Every single thing one does in life is a gamble that carries a probability of success.
Getting a degree. Investing in a business. Investing in a relationship. Having kids. Smoking. Booking a flight cheaper but with no possibility of cancellation. Moving town. Not moving town.
I could go on forever.
Everything is a gamble. Some forms of gambling are more socially acceptable than others.
The difference, in everyhthing, is emotional control and knowing how much you stand to lose if it goes wrong.
We'll have won politics the day people understand that individual responsibility doesn't work at scale, and that, on average, people just respond to incentives.
The difference is that "good gambling" has a positive expectation value. Getting a degree confers knowledge that you think enables you to do new and valuable things that exceed the cost of the degree. Booking without cancellation saves money on average if you are more certain of your travel plans than the airline. Smoking makes you feel good, I'm told. I wouldn't do that.
I'm honestly not even sure if civil political discourse is desirable in times of radical actions being taken by the government. I almost think that's worse than no political discourse.
e: To clarify my point, e.g. you can't calmly disagree with whether or not it's okay to shoot people in streets, that diminishes it as if it was just a slight disagreement
What's the point in discourse if not to change the other person's mind? Triggering the limbic system of the person you are talking to is the fastest way to ensure they won't be able to engage with their PFC and actually hear and consider what you're saying. If the point is just to feel better about how righteous and right you are, then by all means proceed with your approach. But if the point is to influence somebody's views, then you are self-defeating in your approach.
Personally, I think federal officers have executed law abiding citizens. But if I start out by screaming "The Nazis have control of our government and are executing innocent people in the streets!" then not only have I closed my own mind to potential challenges to my views (which is at best hypocritical to expect the other person to be open-minded when I am not myself open-minded), then we get nowhere and just come away hating each other and thinking the other person is crazy. Worse, it poisons the well so the future reasonable person is immediately written off with guilt-by-association (person A was crazy and person B shares a view with them, therefore they must be crazy too).
> What's the point in discourse if not to change the other person's mind?
That was a question made at one of those public debates that the Oxford University likes to organise, and I think the answer is right on point: the purpose of discourse is to let the audience (or readers) reflect on an opinion, which takes time. It's *almost never* to change the opinion of the person you're debating. It's a given that most people that do like to engage in debate or public discourse are the kind of people that are unlikely to change their minds, and if ever they do, it won't be on the spot.
Ah, yeah that's fair since we're talking about moderating online discussions which are accessible for the public. Although I think the principle still stands for people who aren't approaching the discussion from a principle of neutrality. The people in the audience that you want to change the minds of will react similarly to the way I described, so you might get a small percentage of open minded people but you limit your reach. The extremity of the position also tends to resonate poorly with moderates/undecideds, so I would still suspect that a more reasoned, logical argument would be more effective with the audience. That said though, you make an excellent point.
I understand your point which sounds reasonable for a lot of debate, but the counter argument would be that in some situations you are normalizing both sides, when one side is not acting in good faith and is on the wrong side of history. Examples being Southern slave holders, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, fossil fuel interests regarding climate change.
If one did live under Nazis German rule, would it have been wrong to scream, "The Nazis have control of our government and are executing innocent people in the streets!"? At that point you're trying to wake the public up to do something about it, not sit down and have a debate over Goebbels latest speech with some fence sitter who can't decide whether Hitler has gone too far.
This can be said generally at all times by someone. It’s not just a naive way of thinking it’s extremely dangerous and a real threat to republican society. You will never sway the center with aggressive and blatantly bias rhetoric.
It would be better to gatekeep political communities with precisely worded "principle" questions and then flag for violations of those for anybody who slipped in under the radar.
Even political communities where everyone is nominally on the same page do break down over issues of tone, disingenuous arguments, etc. though.
That was probably their intention, but Bedrock has proven to be full of papercut sized bugs, and maintaining 1:1 behaviour with Java has also proven really difficult. Redstone is notably different/broken with the exception of trivial circuits.
Until it's possible to convert your world to Bedrock and not have anything in your 'finished' world break, except maybe some giant Redstone machine or one or two known annoyanced, I doubt they'd do it. Mojang presumably still has some autonomy within Microsoft so long as the money keeps coming in, and Mojang presumably knows that pushing this too early is a bad idea. But Microsoft being Microslop, who knows, maybe they'll just do it anyway.
I don't think 1:1 behaviour with Java was ever the intent. Redstone works differently due to a combination of different design choices, like not breaking in water (although I can imagine that being an accessibility thing for console players) and less technical debt, making things like movable tile entities possible.
I think their point was that beef farming has an enormously negative environmental impact, and we in the west in fact do overconsume meat. Though I think their point was to use AI with impunity, when I think we should cut back on our meat consumption a lot.
Some quick napkin math: AI energy usage for a chat like that in the post (estimated ~100 Wh) is comparable to driving ~100m in the average car, making 1 of toast, or bring 1 liter of water to boiling.
I’d wager the average American eats more than 20 dollars/month of meat overall, but let’s say they spend as much as an OpenAI subscription on beef. If you truly believe in free markets, then they have the same environmental impact. But which one has more externalities? Many supply chain analyses have been done, which you can look up. As one might expect, numbers don’t look good for beef.
reply