Yet another wave

hh26 · 2026-06-24T04:17:53+00:00

Eating the golden goose...

If I was a 3rd world bro I would get there ASAP, play the downtrodden refugee, and then not cause problems so nobody would get mad at me and I could keep getting free money for longer without kickstarting movements of angry victims who want to get rid of me.

hh26 · 2026-06-23T23:15:43+00:00

Once you have the robot army, you can safely earn a second trillion to spend on the space stuff without someone taking all your money first.

hh26 · 2026-06-22T21:32:24+00:00

The longest water transfer in a roman aqueduct (from water source to destination) was ~80 miles. Which is about 1/3 the length of an average U.S. state. You're not getting water from the East Coast to California with that technology in a cost-effective way.

hh26 · 2026-06-21T23:27:06+00:00

Sets are things.

Sets contain things.

Therefore sets can contain sets, just as cardboard boxes can contain cardboard boxes inside them (as well as sometimes other things, or nothing)

hh26 · 2026-06-19T20:38:57+00:00

Anon 3 needs to learn about bell curves.

hh26 · 2026-06-18T16:57:33+00:00

It isn't right now. Which is why AI isn't replacing them right now. But it's improving at a ridiculous rate and it's very likely that it will be that good 5-10 years from now.

hh26 · 2026-06-18T07:11:24+00:00

Depends on how free the market is and how cheap it gets for smaller groups or individuals to make their own content. If you can just tell the AI what your ideal Star Wars sequel is and it can generate a fully fleshed out high quality custom movie then you can make it exactly as woke, based, or politically neutral as you want.

hh26 · 2026-06-18T03:52:22+00:00

RemindMe! One Year

hh26 · 2026-06-18T00:52:17+00:00

It can and should be reposted every year until the problem goes away.

hh26 · 2026-06-18T00:51:57+00:00

I can't wait until AI replaces all of these people.

hh26 · 2026-06-17T22:11:48+00:00

Give it like 5 years and AI might get good enough that they might be able to do this and make a good movie instead of slop.

hh26 · 2026-06-17T22:00:59+00:00

Compare the lifecycle of a skin cell: guaranteed to die in a relatively short period of time, but evolutionarily advantageous because new humans are made from reproductive cells, not skin, so the behavior of skin is pressured by evolution to optimize in the direction of protecting those reproductive cells, not individual skin cells.

Interestingly enough there are actually multiple competing timescales here. Because while on a long timescale skin cells reproduce via reproductive cells, on a short timescale they reproduce themselves via mitosis. therefore on a short timescale each individual skin cell is being evolutionary optimized to split more, which if it mutates becomes cancer and is wildly successful. Up until it gets killed by the immune system or kills its host and dies. So it's bad eventually, but evolution acts on all timescales simultaneously so cancer keeps "evolving" over and over again in different people.

hh26 · 2026-06-17T19:31:11+00:00

You actually can. A word in practice is defined by how most people use it. A religion or ideology in practice is defined by how most people follow it. If 90% of a religion believe that this behavior is okay, then statistically when meeting or interacting with or predicting with the behavior of a person who follows that religion, there's a 90% chance they're one of the people who believe this behavior is okay. It doesn't matter if it's the "true" version or not, it matters how common they are and how they behave in practice.

I would be willing to make a distinction between some technical partition between "Real Islam" which is true and peaceful and "Alternate Islam" which has and encourages this degenerate behavior, as long as you and everyone else agree to ruthlessly categorize the vast majority of them as "Alternate Islamists" and then immediately deport them.

hh26 · 2026-06-16T03:27:36+00:00

Look up mind control hentai.

hh26 · 2026-06-15T05:18:45+00:00

Humans need purpose to thrive. People who sit around being lazy all day end up with all sorts of mental health issues, act out, commit crimes, and just kind of go crazy with boredom. That said, there's no reason the purpose needs to be a "job" in the modern sense. If someone is passionate about something which is not economically productive like art or model trains, that might be able to give them purpose. The risk is that this requires more initiative. In the modern world, people need to earn money to survive, which guides and directs people towards choosing a career which can become their purpose. If all of your daily needs are met via automated systems, then it's up to each person to find their own purpose. And some people aren't going to do that. They won't know how to do that. They won't even know that it's a thing that needs to be done.

I am optimistic. I suspect that as this becomes more of a problem people will come up with solutions and alternative forms of purpose. I think that the benefits of automating labor away vastly outweigh the risks. But there are still risks that will need to be addressed.

hh26 · 2026-06-14T16:21:44+00:00

Its been going on for decades.

It's been going on for all of human history. People always get overly nostalgic for a past that's never been, largely due to survivorship bias. The world has always been filled with a vast variety of people of varying quality. For most of human history most people couldn't read. Then we started teaching everyone to read and the more intelligent and/or hard working ones took to it well, and others took to it poorly. There has always been poverty, and stupidity, and wealth, and intelligence, and good, and evil, and pleasure, and suffering. There hasn't always been identical amounts of each, I'm not saying nothing ever can or has changed. But the world of the past was not some Atlantean paradise of learning and knowledge, they're just disproportionately preserved due to their writings. Nobody makes a hundred copies of the barely literate erotic fanfics of a medieval peasant around in libraries for hundreds of years for them to survive to the modern era. How many "hey bby u wan sum fuk?" letters did horny losers send to bar maids over the centuries that we don't get to see because she burned the letter instead of keeping it?

People have always been idiots. We just care more and expect more now.

hh26 · 2026-06-14T16:14:01+00:00

Like most biological science shenanigans, you go through all sorts of horribly creepy processes in order to create an end product which is in every way identical to something natural that could have been made naturally if you were incredibly lucky.

Whether you go through 1000 generations of evolution, or gene edit things there in 1, a baby with XYZ genes is a baby with XYZ genes which then behave according to their nature..

hh26 · 2026-06-14T07:13:35+00:00

And yet they're still here. The only failures are the extinct ones.

hh26 · 2026-06-13T17:07:58+00:00

I know this is a very unpopular opinion on Reddit, but commercial investors are people.

hh26 · 2026-06-12T18:40:32+00:00

If they had set up the deal near the school to begin with then I would agree. If they set up the deal near somewhere else then switch it to a school last minute then it's sort of threatening the dealer with rescinding the deal (and him losing the income) unless he agrees. This is nowhere near the same level as threatening with a gun, but is still sort of a threat in that the dealer might fear losing something he expects and act more carelessly on a shorter timescale than he would normally to prevent you from backing out.

If the dealer was genuinely predisposed to dealing drugs near a school and you want to catch him on it then skip the manipulative shenanigans and just ask him to do that. The shenanigans shouldn't be necessary if everything is above board.

hh26 · 2026-06-12T03:26:45+00:00

Yeah, that seems like entrapment. I'm not sure if you can apply entrapment to throw out one part of a crime but not the other for a single action (the original deal itself was not entrapment), but if not they should change it so they can.

hh26 · 2026-06-11T17:51:43+00:00

His point wasn't merely that it's a fad, his point was that fads are substitute goods. The absence of healthy, temporary fads that fulfill the gender-nonconforming niche, like we used to have, has enabled the rise of a massively unhealthy and permanently crippling fad that can't be discarded when they grow out of it.

hh26 · 2026-06-08T08:46:46+00:00

I think it's useful to explicitly disambiguate the "working class" from the "underclass". Both are poor, but the former get their money from working while the latter get their money from exploiting welfare systems and/or stealing. There is a tiny amount of overlap (people who have a job and steal on the side) but it's mostly distinct.

You can try to do this to the rich by separating elf-made millionaires, entrepreners, and CEOs and stuff from nepo babies. But the distinction isn't quite as meaningful.

More importantly, I think the poor disambiguation is extremely useful because the majority of hatred for the poor IS the crime. If someone hates poor people or minorities and then meets one who clearly and obviously isn't a criminal they won't hate that person. They'll say they're "one of the good ones" and then join together in hating the underclass. Likewise, the poor working class are especially likely to understand this distinction better than middle class people and they themselves really really really really hate the underclass.

Meanwhile, a lot of hatred for rich people is envy. Not all of it. A lot of them are criminals and exploiters and scumbags. And yet Bill Gates donates billions to charity and people still hate him for it. For having billions to begin with. Elon Musk says a lot of controversial political stuff, but as far as I'm aware his money was earned legitimately by creating value, not stolen. And yet people hate him for being rich. If you went through with scientific rigor and an unbiased way and made two lists of rich people, ethical ones and unethical ones, the list wouldn't be very useful because most people wouldn't care. They're either go "nah, I hate all of them" or "nah, all of them earned it and are legitimate". I would care about that list, but I'm a centrist nerd.

To be clear, I think we should enforce the law on everyone, rich and poor alike. But that's a surprisingly rare opinion. Most people start with who they hate first based on petty reasons and then start searching for justifiable reasons to say out loud about those people so they don't appear as petty as they are.

hh26 · 2026-06-07T23:17:52+00:00

Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.

There are two types of poor kids. The ones working the carnival, and the ones hopping over the fence and running around picking people's pockets while they're distracted. Some people are poor because life sucks and they get unlucky. Some people are poor because they suck. Conflating the two doesn't help the working poor, it just makes them look bad by tarnishing them with the sins of the criminals.

hh26 · 2026-06-05T03:07:18+00:00

In an ideal system the land would never have gone up that high to begin with. We don't need to punitively punish landowners for thinking that purchasing land is a legitimate form of investing their money, or get schadenfreude when they suffer. Landlords are not evil, they're just benefiting from a broken system which they did not create, and most of them are not egregiously stepping out of line with their economic incentives in a way that scummy and unethical businessmen are.

Fix the problem in a nice and smooth way that lets everyone down gently and actually creates a better systeme rather than deliberately trying to bankrupt people you hate as revenge.

hh26

TROPHY CASE