User Controls
Posts by Lanny
-
2016-01-14 at 6:36 AM UTC in Fuck Individualism
You never offered me a job, Lanny. I fucking hate you.
Woulda offered you a job too if you were a web dev.Lol, Lanny just offered someone a job. Also 60 dorrah an hour is pretty good moolah.
Yeah mang, devs are a valuable commodity in the bubble economy. Even being able to drop the name of someone half competent and with non-zero experience who hasn't been fully alienated from their labor is worth something round these parts. -
2016-01-14 at 6:18 AM UTC in NMDA antagonists are retardation simulators
Discuss
I disagree with this statement. Alcohol makes me an artist. -
2016-01-13 at 9:20 AM UTC in Fuck Individualism
I'm going the freelance route specifically because most tech companies here either want a) master's degrees for writing html/css b) want to pay you peanuts c) have extremely retarded contract clauses ie. "You must ask for permission if you want to do any work on the side. Also, all your code, even if you write it at home, at night, belongs to us, hurr durr". Fucking fucks.
That hasn't really been my experience, but of course things are different by locale. All the NDA's I've seen block you from working in the same field as your employer and case law has been fairly favorable to programmers on that in recent years (in terms of what's considered the "same field").
Kinda ironically the megacorp (or startup, whatever, just a long term gig) route is better suited to the asocial I think. To freelance or work for yourself you need to interact with a lot of people and have a strong professional network. All you really need to do at big software company X is do reasonably good work with some bare minimum of politics and you'll move up (varies from place to place of course but I think it will be consistently less than what's necessary to drum up freelance work) or jump ship every few years.
It sounds like you do web dev? I do some work on the side for this small company, there's a lot of work but there are only two quarter time engineers working on it right now. The CEO has asked me a couple of times if I knew any other developers he could hire, I told him I'm not a hiring manager so he should find someone else, not about to go around asking my gainfully employed friends if they want to moonlight with me (also probably in violation of my day job contract in some way but w/e). Anyway, if you're interested I could throw your name in, not sure on timeframe, work would probably pick up in a month or so, also not sure about number of hours weekly but I think the going rate is ~$60/h and can be done remote if you can make meetings in PST evenings. -
2016-01-11 at 4:36 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Pessimistic bias:
www.google.com/search?q=site:econlib.org+pessimism+OR+pessimistic+bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome
People are generally just very under and uninformed, driven by emotion, prefer, find it more intuitive and easier to understand, and are more influenced by anecdotes, appeals to emotion/emotional manipulation, rather than hard data, have a poor grasp of reason/logic, cognitive ability, all these cognitive biases etc. Really, this is a critical aspect of so many things.
I thought your post was going to end on this note and then my thought process was like this:
That's ironic
I should quote his reply with a link to irony on wikipedia
it's almost too ironic, was that a joke?
definitely a joke, and if I had replied he would have insinuated I was "poor at interpreting meaning" or something like that
so I'll ignore the post
or maybe I could point out I was able to pick up on his subtle joke and in so doing dispel any lingering concerns about being an autist
well good job malice, you've engrained yourself as a permanent fixture in my thought process. Sometimes I find myself in a conversation and I think "malice would jump in here and accuse them of a fallacy and demean their world view" in real life. -
2016-01-10 at 8:32 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Try to pay attention Lanny. I didn't pull some definition out of my ass just to support my position. Rather, this is the definition that the facts happen to support, therefore it is the correct definition. I didn't just decide one day that colour is not objective. People have been using the word in this way long before I was alive because this is what the facts tell us about colour.
Words take their definition from common usage. Your definition does not fit common usage. Thus your definition is arbitrary, pulled out of your ass. Sorry bud.You maintain that the "perception of colours" and "colours themselves" are two different things, yet you refuse to differentiate between colours and the objective properties of objects which cause you to see colours.
That's because I take "color" to definition be the properties of things which cause the perception of color, just as I take lavalamps to be the objective things out in the world that cause me to perceive lavalamps sometimes.This is an obvious flaw in the way you think about colour. You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that colour exists beyond subjective perception, while I have clearly demonstrated that colours are not objective and are different in important ways from the objective properties of objects which cause us to perceive colours.
Well we're both in agreement that wavelengths of light are objective, so there's no need to demonstrate that. And that's what I argue color is, and I've gone to lengths to demonstrate why it makes sense to talk of color being just that so you seem to have pretty severely misunderstood the argument here.We can objectively measure and verify various properties of the lava lamp like the height, width, breadth of the object as a whole or as various parts.
Ah, but if I could demonstrate to you that people's ability to perceive height, width, and breadth is not uniform, that some people will perceive lavalamps to be larger or smaller than others, would you admit lavalamps are purely subjective then?
This is a reductio argument, try to pay attention because I'm sure you'd miss it if I didn't point it out.A rainbow is not defined as "light". A rainbow is defined as "the appearance of a colourful arch in the sky".
google suggests a definition of:[FONT=arial]an arch of colors formed in the sky in certain circumstances, caused by the refraction and dispersion of the sun's light by rain or other water droplets in the atmosphere
[/FONT]Therefore a rainbow is composed of colours. Colours are not objective, therefore neither is a rainbow. The appearance of a rainbow is caused by a very specific set of circumstances, circumstances which objectively exist. However the appearance of a rainbow is different in important ways from the specific circumstances which cause it to appear.
But that only works if we take your specific definition of color, which we would have no reason to do because when we talk about rainbows in common usage we're not talking about perceptions. In fact read the definition, read your own definition: "a colorful arch in the sky". We talk about a rainbow as having a location, an objective property, obviously it must have some objective existence if we can talk about it's location.And no Lanny, I'm actually not wrong. My argument is entirely legitimate, valid, acceptable and correct. I'm not "misusing" any words at all, rather, you are simply refusing to move past the semantics, face the facts about colour and accept the truth about rainbows.
Oh oh, you said you're actually right. Nice argument bro, very nice. But two can play this game. Watch:
actually I'm the one who's right, and you're the one who's wrong.
Haha, take that bud -
2016-01-10 at 7:25 AM UTC in What are you reading?Descartes' meditations on first philosophy. I'm into the part where he's trying to prove god. Pretty short book actually, although it gets a bit dense at points.
-
2016-01-10 at 7:20 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Random comment I came across, but something I hadn't really though about before. I wonder how prevalent rape was in the past, particularly during conflicts. As I've mentioned multiple times before in various parts, the idea that hunter-gatherers were generally peaceful is a complete myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
I love how people cling to their pessimism, their unfounded dogma that the world is getting perpetually worse, in the face of any evidence, on the grounds of a handful of anecdotes. I mean isn't that the best news you've ever heard? We've all figured out how to not kill each other as much. What could be a more undeniable proof that things are getting better than that? The cognitive bias required to hold onto the unshakable conviction that progress is impossible is staggering. -
2016-01-10 at 5:56 AM UTC in quitting weed
I started taking Melatonin I'd suggest nothing over 2 or 3 mg though, maybe 5 if you want to be knocked out cold within the next half hour-45 minutes.
Damn, wish that worked for me. Melatonin is like only vaguely noticeable to me, I've tried every dose from 1 to 10mg and 5 is always the strongest sedative effects for me (too much and you end up awake all night) and even then it's still not easy to sleep without something else in the mix. I usually don't even bother since prolonged use makes me feel super depressed for some reason. -
2016-01-09 at 7:40 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Pay attention, Lanny. You have not demonstrated that colour is objective, you have only defined it as objective. Defining something as objective doesn't make magically it objective. If it did, then any ridiculous fantasy could be defined into reality. That is not the case. On the other hand, I have clearly demonstrated that colour is not objective. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘coloured’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colours we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as coloured, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colours we perceive.
The irony in this paragraph is staggering. You say I've only defined color as objective then follow up with telling me how color is actually the definition you pulled out of your ass and that definition happens to be subjective.
The point seems continually lost on you however, that it doesn't matter which definition is "correct" because we agree on the objectivity of light and rainbows are composed of light. Rainbows are consistently observable and detectable with equipment with no subjective experience and thus must be objectively existent. Wether or not you take color to mean the perception of wavelengths of light or a property of light itself it doesn't change anything.A lava lamp does have objective properties. These properties can be measured and verified as objective. However, the colour of this lava lamp is not one of those objective properties.
Which properties does a lava lamp have that are objective. Be specific, name a few.Different people will look at that lavalamp and see different colours. This lava lamps clearly posses objective physical properties that cause you to see it as coloured, of course, but those physical properties are different in important ways from the colours you and I perceive subjectively.
OK, this is back to the definition of color again but let's take your definition. You would still admit that rainbows and the light that composes them has objective properties. Anything with objective properties must, if it exists, do so objectively. Thus rainbows are still objective no matter what meaning you put on "color".You claim I am "misusing" the word colour and that I am incorrect. But you are wrong.
Oh wow, nice argument bro. Ready for this sick comeback?
-
2016-01-09 at 11:26 AM UTC in quitting weedCan't say I really understand being "addicted" to weed, but I guess everyone is different. I will say that tolerance breaks or cutting back past a certain point is a certain kind of difficult, although not from any particular impulse to smoke but mostly because it's so accessible and has pretty limited drawbacks (for most people I think).
Anyway, you can force yourself back into a good sleep schedule, if you need to just take a sedative before sleep for a while. Smoking yourself to sleep usually results in crappy sleep anyway. -
2016-01-09 at 11:10 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
I don't see why sacrifice would likely be preferable to assimilation.
Well this is transhumanism fanfic we're talking about so the logistics are hardly important.There's also the possibility that as a response it could put us into some sort of virtual prison or hell, although that seems to be petty.
Oh oh, fuck you, google roko's basilisk, if you haven't heard of it. You'll love it, I swear. Also I assure you the initial mental evasions you're going to go through won't stand up to further inspection.Scary as shit. What if AIs aren't concerned with, don't have a need for pleasure like we do, and the experience is just absolutely cold, mechanical, centered on efficiency; as opposed to a heavenly scenario similar to a continuation of the line of thought in The Hedonistic Imperative. The finality of death and permanent cessation of consciousness, or existence, or AI and things we likely can't even imagine or predict. Either one is scary as hell. At least with death you may have an eternal reprieve, as a part of AI, you may drag on through a sort of hell until the bitter end of the universe simply out of strict adherence to rationality. "The (over)mind is willing, and the flesh is no longer weak."
Sure, but then you have no logical reason to believe that the next time you eat a meal you won't be cast into an eternal hell either. One just hopes things work as they expect and make decisions on the assumption that's reliable. It's hard to imagine anyone creating a powerful AI that assimilates/kills humans and spends the rest of eternity conserving entropy or whatever on purpose, so we would have to end up at that point by accident, which if you totally distrust your own ability to affect the world then you have infinitesimal motivation to worry about this problem in the first place. -
2016-01-09 at 9:49 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Although, what if the AI we create is an anti-natalist and punishes us for bringing it into existence t fulfill our selfish desires, having to grapple with concepts I describe above?
Now that's an interesting question, although my response is probably predictable enough to not be worth writing I will admit I have a secret fantasy of somehow building the perfect general AI, having it tell me that the human species is net harmful now that sufficient AI has been created, and then committing suicide on that reasoning. To both create your own god and then sacrifice yourself to it would be quite a thing. I guess that's just the old scientism acting up again but it's a charming idea regardless. -
2016-01-09 at 3:22 AM UTC in ALL COUNTRY CC FULLZ DUMPS PAYPAL BANK LOGINS UBERS WU TRANSFER !Kek. The sad thing is that it has to actually work somewhere if someone is willing to take the time to make a bot to try it.
-
2016-01-09 at 3:17 AM UTC in My dad smokes weed nowWhat state are you in? Med cards are pretty easy to pick up where legal
-
2016-01-09 at 2:40 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Lanny, contrary to what you may have heard, it is not hip to be square. The pleasures of conformity and importance of trends (social conventions) are not worth having an inner sense of self as dry as yours.
haters gonna hate.
I wish we had a term for people who think there's a need for population control but aren't antinatalists a priori. Like a name for the position that recognizes the necessity and desirability of a continued human population but who reject the "anything goes" 2.5 children per family approach we seem to default to. It's like how we largely talk about strong and weak primitivists as being the same group despite widely divergent beliefs and policy, we generally have very poor language for talking about positions that advocate limited skepticism. I mention this because I've been browsing r/childfree and r/antinatalism out of some weird kind of voyeurism lately. I think it's great these people have a place to talk and agree with a lot of what they're saying but damn, they're pretty sorry sons of bitches at the same time. -
2016-01-07 at 9:43 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
I read the shipping date was late March. May have been pushed back, though. Did they give you May as an estimated date when you preordered? Woah, it says June now, they must really have been overwhelmed: https://shop.oculus.com/en-us/cart/
Yee, May is what they said. Hopeful for a production ramp up in light of heavy early sales but w/e, I can wait until may if I have to. Need a couple of months to get into the swing of 3D development anyway, depending on what the SDK is like I could imagine a lot of fun, pretty low hanging fruit.
[quote[Hmm, exclusive games, though. I don't like that, particularly with the prior stated commitment to open platforms, but I haven't read arguments from the other position to be certain.
I pretty much DGAF about the exclusive titles that had been announced. Enough games I like offer some level of VR support that I could really give or take the original content.Price was really disappointing, way above what they had suggested before. Especially for people outside the US:
>$914 Canadian without taxes, shipping, or border fees. I'm out.
And it's without the Touch controllers.
Yeah, definitely steeper than rumor had it, without the touch controllers it's a bit disappointing but oh well, consoles that are far less technically interesting cost more on release day.What would you do if you realized you had been blacking out, with large gaps in your memory of long periods during certain days, and by chance came across a pile of clothes with what looked like massive dried bloodstains hidden somewhere in your apartment in a place where normally you'd never look?
Report my findings to the police on the assumption it wasn't my blood. Whatever I might do in a blackout state, I'm still responsible for my actions then when in the lucid state. Like if you drink to blackout levels and drive then it may be inevitable that you crash (just as you may be a murderer in a fugue state regardless of your usual desires) but that doesn't make your impact any less real. -
2016-01-07 at 2:45 AM UTC in Do Lannys exist objectively?Is it Lannys or Lannies?
-
2016-01-06 at 7:15 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first editionAnd now I'm waiting for may, hyped but jesus that's a ways out
-
2016-01-06 at 7:07 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first editionI'm on that shit
-
2016-01-06 at 4:45 AM UTC in Sorry if anyone needed me...
Nice try. How old is she. 12? 16 maybe, max?
In that pic? Not sure though pretty sure she was legal in the states. Piegirl always looked younger than she was, she's a couple of years older than me so she's like prolly 26 these days.
