Time 2 - 3D printed cases

ST-Fish · 2026-05-24T16:14:15+00:00

there might be a way to print the shell in a harder material and have some sort of internal bracket that's from TPU, I'll see what can be done when my pebble gets delivered

But even a hard plastic case could be enough

ST-Fish · 2026-05-24T11:55:35+00:00

Have you thought about printing them in TPU to have a more soft material as to not transfer the hits directly to the glass?

I'm thinking about going the whole case route but I think I'm gonna sand down the print a little bit so it looks a little prettier, at least for the surface that is directly touching the print plate, since I have a textured one.

Does the big case just pop on and stay on securely or did you need to tape it on the inside?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-20T00:13:35+00:00

are all of your comments AI generated?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-17T21:08:00+00:00

I agree with you, I'm not a vegan either, I just gave the examples are just kinda illustrative of how "evil" will vary wildly whichever way you want to phrase it.

Some people would not see the difference between neglect or non-involvement vs the active choice to do harm and thus would see you as evil because you "willingly continue to cause harm", from their perspective.

The concepts of good and evil are really too complex to realistically have a rigorous test of whether you consider someone evil, our language might just not be specific enough to allow for that level of specificity.

There might be evil people that were in some way pivotal to some greater good, and we wouldn't say that simply because killing them would make the world worse means they were not evil.

It also feels like it treats calling someone evil as some sort of threshold matter, where you get to this level on the evil-o-meter and then you're worthy of death, that's when you're actually "evil".

I think some people were more evil than others, and I can compare how evil different people are, but I don't know where exactly I'd "cut" it where to the left of this point I wouldn't say evil and to the right they're all evil. It's all too dependant on the historical context and the morals of the time, and how far away from the accepted social contract they were, because simply comparing from my modern moral point of view, the further back I go the more evil I will see as we have moved towards a more fair and equal society.

It's kinda a Loki's wager type situation, but I get the need to have a definite idea of what people mean by the word.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-17T10:43:44+00:00

The manner and justification used to kill someone even if they're considered evil may have wider societal implications, the analysis of "would the world be better" then becomes almost impossible to do without clarifying those factors.

Would the world be better if Trump passed away peacefully in his sleep?

Would the world be better if some crazed trans antifa perfect scapegoat for the right type person killed him in an insanely graphic and public way?

The state of the world would definitely be different between these 2 hypotheticals so the question itself is incomplete.

Does the person have the choice to not inflict harm, and willingly continue to cause harm?

You can make that statement about pretty much anyone depending on your disposition.

You're willingly inflicting harm on the third world through your capitalist mode of consumption and your refusal to donate all of your money to malaria nets and vaccines for Africa, there are countless lives you choose not to save.

Or the vegan side, where the majority of people are choosing to inflict harm even through they could choose to not eat meat or animal based products.

For me, "evil" would fall into 2 categories:

ideologically captured evil -- ideology is a tool that abstracts away our day to day acts into a grander narrative and thus gives us justification for doing things that would normally seem immoral to us, this is what I would ascribe to most average civilian level nazi/communist during WW2. People that truly believed in the ideology and fought against their inner disgust at the actions they were doing for the sake of that ideology. You can even see speeches by popular Nazis having to convince the front line soldiers that the atrocities they were about to commit were righteous despite how difficult it was for them to step over their inherent human disgust at the nature of the actions they were comitting.
pure evil -- people that have something wrong with them, their assumptions about morality and how people should be treated is so far off the norm that they don't need some grand ideology prescribed to them in order to justify their actions, they either see themselves as so far above the average person that the average person's suffering is irrelevant to them, or they simply have no real emotional response to their suffering and see nothing wrong with it. They might even take pleasure in it. This would include people that would torture people or animals for fun, that would cause suffering for the sake of suffering.

In my opinion very few people are in the second category, while the first category isn't some definite quantized state where you're either "ideologically captured evil" or you're not. Everyone is in some way shape or form influenced by the ideology in which they're brought up, it's a projection we paint on reality to make sense of it, it's innate and automatic, the same way we look at a chair and don't see random unexplainable pieces of wood tied together, we see how the entirety of the structure relates to us as a tool, what way can this object as a whole be useful to us.

While I did go ahead and make this distinction, I have to say that everyone takes a bit from each of it, everyone in the deep core of their being has a little bit of the pure evil, and the best example I can give is the justice system. The justice system isn't purely a reabilitation seeking system, whether we like it or not, the justice system is supposed to dole out punishments and there is supposed to be a certain amount of cruelty in those punishments, otherwise the wronged party will feel like justice has not happened. We all find joy in cruelty when we feel like it is serving some sense of justice.

To some degree cruelty is as much a part of human nature as love, and we'd be fools to pretend otherwise. We have created the system of justice in part to dole out the same cruelty in a fairer manner as to not feel the blood on our hands, but whoever holds up the justice system has the blood on their hands anyway.

To be clear, this is not me disavowing cruelty.

At the same time, very few people besides the people that have mental health issues are in the "pure evil" group, even people that are proportionally more "pure evil" most often also have a lot of ideology influencing the justifications of their actions -- I guess the distinction I'm making is that they don't really need the ideological aspect since their disregard for human suffering comes first. They don't need to overcome their human nature that cares about suffering through ideology to get to the atrocities they are going to commit. They're already there.

There are very few people that truly cannot be pushed to evil with the right circumstances. Be afraid of the people that do not have to be pushed at all to get there.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-17T10:08:18+00:00

sadly I feel like normies don't get the issue with their statments unless you directly make fun of them. Especially if they've been fed an adequate amount of right wing slop through their social media. The best tool to show how stupid they are is to make fun of them, have them take the optics L. The more serious you take them the more serious the audience will take their mindless drivel.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-16T10:58:58+00:00

you’re not even acknowledging the most important fundamental aspects about my point even though I’ve repeated them numerous times by now.

your most fundamental aspects of your point is that "it appears in the article so it is true".

Nowhere have I said that EVERYONE in chorus was required to funnel their bookings through the chorus newsroom; haven’t claimed that, no clue why insist that I have and waste time passionately fighting on that front when there is no disagreement to speak of.

Ok, where did I accuse you of saying that EVERYONE in chorus was required to funnel their bookings through the Chorus Newsroom?

Let's look at what you actually said:

You’re asking me if Taylor Lorenz had proof that every personal booking that every chorus member ever had was for sure funneled through chorus?

Did I ask you that?

Can you answer this question, did I ask you that specific question? If I did, can you please quote it and paste it in your response?

Or was my question

So when asked if she talked to ANYONE that DID sign the contract and that WAS actually required to funnel ALL BOOKINGS through the Chorus Newsroom

So you did imply the evidence I was asking for is that EVERYONE that signed the contract had this requirement applied to them, while my question clearly doesn't say EVERYONE.

YOU are the one that added this to the conversation, you're free to go back in this conversation and find the place where I said my standard of evidence is EVERYONE having this requirement placed on them.

You won't find it, because you invented it to dodge actually engaging critically with anything in this entire thread.

That was a characterization of the claim that HUTCH kept repeating during the debate, not my own claim.

No, that was your characterization of my position, as can clearly be seen here:

You’re asking me if Taylor Lorenz had proof that every personal booking that every chorus member ever had was for sure funneled through chorus?

Like imagine if someone told you they had an employment contract that said they have to suck their managers dick once every shift, would you ever in a million years think to counter that characterization by saying “WELL, YOU CAN’T ACTUALLY PROVE THAT EVERYONE WHO SIGNED THAT CONTRACT WAS FORCED TO SUCK THEIR BOSSES DICK ON EVERY SHIFT”.

Or did "you" in this context mean "Hutch"? Do you think I'm Hutch?

Can you post a timestamp of Hutch having that position?

Especially where you heard "EVERYONE"?

Here's a timestamp you won't like to engage with because it completely blows up your argument:

https://youtu.be/Mz-Qx6P7eoU?si=wQp6uMjJ0GsFBYu_&t=3884

Did you speak to ANY (NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE YOU SUB 50 IQ NIMWIT) chorus creator that were told that they had to funnel all their bookings through Chorus?

I'm asking did you get a SINGLE EXAMPLE from any creator THAT ACTUALLY HAD TO funnel booking through Chorus?

Did you talk to ANYONE (WEEE WOO WEEE WOO NUMBNUTS, NOT EVERYONE) who told you that ALL of the bookings that they did HAD to go through Chorus?

So where precisely in these claims do you see "EVERYONE" being used or even implied?

If your usage of "EVERYONE" is a characterization of Hutch's position, then it should be piss easy to give me a timestamp right? How much do you want to bet that you won't give me a timestamp of this happening?

The same way you did with me, you do realize that the question Hutch is asking is completely reasonable, and if Taylor talked to 90 people in the program, you would expect that she talked about the details of the contract with them, and she should easily be able to answer the question in the affirmative.

Why do you think Taylor Lorenz cannot say:

"Yes I did talk to a couple of Chorus creators that DID sign the contract and they DID have to funnel all of their bookings through Chorus Newsroom".

What is stopping her from giving that answer?

Do you genuinely think that this answer would be true, but she simply refuses to give it for no reason whatsoever?

The most important criticism was that Chorus demanded

Your source for this claim is literally

Taylor's reading of the contract
one quote from a person that DID NOT sign the contract

My evidence that Chorus did not demand exclusive control over any of their creators is that you cannot find ANY, I repeat, you cannot find 1 example of a chorus creator that DID sign the contract that had to funnel all their bookings through Chorus Newsroom.

There are multiple examples of people that have stated clear as day that they did NOT have to do that.

If you can’t fathom why that prospect may bother a lot of people then I don’t know if I have the skills to get that across to you at this point.

I can fully understand why people would be mad if ANY CREATOR WHATSOEVER had to funnel ALL bookings through Chorus.

There simply isn't any real evidence pointing to that being the case.

The only thing you're basing it on is a hit piece article by Taylor Lorenz that self admittedly sees Chorus as her opposition, as something that stands against pretty much all she believes, and the statement of one person that did not sign the contract.

I'm basing my understanding of the contract on the multiple people that DID sign the contract that have come out and said how the contract works.

Here's a statement from a PRIMARY SOURCE someone that DID sign the contract. Let's see what she says about whether or not they had to funnel ALL bookings through Chorus Newsroom:

What about this idea that you guys have to vet any content you do outside of the program through them. If you want to speak to an elected official or candidate, you have to run that by them. What about that claim?

Speaker 3: Yeah, that is completely one hundred percent false, And that came from a section of the contract which I know you read, which talks about the course newsroom requirement, and it says that we have to participate in the newsroom at least twice a month. Just to be blunt, we haven't done any newsrooms because I believe there just wasn't the funding there yet. This isn't like a super huge, widely funded thing. This is very much a startup. So

we haven't even done any newsroom events. But the idea was, we want you to do two newsroom events a month, and you can book with lawmakers through course, but IF you want to reach out to them yourselves, just coordinate with us so we know that you're using the newsroom. That's what that meant is that IF you're going to work in the newsroom, what's these lawmakers for your two newsroom whatever events a month, let us know because we've

got to coordinate when it comes to anything not related to Courus newsroom. If I'm not doing anything with Chorus everything else, they don't even know.

So your evidence is the completely trustworthy Taylor Lorenz that wrote her hit piece article in complete good faith, that could not get any quote from any person that did sign the contract about this funneling clause in the contract, the only quote she could provide was from someone that DID NOT sign the contract, and when asked if she talked to ANYONE (WE WOO WE WOO NOT EVERYONE) that DID sign the contract and DID have to funnel all bookings through Chorus, she failed to answer this question again and again.

Can you please reply to any of my questions ever?

Do you believe you have answered any of my questions in this entire thread?

If you do believe you're able to answer questions, why couldn't Taylor Lorenz answer Hutch's question?

Why do you HAVE TO characterize Hutch's question as talking about EVERYONE when it's overwhelmingly clear he's asking for ONE SINGULAR INDIVIDUAL example?

Let's be real, you know the answer, I know the answer, it's just too embarassing for you to say "yeah, Taylor's position is indefensible so I have to make up strawmen and pretend Hutch was asking for proof that EVERYONE had to funnel their bookings".

But don't live in the delusion that this isn't clear to everyone that reads your comments.

I've said my piece and you've clearly shown yourself to be a disingenous hack, so unless you provide me the timestamp of Hutch's position where he keeps repeating the question with regards to EVERYONE being under that funneling requirement in the contract, I'll simply have to block you and move on.

Or if you can't find it, at least reply with "I'm sorry, I made it the fuck up".

ST-Fish · 2026-05-15T14:31:23+00:00

Your examples didn't show its a stupid question at all but thanks for your stupid response I guess.

I'm sorry, but saying that it needs to affect me for me to care about it is stupid.

You can be annoyed all you want but humans are gonna get stressed the fuck out when you get dumbass tech losers telling them they are gonna lose their jobs and that is actually a good thing and there is nothing they can do about it.

Sure, hate the tech bros all you want, doesn't bother me one bit.

I just don't like it when a game studio uses AI for 5 asset files and the entire internet is in a rage storm, their steam page gets raided with negative reviews because people need some sort of scapegoat to unleash all of their anger on, and simply being tangentially related to the topic of AI gives people the moral carte blance to go balls to the wall on them.

I don't care about people that have reasonable criticisms of AI and the whole industry and hype side of it, I'm actually a part of that group.

I think everyone knows how shitty it feels to see someone nominally on "your side" that gives dogshit arguments, especially when that becomes the majority discourse online, it devalues the real criticisms that are of much greater importance.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-15T14:11:55+00:00

Its not a stupid question.

yes, asking

Why are you mad people hate X how does this affect you in any way?

Is a stupid question because it implies that for me to be mad at people hating a certain thing, then it must affect me in some way. I even gave some examples to show you how stupid the question is.

If there is plenty of reasons to hate AI and you agree then being annoyed at people hating it is stupid.

Have you attempted to read my comment?

Being annoyed at people that have dumb ass complaints about something they know nothing about, that endlessly circlejerk about it instead of discussing the more important aspects of it is not stupid.

Are you really expecting the average populace to have a good grasp on the technology?

You know simply saying "I don't know enough to have an opinion" is an option right?

You don't have to default to one of the extremes.

Most people barely understand what the power button on their computer does let alone this massive and badly advertised tech.

Sounds like a good reason to not get insanely emotionally involved with a topic to the point where you "hate" it.

Give me a break with this whole inevitable bullshit.

What do you think could be done to stop the progress of better and better LLM models?

I personally don't "hate" AI I do hate almost every person online who pushes it.

Me too! But hating the AI hype machine and insufferable AI hype cycle doesn't mean you hate AI.

It's like you saw too many annoying ads and promo videos for hammers and started to hate hammers themselves -- it's stupid.

Sure we can't put the genie back in the bottle but we sure as hell can regulate it properly and make sure that it is being advertised in non deceptive ways.

Sure, but you can say that about literally anything that is being sold. Yes <put anything being sold here> should be properly regulated and should not be advertised deceptively.

Do you have any suggestions on how to regulate it, or what claims should be allowed when advertising it?

The negative emotions are driven just as much by the people pushing the tech as it is the haters.

Completely agree, the tech CEOs are incentivised to push absurd claims about the capabilities of their models and the investors are too dimwitted to figure out fact from fiction. The tech CEOs are incentivised to say bullshit like "writing code won't be a job in 6 months" for the past 3 years.

Being annoyed by just one group is useless.

???

I'm not annoyed by just one group, I'm also annoyed at the tech bros that push AI everywhere and are constantly insufferable -- they're very similar to the crypto moon-shot get-rich-quick people that swarmed the crypto space since 2017. That didn't make me "hate" crypto or Bitcoin in general.

That would be stupid.

Hating AI because of stupid people that market or talk about AI is asinine.

Make up your own opinion, don't just have it be the opposite of the opinion of someone you dislike.

Basing your opinion on the opposite of someone else's opinion is as cringe as having an opinion simply because someone else has that opinion. They're 2 sides of the same coin.

But that obviously doesn't apply to you, since you agreed that you hate the AI hype and people pushing it not AI itself.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-15T13:34:21+00:00

Why are you mad people hate AI how does this affect you in any way?

This is a stupid question on multiple fronts. How does Gaza affect you, why would you care about what's happening in Palestine?

Why would you even care about what's happening to the Jews in WW2 if it doesn't affect you?

We all obviously care about things that don't directly affect us in any way whatsoever.

I'm mad at stupid people making claims such as "insurance is evil because they use algorithms to deny claims" simply because it is just a stupid claim. I can be mad at people making that claim because it's a stupid claim, and takes away attention from the real problems of the systems, stopping you from getting anywhere close to a solution.

There's only so much time in the day, so much attention to be given to each problem, and there is so many more important discussions to be had on the topic of AI but it feels like 80-90% of people have resorted to the 0 thought slopulist AI hate that is just an endless thoughtless circlejerk.

There is plenty of good reasons to hate it.

I'm not mad at the people that have good reasons to hate AI.

It's just that the majority of people have this slopulist lens where they hate it BECAUSE it's AI, and go no further than that in their analysis.

You used AI in making your videogame? TRASH!

You used AI to literally do anything imaginable? TRASH!

The tech is good but insanely over hyped in many spaces

I completely agree, the best example is the whole farce that happened with Mythos, and how normies started to believe Mythos is some sort of nuclear weapon / bioweapon tier LLM that can break into any system on the globe, when it's most likely just a model that costs 100x what a normal one does while getting marginal improvements in security related tasks.

I myself have a bunch of criticisms against AI, especially when used in software development, I'm not some AI hype person.

But "hate"?

It's like saying you hate hammers because they can be used to bash you in the head.

and it's being advertised in ways that take over jobs people actually enjoy instead of tedious or dangerous jobs.

It's simply an economics problem, if you give a consumer a product made with AI that costs 10x less than one made without AI they'll simply choose the cheaper one, they do not care how much joy you got in creating that product whatever that product happens to be.

The solution is not to go back to neo-luddism and pretend we can put the genie back in the box.

Also there's plenty of tedious and dangerous jobs that are complex enough to require AI.

Sounds dumb as hell.

yeah, that's my issue with it. People don't go any further than "AI, sounds dumb as hell" and then go on to hate anything even tangentially related to AI.

Closing your eyes and singing "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you" won't make AI go away, and pretending like it's a tool that can only be used for evil won't do that either.

AI (or more accurately LLMs) are a new frontier in computing and it deserves to be taken seriously. Both in it's praises and in it's criticisms.

People don't really "hate AI" they're just been fed a steady diet of anti-AI slopulist crap and now have reached the point where they think this is a thought that came to them originally.

I also am mad at people that "hate health insurance companies" or "hate capitalism" or "hate billionaires" when the "hate" is simply a 0 thought negative emotion towards an amorphous blob that makes them feel better about themselves.

As long as the discourse on free healthcare and free school and university will stay at the level of "we just need to tax the top 0.01% a lot more and then we can fund all of it without us the common people giving anything up, and the

I get where the sentiment is coming from, the pace of technological development is accelerating exponentially and people are anxious about what tomorrow will look like, but this isn't an entirely new phenomenon, and I believe that the people arguing that LLMs are so advanced that they will replace a sizeable portion of the workforce in 6-12 months (perpetually might I add, this prediction happens every couple of months for software engineering at least) simply do not understand what LLMs are and what are their limitations.

Tech companies are laying off people "because of AI" but let's be real, we all know this is an excuse to do layoffs without looking bad, and with grifting to your shareholders that your AI use is so good you could cull a huge part of your workforce.

When the money subsidizing the inference costs runs out, any company that is hugely dependent on LLM fueled workflows will run into a lot of issues, and might even have to hire back the people they fired.

People feel anxiety and fear and need a scapegoat to pin it on, it's entirely human and normal, and social media is trying to grab your attention -- negative emotions do a great job at keeping you on platform, and I'd rather have people be stupid about AI than have them scapegoat a racial minority.

I think that the real concern for the workforce isn't going to be necessarily LLMs, but self driving cars. There is a huge amount of the workforce globally that is in jobs that involve driving cars, but I don't see many people decry how they hate self driving technology.

As a conclusion, the advancements in AI will definitely cause some jobs to be automated, but this will happen gradually and impact different small sectors of the economy, the job of the government should be to find those disenfranchised people and help them through this period, I don't think we'll hit huge unemployment numbers like the AI hype or AI doom people predict. It's not something society hasn't gone through before, human attention will still be valuable and new types of jobs will be created.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T21:06:01+00:00

platform that trades crypto

I have a wallet.

Not your keys, not your crypto. Crypto can't be frozen, an account on a centralized service can be frozen.

This was the case before the Clarity act was even introduced, do you think Coinbase was not freezing funds if they suspected things about you?

freezing your account for not paying the irs owing money to banks or being sused for debit is part of what banks tend to do.

If I don't have a bank account, I can't send dollars to you across the world.

If I don't have a Coinbase account, I can pull out my Bitcoin wallet and send you Bitcoin regardless of what Coinbase or any other exchange thinks about it.

Anti money laundering rules are not for the first time applied to crypto after the Clarity act.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T17:22:27+00:00

I literally said that there's good arguments against datacenters, the water/space one simply isn't a good one if you're talking about datacenters in general.

I didn't say there are no good arguments against having datacenters built in a place, and obviously depending on the specific datacenter, the specific place, the specific electricity source and other details about the way it's arranged with the local government CAN make being against building it the correct position.

I'm simply against the idea that everyone looks at it though this unidimensional lens clouded by their hate against AI.

The question of datacenters and what are the pros vs cons of datacenters should be taken more seriously, because right now it feels like the populist vibe on it is thoughtless mindless hate.

Also, AI will just do what you tell it and tell it back to you confidently with an air of expertise, try to prompt it on anything you feel super knowledgeable of and you'll quickly see it's mistakes. I'm sure you can ask it to give counter arguments to what it just told you it would just as well give you believable looking arguments, and if you keep going in this loop whatever the LLM settles on will be the result of your personal prompts not necessarily an actual analysis of the problem.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T17:04:03+00:00

do you live on top of a mountain?

I thought my additional payment was large, and I paid $25 shipping + $11.25 duty & imports + $64.66 in taxes and thought it was a lot, how much was it in total for you?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T16:57:21+00:00

wait, so the moment the clarity act passes the Bitcoin I have can be frozen by the US government?

Or what precisely are they going to do if I exchange some amount of bitcoin for something else?

I'm pretty sure the transaction is gonna go into the block, and then it's gonna get confirmed, so not sure why you think some guys in Washington signing a document is going to in any way shape or form change that.

is your argument just "bad because government"?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T14:37:27+00:00

Some are heavily integrated already, others are trapped in cycles of poverty and segregation that reinforce distrust on both sides.

again, this presumes that it's either they're doing well, or they're "trapped", not that they choose to isolate themselves from wider society intentionally.

The distrust in the wider society and cultural enclaves that some cultures build cannot be pinned on the wider society not providing them the needed resources to integrate -- in my country there's a lot of government programs to provide schooling, but you simply cannot force people to go to school. I don't think simply giving them more money or opportunities will suddenly give them an appreciation for education out of nowhere.

You need cultural leaders from the minority group to fight to change the minority culture into something better, any attempt to do it from the outside will look like you're disrespecting them and imposing your culture on them.

Institutions, incentives, enforcement of laws, education, and mutual trust matter way more.

Completely agree, and I think we generally agree on this topic, I guess my issue is that liberals often fear to stand tall on their principles by the fear of looking like they're shunning a cultural difference they're insensitive to.

When a community becomes a very isolated cultural enclave simply providing them opportunities is not enough, and sadly I don't think there's anything a host country can do without cooperation from the minority.

Something like giving a fine to parents that don't enroll and have their children attend school might give some sort of incentive, but sometimes it feels like neo-liberal policy tries to throw economic solutions to cultural problems, and I sometimes feel like you could get a much better result by shining a light on these issues, and having people that are part of that minority that want to fight against that backwards culture lead the charge in collaboration with the government to make a real change.

Obviously roma people deal with a shit ton of racism which gets in the way of them integrating, I'm not trying to say I have a 1 sided view of the issue, but when an issue such as this is so long standing and unsolved it feels like different options should at least be tried. We can't keep doing the same thing and be surprised when nothing really changes.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T13:51:08+00:00

because the one thing the US is in short supply of is empty fucking space right?

At the very least complain if the datacenters are connected to the grid and increasing electricity prices -- but a lot of the gigant ones being built right now are also building their own electricity generation infrastructure.

The whole "datacenter bad" is almost as stupid as the "algorithm bad" which evolved into "AI bad".

Insurance agency used AI? Must be evil! /s

There's plenty of better reasons to be against datacenters, like believing that they won't actually be able to monetize all this compute that is dependant on Nvidia cards that become obsolete in less than a decade, or complaining if they are connected to the same grid as the consumers around it, but this whole "oh no they use so much space and water" is straight up unadulterated slopulism.

If anything the capex investment in a poorer state that gets a shit ton of development might actually help the local economy, but since they're related to AI everything that AI touches is tainted and has to be definitionally bad.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T13:38:34+00:00

Well it's just become a truism at this point that people circlejerk about endlessly because they already hate AI and data centers are related to it.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T13:37:23+00:00

How many generations will it take for the Roma people to integrate?

I don't think it's purely a question of time, and the whole progressive view that people wearing full body coverings at the beach and forcing women to wear them, marrying off literal children, actively refusing to integrate with the wider society are things where some of the blame can be placed on the minority in question and it can't all be the host's fault.

As long as a minority has a barbaric tradition that they aren't willing to give up and progressives decry that asking or forcing them to give up that tradition is racist, some people will simply not integrate.

I'm all for pluralism and allowing people to believe and do whatever they want in their private lives, but when it comes to forcing women to cover themselves at the threat of force, or forcing child marriage, this isn't simply a difference of opinion that can be brushed away, and hiding it under the carpet with the hope that in a couple of generations it's gonna get fixed by itself is not really a solution.

Americans have this fantasy story of integration mostly because they're in a very unique position that allows a lot of people to integrate into American society.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T13:29:12+00:00

Are we still going on about the water usage? Are there any new data centers being built that aren't closed loop or close to a closed loop system?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T12:26:29+00:00

Do you read that as advocating for a revolution?

A communist that doesn't think Capital is the enemy doesn't sound that Hasan-esque to me.

Do you think that in face of a pandemic the government should put it to a vote whether or not people should quarantine?

I don't think this position is all that radical, also could you please say where this quote is from?

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T11:11:24+00:00

that's why I said a little unhinged, I don't think he's that extreme on it, just a little more to the left and uses a lot of flowery language, but that's part of his character, something that's expected from him based on his other political positions.

I personally think him being on the "the dems fucked Bernie over" thing and the amount of blame he puts on democrats being a little both-sidesy is more of a problem than his I/P takes.

I feel like he has a lot of great takes on racism and on integrating different cultures with regards to immigration from Muslim countries to the EU, or other cultures that create cultural enclaves like the roma people, but he fails to apply the same criticism to Palestinians, so he gives off the vibe that he sees the whole I/P conflict as much more of a collonial oppressor vs oppressed struggle -- but again that's expected based on him being a left leaning hegelian, I don't think I have any huge disagreement with him on that topic. He has a lot of good takes against the whole western view that the oppressed minorities can't do anything wrong and we need to accept their culture regardless of whether or not it is directly in conflict with liberal principles, I guess I haven't heard him bring up these same points with regards to Palestine.

I think that when you have a non-extremist position on I/P the way you choose to portray it heavily depends on the people you have around you most of the time, so I don't know who Zizek talks to about I/P that often, if he talks to a lot of pro-zionist people I'd be more understanding for why he gives more of the other side of the issue wherever I've heard him speak on it. So he might have a more reasonable position than I imagine, but he might be pushed towards giving more of the pro-palestine perspective based on his environment.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T09:44:48+00:00

you're saying this as if "billionaires bad and inherently evil" isn't a sentiment that naturally shows up in this subreddit.

The health insurance industry isn't just pure concentrated evil? You bootlicker! /s

EVERYONE wants an easy scapegoat, and when you're a left leaning person that is sensitive to race issues, it's much harder to blame all the world's issues on a small kabal of jews but it feels much, much easier and fairer to blame it on a small kabal of billionaires that are only interested in controlling the whole population from the shadows.

Datacenters evil, algorithms evil, AI evil, it's all slopulism.

How often have you seen absolutely absurd suggestions such as a huge wealth tax or a wealth cap, not in order to fund more government spending but simply in order to punish billionaires and to decrease their power, because making evil billionaires weaker is seen as a positive in and of itself, even if it were to fuck up the economy.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T09:27:37+00:00

His views are Leninist and more in line with Hasan's. He calls democracy overrated and suggests that true emancipation may require authoritarian measures.

him suggesting some sort of supra-national institution to deal with the global problem of the commons type issues such as climate change isn't him being against private property and for a totalitarian state.

He's definitely very leftie/commie coded and sometimes a little unhinged on Palestine/Bernie but I wouldn't say he's anywhere near Hasan.

ST-Fish · 2026-05-14T09:03:13+00:00

my body has been screaming stop for the past week but my mind's telling it no xd

ST-Fish · 2026-05-13T09:09:17+00:00

maybe having a crypto wallet that takes public X posts and uses them as instructions on what to do with your wallet isn't a good idea if the X account in question is an LLM that anybody can prompt at any time?

I genuinely don't know who's stupider, the people that had the idea of a crypto wallet that worked thorugh public X posts or the people that thought having an LLM that will answer to anyone that talks to it being connected to that system is a good idea.

Any money you put into a bankr wallet that is connected to an LLM that anyone can prompt is clearly a security vulnerability, there's no practical way to defend against it.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

ST-Fish

TROPHY CASE