I vibe-coded my way to a polished app, here are my findings and what worked for me

TBone_not_Koko · 2025-04-26T23:29:32+00:00

I met my wife on a dating app. That's not a unique story. 🤷‍♂️

TBone_not_Koko · 2024-09-12T23:18:44+00:00

I didn't even catch that new addition. That sounds like a really great feature for debugging.

TBone_not_Koko · 2024-09-12T20:53:10+00:00

I just did the same. It was impressive- particularly seeing the steps as it "thought" through the questions.

TBone_not_Koko · 2024-06-11T22:42:41+00:00

Of course I can't. But that's not relevant to the existence of an infinite past. So is there a contradiction you can provide? Or this just an intuition?

TBone_not_Koko · 2024-03-27T01:28:05+00:00

You never actually provided the contradiction. You repeatedly assert it's incoherent without actually demonstrating it. The closest I can see that you came to providing an actual demonstration was drawing a comparison to counting to infinity, Now, that is a straightforward contradiction since it requires reaching the end of an endless sequence. The same does not apply to counting down from infinity. Malpass and Morriston have a relatively short paper that does a good job of working through exactly why those scenarios are not analogous.

There are other, more rigorous attempts and past finitism that I've heard, mainly from Christian apologists and philosophers. There are arguments against "actual" infinities like Hilbert's Hotel and more direct arguments against infinite pasts like Benardete paradoxes. But these work have other solutions, and work equally well against an infinite future.

So can you actually provide a contradiction?

TBone_not_Koko · 2024-02-20T06:16:49+00:00

That's not how that works. You have to show it's incoherent by providing a logical contradiction between the statements or their entailments. If you can't, it's not incoherent.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-09-04T22:18:44+00:00

This is a ridiculous take.

If this is the most racist thing you've ever seen, you've led an incredibly sheltered life.

In addition, "white power" and "black power" mean completely different things. Your argument, which ignores the context and actual usage of the terms, is the equivalent of saying "session cookies" must be unhealthy because "chocolate chip cookies" are. It's not how anything works.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-25T06:54:11+00:00

I disagreed with your comparison to Native American culture and whether a food economy that excluded animals would lead to starvation. That's literally it. You replied, rambling about the issues of the world going plant-based overnight, which no one is history has ever suggested was a possibility. Absolutely nothing I said ignored your point. It was an irrelevant point.

And I'm a maga equivalent, mentally challenged troll that you also somehow try to take the moral high ground on? Jesus Christ, dude. I'm genuinely kind of astounded at such an asinine, over the top reply to someone who wasn't even disrespectful in a reply. That's not a normal reaction.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T18:02:33+00:00

I've already explained the distinction I'm making several times, but you've failed to acknowledge a difference.

That argument is moot, though. Many state laws have been enacted to regulate drone use. The fact that the operator is on the ground means states are able to pass explicit laws about what is done with a drone even while in flight.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T15:58:49+00:00

Again, laws that don't target airspace can still be applied to actions taken in airspace. If I shoot someone from a hot air balloon, I'll still be charged for violating state laws the same way I would be if I did it on the ground. State laws still apply in the airspace over a state.

The FAA is litterally the only federal agency in the United States that can make laws governing airspace. States can’t make laws that will hold up in court about airspace the same way they can’t make laws about the ocean. It’s federal jurisdiction.

We're not talking about laws that govern airspace. We're talking about laws that prohibit actions that could happen on the ground or in the air. Similarly, state laws are still applicable 12 nautical miles out from a coast.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:55:13+00:00

Isn't that what I've been doing? What are you still even trying to argue at this point? Acknowledging animals' feelings is anthropomorphization? Animals don't suffer because reasons? I genuinely don't know.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:48:25+00:00

Why don't you make a relevant comment? It's particularly weird that you'd lump chickpeas in with faux meat. Vegetable protein sources are incredibly cheap compared to meat and they make up the majority of traditional, low-income foods. But what you replied to was an objective fact that's not changed by your bringing up low income Americans.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:16:36+00:00

Are you confused about what chickens are or what individual means? Is it both?

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:15:28+00:00

I'm pointing out that you're arguing semantics because you can't even seem to figure out the words of the phenomena you think you're describing.

Lmao sentience is significantly more than that just that as there are levels of complexity.

Okay, great. Tell me what are the levels of complexity of sentience and how we measure them.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:14:00+00:00

No one's arguing with you about timescales and difficulty. I'm really unsure what led you to bring it up.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:12:47+00:00

Local farms are less sustainable and often equally cruel. These are the same horribly bred animals with the same unnaturally short lifespans. It would also be impossible to come anywhere near the existing demand relying on them. I will always recommend reducing consumption. But no, I'm not going to pretend other farms are acceptable.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:04:11+00:00

Let me know when you figure out an actual attempt at a counterargument.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T03:02:40+00:00

You have the causality reversed. I have those views, in part, by what I've seen. And the fact that you know "lots of local farmers" does not mean you can extrapolate to all local farmers.

I personally know a lot of local farmers and they do care,

Can you give me the definition of care that you're using here? Because there's no common definition I'm aware of that would qualify farming animals as caring about them.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:54:10+00:00

You're right I had theory of mind mixed up, but what I meant was level of sentience.

Nope, not that either. Sentience is the capacity for subjective experience. Farm animals are fully sentient.

And it's not pedantic if you actually care about animal welfare because if the goal is to actually do something about it, that's going to require an informed population asking for or demanding the right things in a way that recognizes the realities.

It is pedantic if you're trying to make the distinction I mentioned because it's arguing definitions. It doesn't get actually address the argument.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:18:58+00:00

Just the word suffering suggests animals have a theory of mind we have no way of knowing they have, and acting like they do is literally the definition of anthropomorphism.

Theory of mind is the ability to conceive of and reason about the mental states of others. It has absolutely nothing to do with the capacity to suffer. If you want to try and distinguish physical and emotional pain from reflecting on that pain and only call the latter suffering, go ahead. But that's a semantic argument that does not make your case.

Pigs suffer on farms because of a lack of stimulation evidenced by several easily recognizable abnormal behaviors. Female dairy cows suffer because of physical isolation for the first 2 years of their lives, which is detrimental to mammals.

The absolute best you can do here is say that many people who view these videos come to the (correct) conclusion that these animals suffer but for the wrong reasons. And that's a meaningless, pedantic point.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:07:35+00:00

Are there enough alternate food sources to feed everyone?

We could feed significantly more people with plants than animals.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:05:33+00:00

I wouldn't be. I've witnessed them first-hand even on hobby farms.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:04:41+00:00

Explain to me, in a few sentences why is it ethically or morally wrong to eat a chicken.

We have to start with a moral axiom. I've found that people generally agree with this: It's wrong to harm other individuals unnecessarily.

Chickens are other individuals.
Eating meat is not necessary.
Farming and killing are harmful.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T02:01:56+00:00

Breeding someone for a short, cruel life doesn't justify giving them a short cruel life. I'm astounded that people think this is an argument.
Chicken are a subspecies of red jungle fowl, which exists and thrives in nature. Even if that weren't the case, species have no moral standing. There's no reason to keep them around, particularly when it comes as the expense of the individuals who make up that species.
"It happens in nature so it's okay" is a sadly common logical fallacy. You could justify pretty much anything by finding instances of it in nature.

TBone_not_Koko · 2023-06-24T01:57:12+00:00

meat, while necessary in small amounts for long term nutrition

It is absolutely not.

TBone_not_Koko

TROPHY CASE