• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 8 days ago
cake
Cake day: May 21st, 2025

help-circle
  • Thanks for response. At the beginning of your response you’re again saying it can be made to cost no money if it is public, but later you’re acknowledging that of course it costs money, as does private. So I’ll respond to your second point, where we’re both saying “of course it costs money”.

    When I first said “it costs money”, I was meaning to imply “…that people don’t want to spend”. If I don’t want a service, because id rather use that money for something else, but I am forced pay for it, then to me, that would be a negative.

    Im guessing you don’t like when gov spends money it takes from you on bombs, right? Even though the supporters would argue it’s in your best interest, it’s for the greater good, that it is preventing the loss of life at home. You might say “fuck that, I don’t care, I dont want it, it’s wrong for me to pay for it”. That’s the downside to you, and it would be perfectly reasonable of you to have that position.

    If I would rather spend my money on private healthcare, or no healthcare, but it is taken from me for the “greater good”, then that’s a negative to me, which is just as reasonable.

    [if you’re tempted to argue about bombs being life destroying, etc, spare me. It’s just an example. Pick any expense you want: somebody doesn’t want it, it has a cost, and that’s a downside to that person if you make it public aka force them to pay for it.]

    everything has a cost and a benefit, and if you and “everybody” can only see one or the other, consider: that’s the same view someone inside an echo chamber would have. If you’re unaware of the other side (or can’t even conceive of it!) you are at best half-informed (and zero-persuasive).




  • Lead in water has no upside. Whereas Universal healthcare and LLMs have both pros and cons. If it’s feels like a “no brainer”, and if you think everyone agrees, that says more about you than the issue.

    Sorry if I moved the goal post from sycophantic. If that’s the sticking point, I would still ask “according to whom”? It’s not a black/white issue. This is one of the most complex and cutting edge tools we have, which the designers themselves admit to not really understanding. It took them 10+ years just to make it intelligent enough for general use. It’s not like one day, out of nowhere, some supervillain decided to push the “unleash the sycophantic AI to cause psychosis” button.

    And pushing the “Don’t be delusional” button also might not be an option. It’s trained on human output. Even if it had the capacity, It’s easy to imagine “the truth” causing 100x the psychosis.

    I don’t disagree with the last thing you said, that it’s normal for the elite to obfuscate, spin, piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining. But, if our response is “So I should always trust my gut, avoid understanding the pros and cons, and trust the ‘everybody’ In my echo chamber who agrees with me”, i can only see that adding to the problem. An angry mob vs sophisticated propaganda, even if it wins the occasional battle, loses the war.




  • But… right-side-up, the plane fights gravity, has upward lift, according to Bernoulli principle. And even if we angle the flaps to decrease altitude, it’s still not dropping like a rock, the wings still generate lots of upward lift.

    400 ton plane, wings w 400 ton lift = flight

    Now (before engaging flaps) those same wings upside down would be generating downward “lift” PLUS pull of gravity. So now the 400 ton plane is like an 800 ton plane. Can the flaps alone lift that? Or, said another way, if we gave the plane flat wings, no Bernoulli, and stacked another plane on top of it (to make 800 tons), could it fly right-side-up just using flaps?