Damn right, fuck war and fuck imperialists.
By the way,
you can find pictures of Zelensky posing with his own countries soldiers wearing swastikas
Got a link? My leftist group chat doesn’t believe this, and I can’t find anything myself that’s not obviously doctored.
Thanks, uh, I’m not SkyezOpen. Sorry if I interrupted your conversation.
Putin is a capitalist oligarch that should have never led Russia
you can find pictures of Zelensky posing with his own countries soldiers wearing swastikas
So you’re saying that on OP’s infographic we should be supporting neither Ukraine or Russia? Or should we be slightly to the right on the Russia-Ukraine axis because it’s better to support a capitalist oligarch using Nazi rhetoric than not supporting anyone?
Is that the right fallacy? What’s the strawman?
Notices how [corrupt] people […] would very reasonably cause their constituents to have complaints like […]
Thanks. Sounds like you’re saying the issues I mentioned could be signs of corruption, but are not corruption in themselves? Which is true for sure, but they don’t necessarily imply corruption.
And in this particular case, they get scrutinized and very little actual corruption is found.
Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over.
I agree, but here we are talking about reality, not assumptions. In this particular context, the majority of cases are as I describe. It’s completely justified to keep these things under intense scrutiny (Denmark is relatively transparent and has a functioning critical press across interests and political spectra), but if you assume the worst you start seeing corruption where there might be none.
And to say they don’t describe corruption is demonstrably false.
I’m not sure I see that, but I could well be wrong. Would you care to demonstrate?
Ah, of course, thanks.
But are they? If the farmers band together to form a political party which gets voted into parliament doesn’t seem like definite corruption to me. If the farmers had judges and officials in their pockets that would be corruption.
If the majority of MPs have educated themselves within law, economics and social science to pursue a career of representing their communities, and they are then elected due in part to their experience ane expertise on state and governance matters, that’s not definite corruption to me. It’s not clear to me that someone like that cannot earnestly represent their electorate.
If someone is looking to make a hire, and they have many qualified candidates, them choosing to hire someone recommend by their peers in the field doesn’t seem like definite corruption. If they were to hire their family members or friends based despite lower qualifications, that would be nepotism.
I’m not sure what first paragraph quotes you are referring to, first paragraph of the report? Or of some comment here on Lemmy? Sorry if I’m missing something.
- Assface
- Boobies
- Orgasmo
lol
I don’t think we agree on what corruption is. I hear this a lot from Danes in the context of “The farmers and bankers have whole political parties in their pockets” and “all our MPs are career politicians” and “you can’t get a nice job unless you know someone”.
While these statements aren’t fully true, they’re definitely real issues. But I would suggest these are not corruption. You could consider them problematic, sure, but corruption is about using your public authority to steal and misappropriate resources to enrich yourself. Stuff like bribes, embezzlement, etc. Which happens far less in Denmark than most other places I’d say.
The main exception is the royal house, which is super duper corrupt.
I mean, unless you’re explicitly invited for dinner.
We’re doing our best to seize this moment and offer exactly that. Funds have been strategically released to benefit from this.
France gets Alsace, Germany gets Lorraine, easy.
There’s no limit to predicting the weather that I’m aware of for an infinitely advanced intelligence, what do you mean exactly?
Let me try and be very precise: We know that weather is a chaotic system, which means it has a positive Lyapunov exponent, which measures how the uncertainty of a chaotic system evolves as a function of uncertainty in initial conditions.
Usually this just means that our weather models will fail if our initial data input isn’t precise enough. But even if we imagine a perfect weather model, perfect data input and a perfect intelligence to model future weather, the input data is still limited in precision by the Heisenberg uncertainty. As far as we know, something like the position of an atom cannot be known with infinite precision, and a future theory which is more precise (aka a “hidden variable theory”) has been consistently shown to be impossible through the “Bell tests” or “nonlocality experiments”.
So, if we assume that the perfect intelligence still only knows the position of each atom down to say, a precision of one Angstrom, 10^(-10) meters, and we assume a Lyapunov exponent of about 0.5/day, see e.g. this paper, then we can calculate that after two months the uncertainty is approximately
1 Å (ångström) exp(60 days×0.5/day) = 1 km
So even with perfect data, perfect model, perfect intelligence, the location of each atom in your weather model would have an uncertainty of one kilometer after predicting just two months into the future. In other words, there is a fundamental limit to prediction of complex physical systems.
Define “awareness” in an empirically testable manner first and then we can start applying it.
One criterion we could apply is the ability to respond to stimuli beyond Newtonian mechanics. All living humans and animals have this ability, no rock has this ability. It can be empirically tested.
Does the ability to react to stimuli mean that you are aware? Not necessarily. But if you cannot react to stimuli, then you cannot be aware.
By the way, thanks for sticking with the conversation, this is super interesting stuff!
I think a sufficiently advanced intelligence could predict your or my behavior perfectly.
As far as we know, an infinitely advanced intelligence wouldn’t even be able to predict the weather a year from now, so I don’t think you’re right. Assuming of course that the brain is more complex than the weather.
Why is that a relatively sane framework? It’s a very anthropocentric worldview to just assume that.
I haven’t really encountered any serious framings of the world where a rock can experience joy, but I’d be very happy to know more if you know of any.
I guess ultimately it’s more of an empirical approach than an anthropomorphic assumption - nothing about the behaviour of a rock provides any evidence that it has any sort of awareness or consciousness. On the contrary, the available evidence seems rather consistent with the theory that it doesn’t.
The key difference between unpredictability and free will is the experience of free will, which is the opposite of what you say: my experience of free will is that I can predict my own behaviour quite well through my awareness of my own choices, but nobody else has access to that awareness, therefore they can’t predict my behaviour. I am predictable to myself, to an extent, but not to others. Unpredictability can be a consequence of free will, but it is not equal to free will.
With concepts like awareness and choice we of course have the same problem as when discussing consciousness - I can’t strictly speaking know if anything other than myself is conscious, since the main proof of consciousness is the subjective experience of said consciousness. Therefore I can’t strictly speaking say that the weather doesn’t have free will, in the same way that I can’t say a rock cannot experience joy.
But if we work in the relatively sane framework that rocks and weather do not have consciousness, and you and I do, then the experience of making a conscious choice is the central evidence for free will.
If it was proven that the world is deterministic, then I would consider that evidence irrelevant. But in a non-deterministic world, it becomes compelling.
Something can’t be determined if no one knows the answer.
Yes it can. The trajectory of the planets is well determined and can be predicted many years into the future. That was also true before astronomy, or before humans even. Even if nobody currently knows how to predict something, it can certainly be obeying deterministic rules.
Why do we assume determinism removes our free will? If I were a parent you could bet with almost certainty that I would take a bullet for my child, does that mean it’s not my choice because it’s predictable?
Under determinism there is no such thing as choice. Not whether you take a bullet for your child, not whether you watch TV or read a book, not whether you look at the wall for ten or twenty seconds. If there can be no choice, there can be no free will.
Why do we assume randomness gives or allows for free will?
The proposition is not than random behaviour is free will. The proposition is that since determinism precludes free will, the existence of free will must require a non-deterministic world. This does mean we know anything about how free will works or comes about, and certainly it doesn’t mean that non-determinism implies free will. We can definitely be living in a non-deterministic world without free will.
I disagree. What you mention is unpredictability, not free will. The weather is unpredictable, but hardly considered as having free will.
The important point is not whether you have free will to some observer, rather, the important point is whether you yourself have the experience of free will. Yes, that could be an illusion, but that is always a risk in empirical observation. It is awkward that you are the only one who can experience your free will, meaning it can’t be checked by external observers, but you can compare your experience of free will with others, and see that they have very similar experiences. If we try to be scientific about it, that could be considered evidence.
QM is consistent with an indeterministic physical world. That is indeed not the only interpretation, but it is a valid one. An indeterministic physical world is necessary for free will to be possible. Ergo QM allows for free will. It does not prove free will, but it breaks down a barrier for the existence of free will.
How does that relate to superdeterminism?
That’s for sure their wolfsangel symbol, thanks. Doesn’t the photo misidentify the symbol though? The wolfsangel isn’t an SS logo afaik, and the blurry insignia looks more like a 44 than SS.