That's an interesting question. I will open a Jira ticket to schedule a meeting with the Product Team, and they will assign you several stories with acceptance criteria written by AI.
I think if you empathized more with the scolder, you would see that they DID empathize with the shovel-eating-class-hater, and realized, via empathy-bond, that person was not empathizing downstream enough.
I'm pretty sure you meant "obligatory" word count. But "obituary" is an awesome accident. Like Copilot is waiting, happy to sum up your life in a tidy paragraph, when the time comes.
You're right, it's about ideas, but the original article handles the interesting case where we fail to form or handle our ideas using "reason."
> The power of reasons is an illusion. The belief will not change when the reasons are defeated.
So privilege plays an interesting role. Unaware privilege - failing to see ones own circumstances, failing to assess how we fit in the world - is almost the same thing as non-reason. I suppose there could be a class of people who are like, "I am totally privileged, and somehow I delude myself and don't notice, but in every OTHER way I am totally reasonable." That could be a subgroup. But probably not a big one?
Mimesis is one side of a coin, it seems like contrarian tendency is the other. They both involve you making a little theory-of-mind for each of your friends/enemies/associates. To the point, it disturbs you that people are malleable and/or unreasonable, but why do you care at all?
I just wondered. Because you are a rando on the internet, and I constructed a model of your mind, and I don't quite understand it.
I care because, as a rational agent (or at least someone who aims to be), group-think affects me negatively when the group develops a dominant ideology which risks to infringe on my personal rights or take away opportunities from me sooner or later. I also believe that these dominant ideologies are harmful to the group and most of its honest/rational members.
It's important that members of the group keep an open mind so that the group doesn't become dogmatic. That's why I try to make contrarian arguments.
There's a core good idea at the heart of the NFT hoopla. Or at least I would say there's a core very interesting/powerful idea there. That is -- you can bake in an enforceable mechanism where the original seller gets an X percent cut of future sales.
The current implementations are often broken. Downstream sales can skirt the royalty. But that is, like many problems with crypto, a solvable engineering problem.
I call this primary-sale royalty a "good" idea because it seems like an obvious, almost intuitive way to benefit original artists. And it also just clears out mountains of regulation and royalty regime that currently track, enforce and account for royalties, and do a terrible job of it.
The problem is, you can use the same mechanism for anything, such that rich people can bake in an "I continue to get richer" royalty whenever they sell their property.
Both the good and bad side of this mechanism are just one thing you can do with programmable money. Does anybody think it's the only one -- the only new mechanism worth developing?
I agree. The problem is that the bad chases away the good.
This is the problem with everything in crypto. There's so much scamming, crime, gambling, and other bullshit that legitimate artists have become wary of the entire ecosystem.
Do you want to live in a bad neighborhood? Same principle works in markets. When a market or market venue gains a reputation for being full of crap, legitimate players don't want to be associated with it. It doesn't matter how brilliant it is.
One of the problems with cryptocurrency is that it's a product of technical people who think everything is a technical problem. A lot of it is technically brilliant, but they overlook the social, political, and economic angle.
I often argue that Bitcoin was actually hacked very quickly. It wasn't hacked by targeting the cryptographic algorithms or the software but via social engineering. It was hacked by targeting people with scams and schemes. As with other security systems the humans are often the least secure part of the system. People are much easier to target than algorithms and code unless the latter has some serious zero-day or is just grossly insecure by design.
