmers wont be needed for specific apps and other such uses).

Obviously we can’t just separate that but I think its important to think about especially regarding regulation. That’s because I believe that big AI currently is practically begging to be regulated such that the moat to create useful AI becomes so large that no useful open source general purpose AI tools can exist without corporate backing. That’s I think one of their end goals along with making it far more expensive to become a competitor.

That being said this is a little bit out of hand in that this was about software in general, and regarding that and AI, I do believe empathy can be included, and built correctly, a computer system could have a lot more empathy than most human beings who typically only have meaningful empathy towards people they personally empathize with in their actions, which leads to awful systemic discrimination reinforcing practices.

As for the flock example, I think its almost certain they got in with some backroom deals, and in a more fair world… where those still exist somehow, the police department would have a contract with some sort of stipulations regarding what happens with false identifications. The police officers also would not be traumatizing people over stolen property in the first place.

That is all to say, I think that often when software is blamed, what should actually be blamed is the business goals that lead to the creation of that software and the people behind them. The software is after all automation of the will of the owners.