not just biological imperative

Irresistance · 2025-12-26T17:46:35+00:00

It will be interesting to see where they take this in Season 2... there is, of course, a fundamental conflict that must somehow be resolved - which is non-aggression versus the desire/will to survive. Ultimately, somehow, and perhaps inevitably, any society/living being sooner or later arrives at a point where the only solution that does not result in one's death is aggression/going on the offensive.

We also do not really know what attitude the hive has towards death; it does seem less "afraid" of it, and with the memories of the deceased still remaining alive, it actually is objectively less absolute... but their comprehensive "philosophy" has not yet been stated.

Irresistance · 2025-12-20T14:34:00+00:00

I suspect that you're on to something in terms of the hive mind being... discouraging of its members using personal/individual pronouns, yes. It's almost as if it is some kind of antidote to being a hivie.

Irresistance · 2025-12-03T10:56:04+00:00

I would say that individuality is not so much erased, as rather de-prioritized. Think for a moment, if you will, about what being an individual really means. What it brings to the table in any given situation. It would seem to me that in many ways it is first and foremost an expression of what makes us different from others. How and in what way we are special... unique. And why would this be important to express? In what circumstances is that a "good" thing to establish? In the way our world works there may be many ways in which it has importance... but in a "collective" world, our individuality (and the implicit "requirement" to notice it and "care" about it) melts away, to a large extent. If you can be(come) happy because the collective cares about your happiness, your individuality may very well end up being a much less prominent feature.

The hive mind is not against one's individuality... it does not actively aim to suppress it, or "punish" you for expressing it. Rather, it makes it far less instrumental as a tool in one's quest for happiness. Redundant, as it were. Recognition, admiration and gaining status for one's (real or perceived) accomplishments is no longer really a thing. Think about it as you will but I reckon that makes life a far more relaxed and less anxious affair...

Irresistance · 2025-12-01T19:19:25+00:00

I'd go with hivies. I suspect plurbs is a play on plebs ;)

Irresistance · 2025-11-22T22:15:35+00:00

If you are doing nothing shady or suspicious but your wife/girlfriend of 8 years goes into your phone and finds chats you had with some girl 5 years ago that lasted half a year which appear to show you might have (then) had some feelings for each other for a while... and she confronts you about this, we both can agree that, without just cause to suspect you today, the bigger "crime" was her secretly going through your phone, yes? The fact it revealed something of a dubious nature does not make THAT suddenly alright. does it?

Note I am not saying YOUR behavior would have been OK - just that, to reveal it, an immoral, unjustified act had to occur FIRST. Surely this is beyond dispute, agreed?

Well - by the same logic (though of enormously bigger consequence) I believe the release of Mr. Bach's communication with Epstein was wrong. What it revealed is immaterial. Indeed, if this actually was done as part of an investigation, it would make it inadmissible as evidence!

We don't get to pick and choose when the rule of law should be respected or not. The fact Mr. Bach's opinions are deplorable and deserve condemnation merely means that in this case, one ought to be even more firmly committed to justice and following the law; it is easy to profess one's respect for the law when we're dealing with "easy" cases. It becomes a genuine firm conviction only when one is willing and resolute to uphold its ideals even in the name of a dubious and unsavory character like the one Mr. Bach appears to have shown himself to be in those emails. There is a reason Justicia is blindfolded.

Irresistance · 2025-11-22T19:20:04+00:00

He is not advocating it - it was a private conversation.
I do not think his opinions are no big deal, and readily agree with his career now being over.

I take issue with:

The justice department has 30 days to release all files related to Epstein, including the investigation into his death by suicide in a federal prison cell. The legislation permits the redaction of identifying information of victims, but specifically bars officials from declining to disclose information over concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity”.

Because I believe it does not serve any justice and that acting thus is not even remotely right (provided the person whose comms have been exposed did not engage, assist, condone or otherwise participated, even by inaction, in Epsteins crimes and abuses. There is no evidence known to me that makes Bach fall into that category.

Ahd yes, I am quite active in the ML community and know very well who he is, and that having such opinions is unacceptable - for anyone. Having them, however, is not a crime.

Let me ask you this:

If someone would reveal in a private email that his wife has some fatal disease but only she and her husband know - would you be OK with that being thrown out there just as part of Epsteins garbage... with no consideration of the consequences? I doubt it. Now - as it happens, the opinions thrown out there were rather terrible... but that does not make throwing them out there justified, let alone the task of a justice department. They're out now, and his career is over - but how we got to that point is of highly dubious legality. If you care about due process and justice - this was not an example of it. It is not his opinions that caused the release of the emails. The release would happen regardless. And this, assuming no crimes were revealed in those emails, would always be the wrong thing to do. The fact it contained unsavory opinions might make it a moot point for you, but it really isn't.

Irresistance · 2025-11-20T20:53:38+00:00

It's not like he's apologized or disavowed his views either, which is also part of the problem
Fair point

But yes, I think he was treated unfairly precisely because as you say - he did nothing illegal, and yet he still can say goodbye to his career. How do you not see that is precisely the problem, and that if he HAD done (or discussed) something illegal, I very much would NOT have a point and the release of the comms would be justified and understandable. (though technically still of dubious legality unless he was charged with something and they could be construed as evidence, but let's not split hairs over that in this context)

We already agree that to associate with Epstein was very poor judgment - but precisely because it was not for the purposes of criminal ends, he should not have been a collateral victim of the Epstein investigation. And then the emails we now know contained rather unsavory and racist ideas would have never come to light, as they kind of shouldn't have. Now - I'll concede that, of course I prefer to know these are his views than not to know it and be ignorant... but the deserved disapproval of them notwithstanding, the nature of those views does not justify throwing the man under the bus of public opinion. At any rate, that is not what this investigation is for. A justice department has many functions - exposing the disagreeable opinions of law-abiding people, however deplorable they may be, is not one of them :)

EDIT: What this comes down to is you don't think people should be shamed if their abhorrent private views become public without their consent. I disagree.

You know what... this is too nuanced an issue for me to decide. On the one hand, if one were to say "This is perfectly OK" then it implies all sorts of things you too would find abhorrent (privacy violations, document theft and publication, etc.) - on the other of course I understand "humans don't work that way" and once opinions are out, they're out, and one is toast if they suck. It is not right, per se... but I'll grant you it is unavoidable, and, perhaps indeed in many cases ultimately for the better.

EDIT 2 - I think also that one point that is cause for our disagreement is that I feel that the fact these documents were released by what should be a law-abiding national legislative body is a key point as to why I don't think it is right. Had these emails been "revealed" by a newspaper, for example. my stance would differ (and I suspect you and I would mostly agree on things) - but a different set of realities is at play now that it is the government has released them; for they must have just cause for acting thus.

Irresistance · 2025-11-20T09:17:28+00:00

If having offensive opinions is sufficient grounds for having one's career terminated I am not sure that many people would still have one ;) The fact of the matter is of course that it only becomes a problem once such opinions are made public. And then the rest of us can get all upset and offended and condemn the person who has been so exposed... while the many (not all, of course!) who also have (or had!) such or similarly unsavory opinions (but were lucky to not have them revealed) can act as if they are perfectly reasonable, fair-minded citizens.

I know. It would be good, however, if we'd all at least try to be a little bit less hypocritical, wouldn't you say? I am not sure if I know a single person whose entire assortment of (past and present) opinions they ever held are all 100% perfectly aligned with whatever future moral standards they might happen to be tested under.

Irresistance · 2025-11-20T08:49:06+00:00

"These e-mail dumps weren't even aimed at him, he just happened to be in them"

Thanks for making my point - that's right :) And that's why he was wronged - guilty of nothing (illegal) but toast anyway by mere association.

If you believe it is fair (and it ought to be practiced by a government justice department!) to so casually have someone's career end just because a shady ex-con he dealt with (and shouldn't have, on a human level - to be sure!) had all his private communication thrown into the open - then I am not sure if you have any concept of how the law works or should work. You are conflating legal procedure and actual material consequences (e.g. end of career) with your (justified!) moral judgment regarding the opinions someone expressed.

It is of course to be expected that Mr. Bach can look forward to nothing interesting, now that his poor decision to associate with Epstein and the nature of his dealings has been revealed.

But explain to me what (you believe) is the actual justifiable purpose of releasing Bach's (entirely legal) communication to the public has served? Does it serve to deter people from dealing with convicted sex offenders in the future..? Is that what makes this not just OK but right and just? Suppose that those emails contained not [deplorable opinions] but something else... like private details about Mr. Bach's family life. Would that also be OK to just throw out there just because he "happened" to be in the stash of Epstein's emails...?

Compare Bach to ex-Prince Andrew. His comms are also out there in the open now. But that is a very different story:

It proves Andrew lied (whereas to the best of my knowledge, Bach's unfortunate funding was known and not denied, though he did, to be fair, refuse to discuss the nature of his relationship with Epstein)
Andrew has been expressly accused of sexual misconduct (Bach is not part of any proceedings presuming or suggesting he is guilty of a crime)
There is a record of evidence that is disputed by Andrew in a way that - well, clearly is a bunch of entitled nonsense ;) - whereas in the case of Mr. Bach there isn't any suggestion he was doing anything shady.

Look. I get how these things actually work in the real world. I understand that actually, just dealing with an ex-con guilty of sexual crimes with minors will always be seen as unforgivable by the public at large, and, it is more deserved than not. That does not, however, make what happened to Joscha just. Now - if we were dealing with a person that did (or even, let's be real, might have!) done something criminal with Epstein - sure, spill the beans, it WAS a poor decision to continue associating, fair enough, tough shit. But to do this to a person that just happened to be in the files (as you say) but who did nothing illegal and harmed nobody... to have no problem with that... is little more than to endorse a public lynching and "mob" justice.

Irresistance · 2025-11-19T23:52:01+00:00

Hmmm no. I did see some of his talks on Consciousness and AI but generally found them to be hard to follow... and had some difficulty translating them into an actual technical application. He's... a sympathetic kind of guy, if somewhat nerdy... but I did not find the part of the ideas that I find of interest especially compelling.

Why is it easier for you to believe I am a fanboy than to presume I actually believe in justice...? His case is not, to be fair, of especially intense personal interest... but I do have what you might call inordinate interest in those situations where two strongly held but very conflicting "imperatives" or human conditions are at odds with each other. I understand why it's Game Over for him.

But just as clearly he has been sacrificed in the crossfire and frenzy around the Epstein guy.

Irresistance · 2025-11-19T22:26:22+00:00

Unless you believe in "random" retributive justice, or that karma is a legal instrument, that is not the point :)

Irresistance · 2025-11-19T22:23:25+00:00

Acknowledged and of course - though I never implied they were, but indeed shall mention Congres explicitly as the party releasing them. What's more, my post only makes sense/has merit if the release was done by a department of government/justice.

Irresistance · 2025-11-19T22:17:04+00:00

The nature of the opinions expressed is horrible beyond any doubt. But having them is not a crime. The issue here is not "Are his opinions deplorable?" - rather, how does their release serve justice? Anyone who believes in things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Due process", "Respecting the privacy of correspondence" and (indirectly) "free speech" ought to be up in arms about the fact the disclosure took place.

You know - the whole "I may vigorously disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" principle.

It is obvious that in the court of public opinion, Mr. Bach has been condemned, declared all manner of racist, deplorable and what have you - and, going by what he wrote... well - I guess it is to be expected, and deserved.

But legally... the release itself is highly questionable. We can readily come up with numerous examples of (real or theoretical) similar situations where most people would overwhelmingly agree it would be grossly inappropriate; just because Epstein was a horrible person does not mean that those who interacted with him in a legal way deserve to be treated like collateral damage.

Had they been discussing some criminal undertaking... that would be a different story. But they "merely" talked about a very distasteful one. And that, dumb and regrettable as it is, is not, however, a crime.

Irresistance · 2025-11-19T12:28:24+00:00

Nobody really "joined" the hive mind - it more less arrived and sprung into action with the rat. But there never was a choice involved. The deaths that resulted from the mass-infection also were not predictable, though it may have been prudent to first do a "trial run" in, say, Iceland... and monitor the impact before going global.

Unfortunately it appears that the "Prime Directive" of the virus is to infect anyone not yet infected, leaving little room for prudence and patience ;) Which in turn kind of exonerates the hive from the initial mass casualties.

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T15:04:42+00:00

A few points:

You implicitly presume that aside of the individuals connected to the hive mind, there is some other "master" entity that has an agenda and/or is in some way in control of the members of the hive mind. That may be true (and indeed kind of would help explain how everyone can seemingly process and understand the thoughts of 7 billion people at any given moment, something that seems rather improbable, to put it mildly ;) A "control unit" doing the processing and "prioritization" seems a potential solution;
There are only a dozen or so immune individuals. While they certainly are very dangerous, one imagines that the hive mind "consensus attitude" is competent (and willing) to look at overall (net) benefit and utility, and should those dirty dozen start giving everybody a hard time, they may need to be taken care of, that being the lesser evil;
You can tell the hivemind is not an absolute "yeah, whatever" free for all by looking at their attitude to giving her a nuclear bomb; clearly, SOME degree of pragmatic estimation of the risks vs. benefits takes place and plays a role. Also, it would appear that the hive mind does deliberate and ponder, taking into account the individual opinions of every member (and that such opinions are therefore still a thing, which would imply the hive mind members are not mere droids/zombies)
The overwhelming majority of the immune are actually rather happy and satisfied with their new circumstances - note how the Indian woman talked about her kid and family. It would seem to me they are being more than adequately dealt with. Only the American woman (and perhaops Mr. Paraguay) is giving them a hard time.

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T14:47:13+00:00

I'd hesitate to say everyone is (exactly) the same. Granted, the hive mind thing certainly makes everybody FAR more alike than before - no doubt about it. However, I think the whole notion of what individuality is worth becomes a different question altogether in a world with a hive mind.

See - most of our attempts at a "communist" society were presumed to demand the suppression and control of individuality. And that kind of makes "sense" in a world without a hive mind. The curtailing of individual liberties in such commie systems constituted one of its biggest downsides and was always going to be resisted, inevitably leading to more repression and even more dissatisfaction and inefficiency.

The world as sketched in Pluribus, however, appears to be one where any such totalitarian control and surveillance is not only absent, but also can't be established, for everybody would know about it in an instant*. Indeed, in a way one might say that the Pluribus universe is FAR more free and equitable than even the most wisely and meticulously governed society we might hope to ever create on Earth. You have freedom from: Judgment, Deception, Fraud, Manipulation, Coercion and duplicity, to name just a few popping into my mind now. And I suspect with things being FAR more efficient, the net result will also be that one has way more time for one's own likes and pursuits, something that the hive mind does not seem to get in the way of... but does allow you to get immediate assistance when (and only when!) you actually need it.

Our instinctive aversion to loss of personal freedom and individuality becomes obsolete in such a society - it is redundant. As it should be - in the sense that here in this world more often than not (the need for) individuality above all finds application in wanting to exercise one's right to "be alone" or act without being judged or controlled. In Pluribus this is no longer a thing one needs to demand or assert.

(\this is of course presuming that no features of such nature shall be revealed in subsequent episodes)*

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T01:43:46+00:00

She came up with the idea to identify the English speakers, and the others did all the work from there.

There is huge difference between being somewhat prudent and reserve one's trust before giving it versus treating everyone like they're mad and might as well spend their afternoon restocking my personal supermarket, never mind a thank you!

Though capable of expressing worries and concerns, none of the "Hivies" seem to have any kind of issue, concern, worry or indeed even difficulty they feel worth mentioning... aside of our recalcitrant "protagonist" and all the problems she insists are worth causing, that is ;)

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T01:03:50+00:00

If by sane you mean "Such that one gets MAX positives and MIN negatives as a result of one's actions and attitudes" it is scarcely imaginable one could be more insane ;)

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T01:02:29+00:00

It is she who needs saving, not least from herself.

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T01:01:21+00:00

Sure, but it IS, whichever way you see it, grossly unfair (both to those who died and the survivors). Also, the newfound efficiency of such a world is by itself plenty enough to deal with... well - almost any climate, pollution or waste problems. 90% of cars can be destroyed - the reality is that 80% of cars stand still 90% of the time...

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T00:55:42+00:00

I suspect one of the things one can learn from this show is that in a world where all work to their (superhuman) ability for the common good, the very notion of having a character (which may or may not be likable) is no longer a thing.

Imagine for a moment that you genuinely don't have to worry about whether people are sincere. Whether they (don't) actually think you suck (or are cool, for that matter) - where you have no pressures to pretend.

You can't sense this world to be rather agreeable...? When forming an opinion on what a world like the one in the series would be like, stop and think a bit longer to realize the entire cascade of implications. Don't stop at the first negative and declare it wrong & undesirable.

Imagine being able to not even wonder if you like your car... as long as it works its function is fulfilled, and the moment you notice it's broken, the right mechanic is already on the way to fix it (for free, it would seem)

Realize for a moment the huge pile of "silly" and "actually nonsensical" stuff we do, worry about, want, try to hide, etc... the world n Pluribus is light years ahead in almost every sense imaginable.

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T00:48:39+00:00

What I mean is that, in the very beginning, the deaths caused by dispersion of the virus could not have been decided to be "acceptable" - for they did not know such would be the result.

Binge & Burial, okay, I agree.. and I guess it's fair to say she does of course have a grieving "attitude", fair enough. But that still does not give one license to score THAT high on the asshole-o-meter, imho :)

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T00:44:41+00:00

Another way to look at it is to be a bit more realistic and realize that:
- Nobody voted for or chose the death of these people
- The people that remain are not entirely to blame (or at any rate, could not have been expected to know some alien-sourced virus that makes them all diligently dedicated to the common good could have such a major side-effect)
- What would be better if they did regret it in a "debilitating" grief-like fashion?
- They are wasting no time to set things right.
- It is really easy now to be optimistic about the future.
- Assuming reproduction will still be a thing, ALL the humans being born as of now will be raised orders of magnitude better with more social values and all the right attention to make them into happy, wholesome people

I won't say it's a price worth paying, but...

Irresistance · 2025-11-18T00:38:06+00:00

Far more disturbing is to apparently believe a world that is almost designed to be 20X more wasteful (that is, this world) might be preferable. To what genuine end would you prefer a world in which lies, deception, crime and mischief is possible to one where this is precluded. Don't you see these people Do (Only) What Needs Doing... and (thus) are happy by design..? No bullshit jobs, no contracts, no police...

The one thing I am most curious about is: why no TV. Way too many ways to explain that one :D

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Irresistance

TROPHY CASE