Overengineering a webcam:
Using an anamorphic cinema lens on a mirrorless camera for a meeting.
Honestly it's more than a little weird to see myself in real time from that point of view.
But I know for certain that it feels right to me.
I knew it before I learned about ethical philosophy, it made may doctrines of the catholic church I was raised in, feel wrong.
A heaven and a hell is not ok with me.
People getting what they deserve should mean that they receive kindness.
I think I would value a world with lower average happiness and a narrower deviation from that average than a world with higher average happiness with a wide deviation that leaves some people in misery.
I'm not sure that there is a description or equation that should be used to determine it.
And even the axioms are more complex than I can fit into a pithy skeet, but the idea to strive toward a world where everyone lives with dignity and to avoid a worlds where anyone lives in suffering is the foundation.
Burning myself out all the way for diminishing returns on the wellness of others, nope, not ok.
It's more a compass than a roadmap, and it allows for a lot of flexibility, I'm allowed to descend the gradient to leave a local maxima so that I can seek a higher point.
Each decision, every choice, they don't need a logical backing, they are more or less correct based on my understanding of how they move my and others experiences around on the gradient.
Working hard and burning out a little to help a friend to improve more than I degrade, probably good.
For me, I start from two things: "intend from harm" and "intend to contentment".
They are axioms and I would may have difficulty explaining why they are the ones that matter to me, because to me they are inherently true.
This gives me a nice gradient to follow.
And those problems break arguments for the equivalence of ethical systems. Some are better than others, and by definition, systems that don't work when many people use it are flawed.
Kant's "Formula of Universal Law" touches on that.
Mill's "Utilitarianism" discussed the value of emotion.
Find things that are true for you, and build up from them.
Every person will care about different things different amounts, sometimes people are ignorant of emergent problems from their belief systems, and sometimes their systems are narrow or don't apply values consistently.
Hokay, that's actually a pretty common feeling to have.
I do want to emphasize a few things that helped me find certainty for my own axioms.
1) Both Emotion and Logic are valid ways to found your ethical or belief structure.
2) Despite many early ethical theories being reductive, ethics is complex.
And this is why I love your videos, always well researched, and you go to where the data are and collect your own. I'll never not respect that.
I'll argue that I have a sincerely held belief against violence, and that even though there may be some hypothetical situation where I would engage in violence, that would not negate that I would believe my actions to be wrong.
To go on about someone who at least put a lot of effort into visiting sites, taking primary source data, and presenting their conclusions, as if they are intentionally being fraudulent, is not supported by a rational concern.
The dose makes the poison, infrasound may be harmless from intermittent sources like traffic and wind turbines, and harmful from constant sources, it may be that an increase in amplitude causes health issues, it may be that a particular frequency that creates standing waves in a home is harmful.
For example: small amounts of Fluoride in the water is healthy, the fluorination of tooth enamel leads to uncreased resistance to tooth decay. But a sloghtly higher amount leads to fluorosis, ranging from unsightly discoloration (yay my version), to pitting of tooth enamel or malformation of teeth.
Fascinating. I'm going to get back to reading relaxing queer body horror violent romance amateur fiction, instead of watching grown men type insults at each others intellect and integrity.
Just because an effect in a study does not appear with sufficient significance does not mean it has no effect.
I made no claim that you got anything wrong, I made the claim that you are not unbiased.
Also whoa, I never even mentioned your name, nor gave you any reason to comment on this conversation, so maybe don't sealion women on the internet you weirdly aggressive man.
There's a lively conversation between Ben Jordan and the author in the comments of Ben's quote post. bsky.app/profile/benn...
The author is by no means unbiased, particularly on a topic about the effects of AI data-centers on the areas around them.
Before you believe the article, look into who wrote it.
Updated to be free, it had defaulted to a paid post, hope that didn't affect anyone.
Perhaps putting year markers on the x-axis, would 1) give some indication of roughly when videos were released, and 2) would show that the x-axis is inconsistent in time.
It would also allow people to notice trends like, perhaps during the pandemic there were more views.
I'm working on my application for recognition of Canadian citizenship under the new rules since the Canadian Supreme court ruling last year.
If you can't beat them, join them.
@jakkuh.bsky.social I'm getting close:
Oh cool, bluesky used coderpad to hire people to move fast and break things faster, leveraging rebranded stochastic bias machines.
And then the website broke.
Haven't seen you do it ever, but I appreciate.
