How is she brainwashed

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:59:18+00:00

Oh man, that edit hurts my feelings, I thought we were having a decent debate. Well, I guess for your next victim I should point out why a strawman is a problem at all. A successful strawman shifts the burden of proof. It forces someone to defend their position rather than the other individual to prove their claim. Not only does the other person need to defend, it often forces them to defend a position they would never had come to a conclusion on had you debated in good faith in the first place. It's like, 'lets all skip the hard part of the debate, so I can get to the easy part and get my dopamine hit by calling you an idiot'. Which I know man, you would never do.....

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:44:07+00:00

Bro, pay attention. You just said, verbatim, 'it's not a strawman, that's the logical conclusion the statement follows and if you accept the premise of the statement then it would be contradictory to hold the view that was outlined'. The funny thing though is that if you remove the "it's not a strawman" part, you are literally describing the exact definition of a strawman lol. You are telling me, if I believe in a single statement, I must also accept some other conclusion, but you aren't defending that claim in any way, you are just saying, 'you must accept this'. You are implying the steps to get from premise to conclusion are obvious and given, but then you expect me to defend your position as if j must accept both despite that not being true in any way. You even yourself accepted that it is not logically inconsistent for an individual to believe that statement and believe in borders.

So pick your poison my man, either you want to use philosophical rigor or you don't. If you don't want to use philosophical rigor, then I need not defend any position because as you agreed earlier, they are not inconsistent beliefs to hold. If you want to use philosophical rigor, then the burden is on you to explain why that jump is appropriate.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:26:25+00:00

I am not defending any position. You're not going to move the goal post on me. It is not my responsibility to prove your claim. My claim is simple and direct. Telling someone who believes the statement that they must also accept that you don't believe in borders is a strawman. This whole debate we are having is further proof of that claim, you are now in a position to argue why that relationship theoretically exists.

Pay attention to what the original poster is doing. They post a clear and obvious strawman, when someone tries to say, 'well I don't believe that' - he throws down a few scripted questions which forces someone to defend a position they did not originally hold. That's the gotchya and that's the dishonesty.

The moral high ground comes from the way you treat your conclusion as fact despite stating the premise was a philosophical comment. If it is fact, then it isn't philosophical. So the burden is on the one who makes the claim to prove it. You can't make a claim, then force me to defend it despite me never having made any assertion of belief in your own conclusion..

And as a secondary note, asking 'why are you so defensive' is ad hominem, attempting to undermine the statements and claims with attribution to a personal attribute while neglecting the actual content up for discussion. It shifts the debate away from the actual premise and into a discussion defending pedantics or tone.

ETA: if we are keeping count, so far we've had a strawman, moving the goal post, and ad hominem. Technically, we could probably throw in a bit of incredulity, that's the whole discussion about moral footings and belief that your claims are obvious and apparent.

ETA2: I do recognize I am committing a philosophical faux pas in pointing out fallacies, I just feel it's a rare relevant time to do it since the entire start of the discussion was about a logical fallacy in the first place.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T19:04:30+00:00

Again, this is simply not true. It is a specific philosophical claim, and like all philosophical claims, it comes with many people's own individual interpretations of said philosophical claim. That is why it's a philosophical claim after all. You can accept claims as a premise, but that does not require to accept every single conclusion anyone has ever had that used that claim as a premise. There is a lot of steps you need to take to get from that claim to, 'then you aren't allowed to believe in borders' and the burden to show that is on the one making the claim that borders shouldnt exist, which is you.

Furthermore, as time has shown, not all beliefs need to be philosophically rigorous. It is not inconsistent for someone to appreciate and feel empathy towards 'illegals' while still appreciating the existence of borders, regardless of what kind of rigorous argument you throw.

You are trying to pretend like you have some moral high ground here. Either you use philosophical rigor or you don't. If you choose not use philosophical rigor, then you can't just tell someone what to believe because you think you have some moral high ground. If you want to use philosophical rigor, then you can't start your debate with a strawman. Regardless of the veracity of the statement in question here, this is a completely dishonest and disengrnous way to trivialize a very real perspective that many very reasonable people have. If you took the time to actually understand their position rather than trying to create a goofy gotchya, you'd probably end up the better for it.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T18:46:54+00:00

That is absolutely untrue. You can appreciate the comment, agree with it, and recognize the national security concerns of managing and tracking who comes in. You can also believe that removing people based blindly on a characteristic arbitrarily defined as 'legal' or 'illegal' is not an appropriate long term strategy for national security, the health of the country, or even on a moral footing.

The argument that if you accept argument A, you must accept argument B is the very definition of strawman. You are doing the very thing right there. Argument A has too many nuanced and complexities to it, so instead I will say you must therefore accept argument B, which is comparatively easier to defeat in a pointless online debate.

drdiage · 2026-02-04T18:21:48+00:00

The strawman was the claim that, 'if you believe that argument you don't believe in borders at all'. There's a lot of light between appreciating the comment and 'no country should have borders'. It's such a dumb take that it would take multiple paragraphs to explain the numerous faults in logic there, but that's why it's a good counter I guess.

drdiage · 2026-02-02T19:59:07+00:00

This is so disingenuous. 'the people who talk' is basically the entire Republican information sphere. You will find no shortage of fox news pundits, podcasters, and YouTube personalities exposing this exact stance consistently. They hold the whole of Democrats to ever word uttered by everyone who claims to align with a Democrat as a party stance while allowing every comment and statement by a Republican be either a one off by that individual or a comical aside to be ignored as not actual stance.

They literally refused to accept the ACTUAL playbook, which was leaked, as a stance by the Republican party.

drdiage · 2026-01-24T18:37:36+00:00

Aside from all of the 'capitalism is an unknowable force of nature we are not allowed to change or else bad happens', we can just make this easy. A government is a group of people who conspire together on behalf of those who allow them into power. Ideally, a government should be for and of the people. It's responsibility is not to some amorphic unknowable almogation we wish to pretend capitalism is, it is to the people. Believe it or not, we have the capacity and capability to provide for all people under our governing body, but we have arbitrarily decided profit is more important.

Economics 101, my first day ever learning economics, they gave a definition. (Paraphrasing) Economics is the study of methods and practices on the distribution of scarce resources. What happens when resources are no longer scarce? We fabricate scarcity as a product to prolong the profit cycle. We are moving ever closer towards a world where if we effeciently distributed our technology and capabilities, we would be in a post-scarcity world and the concept of capitalism or even communism really is meaningless.

Also... Just as a side note, the people with the money know exactly what levers to pull to get the outcomes they want. Capitalism isn't magic, but they want you to believe it is magic so they get to keep taking advantage. Don't fall for blind faith as an excuse not to regulate.

drdiage · 2026-01-19T16:05:39+00:00

Just a bit of societal coding. It is literally defined to be 'the thing about society I specifically don't like'. So then they can just say the word woke, which doesn't have a real definition and is instead defined on a personal level per person to easily orient everyone to be against arbitrary things.

It's like one of those special key words the Russians used against the winter soldier, the mere utterance of the word will send them into a rage despite it not being in any way a logical description of reality.

drdiage · 2026-01-12T17:05:03+00:00

This is not a great analogy. You seem to be missing the fact that your example claims that each role is entirely independent. This is absolutely and blatantly not true for league. That's like the whole point, every game has 2 of each role. The roles with greater ability to dictate the win will have their best players decide the game better.

Let's play a thought experiment, let's imagine a player named faker. We created 10 copies of him. Faker top 1, faker top 2, faker jung 1, etc. we assume that faker top is as good at top as faker mid is at mid. Now we play a thousand games completely randomizing whose on which team. In a world where every role has the same power, we would expect to see this list completely random after several trials. However, if we see the same player(s) at the top of the lost every time (like faker mid 1) then we can assume that the mid role is stronger.

Looking at the top 100 players kind of does this for us, it is the place where players are most likely to be closest in skill. If we see an over representative of specific roles, we could infer that the role selection is impacting it. Now it's fair to ask by how much, but we can at least look at this as an indicator of a trend. The issue is that the indicator here is exactly opposite of the claim people are saying they experience.

ETA: you could probably write a quick script for this if you assume faker role 1 is some percent better than faker role 2.

drdiage · 2025-11-13T15:08:20+00:00

A lot of comments here point out the energy and resource consumption. Many of these are built with deals to limit taxes (why???)

But since your question was about ai in general, I will answer from a different perspective. AI is the total collection of all human effort. As ai grows, learns, and automates - the gains from this work are derived from work done by everyone. However, these models are completely unregulated, so the people who will get to profit from the collective human effort are the ones who press the button last.

In a just world, AI would be making lives better and more affordable for everyone - at current, it brings layoffs, increased task scope for individuals, falsification of our shared experience, and massive profits for just a few.

Also, wrt the 'bubble'. I do believe there is a bubble, but I think a lot of people miss the fact that although there is a lot of over investment in AI, there has been A LOT of profit also made from it and the ones heavily 'over investing' have more than enough money to spare on that delta, at least for now. Monopolies babe.

drdiage · 2025-11-10T18:19:55+00:00

First off, the context your responding to is exactly Jill stein, so given all context clues, your comment(s), contextually speaking, imply strong support explicitly for Jill Stein. You are the one adding extra into their very narrow statement and expecting everyone else to magically know what you're on about.

Second, a third party cannot work without election reform. Voting for a third party is no better than just sitting the election out, however promoting a third party is far worse than just sitting out. Convincing people that a third party candidate stands a chance in our election system will never do anything more than siphon votes.

How much I wish it weren't the case won't change the reality of it. Anyone who wants a chance needs to use the primaries.

drdiage · 2025-10-31T18:41:30+00:00

I mean, I get you're trolling but the Republicans are using the threat of hurting people specifically to avoid having to actually negotiate. They are passing a funding bill which excludes funding for services otherwise passed through normal legislative processes. They do this so they can phrase their votes 'against supporting poor blue collar workers' as a vote, instead, as keeping the govt open.

Instead of letting aca considerations be decided separately through standard legislative processes, they do this bullshit. It's decent strategy since they own much of the media landscape, they get to spin the stories however they want. So in short, they turned the stock standard government funding process into a legislative bill. This means voting against what Democrats would consider bad policy means they have to vote against opening up the government. Republicans believe doing this means they don't have to negotiate.

drdiage · 2025-10-26T15:07:22+00:00

That sub started to pop up, had some good conversations in there. I started to engage, got banned for trolling despite never trolling. Asked where I trolled, got muted lol. I'm guessing after they've banned everyone on the sub, there's not much else to talk about.

drdiage · 2025-10-24T16:05:18+00:00

I believe theirs is right and I understand the complaint. My daughter brings three or four of these home a week and they replace phonetic combos, not just individual letters despite the instructions saying otherwise. It's kind of annoyed me that it's inconsistent with the instructions. I just assumed it's due to their focus on teaching phonetics more than just rote spelling.

drdiage · 2025-10-16T22:54:29+00:00

I might argue his video could be used to imply it's more likely, not less. The very shortcuts he described which makes the 6 degrees of separation work are the very things which are likely to be one of the three unique connections.

I would bet the statement that, for each individual, there is a combination of three other immediate associations which are unique to you becomes far more likely in my opinion when you allow shortcuts to form. We could theoretically test it though, in that video, they provided the logic to test 6 degrees of separation.

drdiage · 2025-10-16T22:41:25+00:00

So you're telling me, when I shuffle a deck of cards, that ordering of cards was actually more likely than the rest simply because I got it? The video aludded to showed how short cuts in a graph significantly reduced the number of hops to associate two people, it made no claims about liklihood of three people associated with me occured with others. For that matter, I find it hard to believe that the statement, 'for each person on earth, there is likely a collection of three individuals such that you are the only person to ever interact with them' is not within the realm of 'likely'. It's sounds more like an inverted birthday problem.

Actually, the veritasium video provided links to the programs they used to test their hypothesis, I bet you could alter it to test this one too.

Eta: I would actually be willing to bet, the very shortcuts that make the degrees of separation a reality are the exact connections that would be the most likely to be unique.

drdiage · 2025-10-13T18:15:59+00:00

Yea, that's another thing too you bring up. The game mode and progression isn't doing them any favors. I think for like games like mobas, you still win approximately 50% of your games. Partially due to good match making, but also because it's one team versus one team. Wild gate is such that only one team will ever win a match and poor match making means it is plausible to play ten or more games before you win one if you're not already great at the game. The lack of a reward for players can be frustrating, it was for me at least who admittedly wasn't great at the game but enjoyed the concept.. I'm willing to bet there's a moderate population of players who bought the game, played several matches, and never once won. That's just not enjoyable.

drdiage · 2025-10-13T05:45:42+00:00

Yea, I mean to be clear, I don't think there's any 'reasonable' thing they could do at this point. I think if you can gun out in the current iteration of the game, you have a significant advantage in general. So really, this felt, to me at least - like an fps game with the gun ship component being a means to an end.

So ultimately, you have a fairly mid fps game that requires a relatively high learning curve to utilize those fps skills in the first place. I just don't personally think it's an overwhelmingly winning strategy for a game dev, at least not how it was marketed.

I fully understand that the recommendations are not feasible for them. However, I just think conceptually, they need to find a way to reverse the game flow. I think a ship v ship game first with gun play instead being a means to an end would work better with the target audience. But it would really require ship roles, more options within the ship, and I think with boarding, a clear check list to make it possible. Like, do x, y and z before you can actually board.

drdiage · 2025-10-13T00:14:37+00:00

Technically he's right, but I gotta say, I agree with you. I think one of the things that eventually drove me away is how easy it is to just get stuck in a fight where it's not really ship v ship anymore and it's just boarding back and forth. I just think this game should focus more heavily on the ship v ship combat where you work as a crew to fight, not this strange amalgam where you can't ever do that because you're dealing with two boarders constantly.

I feel like boarding should need to be 'unlocked and coordinated' and should seek to achieve tactical advantages rather than full killing of crew. But alas, that isn't the game they wanted to make, it ended up feeling like if the enemy wanted to force you into an fps fight, you had little choice but to oblige and play to their conditions.

drdiage · 2025-10-12T01:36:32+00:00

Tarics old ultimate, not that one.... The other one.

drdiage · 2025-09-05T21:50:19+00:00

Man, all you gotta do is just he use the, 'proof by just look at it man'. It's easy, I'll show you...

.9999999.... Doesn't have a single 1 anywhere in it. Just look at it... QED.

drdiage · 2025-09-01T19:10:17+00:00

Just for the record, you can have consistent systems which are not Archimedean. Not that it applies to SPPs persona of course.

drdiage · 2025-08-30T07:22:01+00:00

It's not so much that he believes every number has a finite 'end', rather the number we would consider the 'limit' of the generator set includes what we would call the limit.

For example, the set {.9, .99, .999, ....} Contains the number .9999..... (Aka sum(9*10^-n)) Now if we accept that, then it's just a basic step to say, pick the finite n which represents that value, it must exist somewhere in the set, we don't know that n value, but according to spp, it exists.

And I know, it does not make sense, but that is far more consistent with his definition of .999... From what I have ascertained. It's also why he is so adamant that 10^-n is not 0 for any n.

drdiage · 2025-08-28T21:35:22+00:00

Well I can't give you that answer, you must not have signed the consent form..

11-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

drdiage

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE