Oh snap! I’ve been pronouncing ma-caw since forever. Where did I get that?!

The title looks like it could be read Mac-ac and Cheese

Exactly. That’s exactly what OP is saying.

Yeah, I get it. It’s really hard to understand. It’s just basic respect, right? How could someone not value basic human decency?

I can’t answer that question. All I know is that some people just don’t.

It doesn’t make sense to me that domestic abusers will beat up someone that loves them, yet it still happens. Politicians push legislation that they know will hurt their constituents, yet they still push it. Parents will try to force the lifestyle they desire for their children on their children out of love, even as it alienates their children, yet they persist. Some (many/all??) criminals know what they do hurts other people, yet they still commit crime.

I don’t get it either. I only know basic human decency isn’t valued by a lot of people. And you can indignantly scoff at such people all you want, incredulous that they just don’t get the basics of empathy, a fundamental human emotion. They’ll hurt others all the same.

Me, though? Drawing on my empathy, I hope such people find the happiness and freedom they’re looking for without the pain and suffering they cause.

This is going to be counter intuitive: being a POS is something some people want. They especially want it if it promises them comfort, luxury, or status.

I mean, look at all the trash people consume everyday despite how bad it is for them. We all know it’s bad. Still, we gotta have it.

Being a POS is like drinking soda with no one to tout the benefits of drinking straight H2O. The left needs to make drinking water sexy!

If stabilizing debt seems hard, that’s only because given our deeply divided politics, even modest steps toward responsibility are extremely hard to take.

And by deeply divided politics I mostly mean Republicans, who declaim the evils of debt while pursuing policies that put long-run fiscal sustainability even farther out of reach.

Fucking. Thank you. The debt is only a problem because some people won’t be reasonable.

I think I’d settle for having actual, preferably objective reasons for one’s argument to indicate a reasoned position. If someone says I believe the moon landing didn’t happen because of the direction of the shadows, then that’s a reasoned position in this sense I’m talking about. After all, we can reason ourselves into incorrect beliefs.

The function of drumming up counter-arguments against your own argument is to identify weaknesses. Merely asking the question of, “How are shadows expected to work on the moon anyway?” suggests that one’s disbelief in the moon landing may be taking something for granted.

The difference between a reasonable person and someone driven by emotion is how they handle the discrepancy between their incorrectly reasoned argument and reasoned counter-arguments. Basically, the reasonable person must consider the counter argument, or at least not reject it out of hand.

On the other hand, as Hume said, reason is driven by emotions. So, the difference between the two may be an illusion to begin with.

Cronometer? It’s more for calorie tracking, but it’s recipe builder does what you want.

The more nuanced follow up, however, is that it’s only worth the work if you’re putting in the right amount of work.

Yeah…this is why I abandoned by privacy journey a few years ago. It felt like it took a lot of work, created hiccups for very little reason, and was overall just not enjoyable. But I was able to get Bitwarden out of it, which, I think, is a pretty swell privacy-focused app.

Amen. Get futons instead so you can sleep anywhere in your home.

There could be so many miracle tips or tricks online that really work

“You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? - Medicine.” ― Tim Minchin

I’m not really sure you understand just how complicated being a doctor is and making the correct diagnosis is. Sure, it might be something small if you feel sad in the evenings. It might also be a brain tumor. Home remedies might work in both cases, and they might not.

But you know what will probably work more often that not? A doctor’s prescription.

Talk to you doctor.

Actually, that’s a good point! I brought it up in another comment, but there are mathematical geniuses, piano geniuses, scientific genius, etc. But everybody know and can agree on what math is, what a piano is and how difficult it is to play well, what science is and the long road to mastery of a sliver of human knowledge that entails.

But not with morality.

Personally, I think you’ve suggested an answer that satisfies me: people have no idea wtf morality or spirituality are. Plato and Aristotle once may have been able to point to someone and say, “So and so is more virtuous than us!” or “The king of a foreign nation is full of vice and worth less than coward who turns to bravery.” But it’s like modern American society cannot conceive of such a concept as moral superiority.

I mean, some people can, and then often go on to be significantly worse than normal people. They are often the definition of immoral. But, as a general rule, saying that you’re morally superior to others barely makes any sense and, even if it did, would demand an impossible type of proof.

Since you wrote this post, you probably have some idea of what a moral genius is supposed to be. Can you describe what makes a person a moral genius and maybe give an example?

I mean, that’s interesting in and of itself. The concept of a moral genius isn’t clear. Others have brought this up, too.

A genius is someone who generally displays some exemplary skill. Terrence Tao, for example, attended university-level mathematics courses when he was nine. Most people couldn’t have possibly have done what he did. In contrast, Pablo Picasso was also a genius, creating artistic masterpieces, among his many other talents. Many of his contemporaries didn’t achieve what he did.

So, at least we know that geniuses can be recognized as such at any point in their life, and it seems more about achieving a level of mastery or insight into their field or practice that others aren’t privy to, even other practitioners.

People keep saying morality is subjective, which is true, but so is art. Still, Picasso was recognized as genius. Still, there are widely recognized universal moral values, like don’t kill other people. So, I’m not sure moral subjectivity is sufficient to dismiss what I’m asking.

Other commenters have brought up various moral philosophers like Kant and St. Augustine. Different moral frameworks, both geniuses. Sure. The same commenter brought up Buddha, and I think that’s closer to what I’m after. Buddha attained “enlightenment” and then everybody and their god came to him for moral guidance.

I think it’s this beacon of guidance as a genius that really captures my concept of a moral genius. Like, if you’re a professional mathematician and you get stumped on a proof, you may turn to Terrence Tao to see what he thinks about resolving the apparent problem. Similarly, if you’re trying to understand some aspect of art that eludes you but you see in Picasso paintings, you might engage in-depth study of his artwork until you get what you’re trying to find.

But let’s say you’re widely understood to be at least a good person, then who do you turn to? Who is widely understood to be a morally superior person that exceeds even the normal best to which they turn? Such a person would fit my understanding of a moral genius.

And while children are often lauded for being innocent and pure, it’s like their untainted understanding of morality isn’t recognized as proper moral decision-making. In contrast, the Dalai Lama is often respected as spiritual leader, but I think that stems more from what the Dalai Lama is and the tradition around him rather than the inherent goodness of whoever is the Dalai Lama. The same goes for preachers/the Pope/etc. That might be unfair to discount them, though…idk.

Yeah, but who is today’s Buddha?

Art is subjective too, but artistic genius is a thing (but takes longer to develop, I guess. I can’t recall any young artistic geniuses)

So, LLMs aren’t suitable for brainstorming new directions at the frontier. That seems like a pretty specific limitation that is only applicable in a very small percentage of cases. Like, LLM brainstorming won’t be useful if you’re trying to improve LLMs in a new way unless that new way is what most people are already doing. But it’d still be useful to help a COO brainstorm how to improve operations since there are tried and true methods of operations management.

The only reason I’m a citizen of American is because of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That is, the law of the U.S. defines my status as a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of my being born here.

Still, there are four other ways to become a citizen of the U.S.

• by naturalization
• by marriage
• through parents
• through the military

These pathways are all outlined in various laws.

Again, the status of immigrants who are now citizens is determined by law.

I said earlier that “the ‘We support a legal path to citizenship for immigrants that go through the proper channels’ people do not, in fact, support a legal path to citizenship for them”. That is, Republicans generally refused to grant citizenship to immigrants by passing the DREAM Act. In their inability to govern, they did not pass a law.

You make it seem as if citizenship is an inherent characteristic of being born in the U.S. It is not. Repeal the 14th Amendment, and birthright citizenship goes away. Change the immigration laws, and lesser or greater numbers of immigrants can be granted citizenship. You’re right, “They are not citizens of America.” But they could have been (and could be) at the stroke of pen. It is the law that determines citizenship. While I’m both an American citizen and identify as American, dreamers only identify as American. It’s only because of xenophobia that dreamers are not citizens.

It is sending a citizen of that country back to their country.

When you say “their” country, what do you mean?

Exactly. That’s why it’s abusive. It’d be like sending a random conservative to Hungary. Though CPAC attendees may love Hungary, I doubt they’d like to be sent there forcefully when they identify as an American through and through.