papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on The global fertility crisis is worse than you think in ~society
-
Comment on We can fix the future, Star Trek shows us how in ~humanities
papasquat Link ParentI'd say the opposite really. I'll admit that I know almost nothing about solarpunk and have never read a solarpunk story. I have seen a ton of Star Trek though, and am a huge fan. From what I've...- Exemplary
Does aspiring to a Star Trek-esque post-scarcity utopia feel more realistic in some way?
I'd say the opposite really. I'll admit that I know almost nothing about solarpunk and have never read a solarpunk story. I have seen a ton of Star Trek though, and am a huge fan. From what I've seen of solarpunk, it just involves equitable distribution of resources and living sustainable using technology. Pretty doable.
Star Trek, on the other hand, is pretty much entirely nonsensical and contradictory when it comes to how their society works.
The post scarcity nature of their society hinges on the magical technology that is the replicator. It's so beyond our technological capabilities that it's basically just a magical spell. I think warp drives are probably more realistic.
Basically, the replicator makes it so no one ever has to worry about material needs because the replactor can make anything. Except... It can't. There are a bunch of random stuff replicators can't make.They can't make living things, they can't make dilithium (the crystals that enable warp travel), they cant make a liquid called lattinum which gets used as currency by a lot of races. It doesn't seem like they can replicate starships either for some reason, because we see ships being painstakingly built piece by piece, like we build large ships today.
In theory, the Federation has no money, because everyone has what they need whenever they want it. I think the writers eventually may have realize that they painted themselves in a corner, because sometimes they just ignore that fact and have characters mention things like "federation credits", because there are things like energy use or trade with alien species that require a form of currency.
The fact that credits exist sort of implies that some way to earn credits must also exist, along with an economy and so on.
There's a lot of detail missing, despite there being something approaching a thousand episodes of star trek and well over a dozen movies. For instance, if you want to have a beachfront house in Los Angeles, but someone else does too, how does that get resolved?
What do most people actually do all day? We see the crew of starships on the show, and they're mostly working their asses off, far away from their loved ones and families, and dying, or coming close to it constantly. People die, or experience fates worse than death a lot in Star Trek. In theory, they're doing this on a completely voluntary basis, without being paid at all. Like... Why?
Is life in all of the federation so painfully boring that facing likely death and isolation is a better option? If people are doing it for excitement, what about all of the tens of thousands of support staff that are scrubbing the plasma exhaust manifolds of starships or whatever (a real task which has to apparently be manually done).
It's also shown that replicators use energy, and a lot of it, because they're creating matter from energy. E=MC2 is very unfavorable towards the E side of the equation, so you need to basically extend the energy of a nuclear bomb to have your morning coffee. This is pretty wasteful and monumentally dangerous, but ignoring that, it's not actually unlimited. The energy has to be rationed in some way. You can't just have someone replicating full sized castles all day and using up the energy output of the sun to do it. How does that get decided?
None of this stuff is covered in Star Trek, so using it as a guide is kinda like the classic communist blueprint of "revolution, then something something something, dictatorship of the proletariat and utopia!"
It describes a fictional world which on paper is great (if you ignore the constant threats of all life on earth/the galaxy/the universe spontaneously ceasing to exist/being slaughtered by warlike aliens/being assimilated into grotesque zombie hiveminds/having their pasts rewritten. It doesn't show a roadmap of how to get there, or even if such a world is possible, or even desirable. It's a TV show written by people with wildly varying skill at writing realistic worlds.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat Link ParentIt's possible, but US doctrine does not have an emphasis on land based mobile launchers for ballistic missiles. The US nuclear triad is based on 1. Ground based silos, 2. Aircraft launched bombs,...It's possible, but US doctrine does not have an emphasis on land based mobile launchers for ballistic missiles.
The US nuclear triad is based on 1. Ground based silos, 2. Aircraft launched bombs, and 3. Submarine launched SLBMs, of which #3 is by far the most survivable and important.
The US doesn't maintain transporter-erector-launchers for their long range missiles like Russia and some other nuclear powers do, so they have no real need or ability to move nuclear missiles through other NATO countries. In fact, the US has no nuclear missiles in Europe at all, just gravity bombs launched from bombers at air bases. There would be no need for the US to move nukes into Finland unless there were plans to move US bombers there, which wouldn't make much sense to do strategically, because it's very close to the front of where a war with Russia would be, and the bombers we're talking about are very long range.
It's much easier, and makes more sense strategically to use one of the many submarines stationed around the area, one of the many US bombers in Germany, Belgium, Italy and a few other places in Europe, or ICBMs from the Continental US to hit Russian targets. I suppose Finland allowing it gives tactical flexibility if required, but it doesn't make sense strategically with a US focused deterrence mindset. It does make sense to enable the use of shorter range tactical nuclear weapons by EU forces, but tactical nuclear weapons by the US are not a significant part of us doctrine, and are all bombs carried by airplanes, which again, have enough range to not need to put them in a vulnerable position so close to the front.
The fact is that increased nuclear proliferation is a direct result of a weakened NATO, but so is Russian audacity. Towards the end of the Cold war there was a reduction in arms because NATO was strong, and every country didn't feel a need to maintain their own stockpile, and it was recognized as much lower risk to have only a few nuclear enabled powers. The USSR was still extremely powerful back then, and still represented an existential threat, but arms reduction worked because there was trust. Now that that trust is gone, we're going to see more and more moves like this, even after the Ukraine war ends.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat Link ParentYes, but the whole reason why European countries feel the need to dramatically increase military spending, increase their domestic stockpiles, and rearm themselves is because they've lost faith in...Yes, but the whole reason why European countries feel the need to dramatically increase military spending, increase their domestic stockpiles, and rearm themselves is because they've lost faith in the US as an ally.
If the strong US support for Ukraine had continued, and if the perception was that NATO was a strong, unified front, it's very possible that there wouldn't be a Ukraine war going on still. The increased proliferation of nuclear arms we're starting to see has Russia as the catalyst, but the US as the real cause. Even without the Russian invasion, the US constantly toying with withdrawal from NATO would have had the same result eventually.
-
Comment on Leak exposes members of Peter Thiel’s secretive ‘dialog’ society in ~society
papasquat Link ParentThey don't control the globe though. There's not a single head of state on that list. Only 2% of the US Senate is on the list. Barely anyone from an EU govenrment is on the list, and no one from...They don't control the globe though. There's not a single head of state on that list. Only 2% of the US Senate is on the list. Barely anyone from an EU govenrment is on the list, and no one from the Russian or Chinese governments.
How could you make the argument that the people in that room control the globe?
Are they influential? Sure, but there are lots of rooms where lots of influential people gather. Most of them aren't public.
"A bunch of influential people regularly meet privately" is a much different claim than "a group of people control the entire world and are in cahoots".
-
Comment on Leak exposes members of Peter Thiel’s secretive ‘dialog’ society in ~society
papasquat Link ParentI mean, this isn't a secret society. There are secret societies, that's a pretty well documented fact, and they have various levels of influence. The whole illuminati thing isn't the same thing as...I mean, this isn't a secret society. There are secret societies, that's a pretty well documented fact, and they have various levels of influence. The whole illuminati thing isn't the same thing as "there are powerful groups of people who don't publically disclose themselves" though.
It's that they control everything. That's the kooky part that is the forrest that a lot of people mistake for the trees when they get into conspiracy theories.
Like yes, there are powerful groups of people that meet in secret and have aligned interests. There are also other powerful groups of people that meet that also have different aligned interests though, and many of those interests are in direct conflict with the first group.
There's no single group that's been pulling the strings behind all governments and corporations of the world, which is what the illuminati conspiracy theory is.
A lot of times people point to the Epstein case or Camp David or Bohemian grove or whatever as proof that there's a secret cabal of elites that all conspire together to engineer world events, and yeah, there truly is some conspiring going on, but there's also a lot of conflict.
Unless you really want to go off the rails and frame every economic and wartime conflict as an eleborate, expensive stage performance for the general public, the illuminati claim falls on its face.
-
Comment on Finland tears up nuclear weapons ban in NATO shift – decision clears way for Helsinki to receive, transport and facilitate movement of nuclear weapons on its territory in ~society
papasquat LinkIt's pretty wild to watch in real time how quickly and directly a single US president can so dramatically increase the likelihood of global nuclear war, but somehow still maintain strong support...It's pretty wild to watch in real time how quickly and directly a single US president can so dramatically increase the likelihood of global nuclear war, but somehow still maintain strong support from his base.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentOne of the things I've learned time and time again is that cool is many times, and maybe even mostly the opposite of good. I love the cyberpunk aesthetic, it's cool as hell. It's not good though,...One of the things I've learned time and time again is that cool is many times, and maybe even mostly the opposite of good. I love the cyberpunk aesthetic, it's cool as hell. It's not good though, as in, it would not be a good asthetic to have in a real life city.
I think some of the big Chinese cities come close, and I've always wanted to visit to test that theory out in real life.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentIt kinda makes me wonder if it's just the time that I grew up, or if we all collectively just started becoming more cynical and distrustful of technology as time went on. In the first half of the...It kinda makes me wonder if it's just the time that I grew up, or if we all collectively just started becoming more cynical and distrustful of technology as time went on.
In the first half of the 20th century, all of the sci-fi I'm familiar with was pretty optimistic about the future. Buck rogers and destination moon and all that stuff. The further along we got, the more cynical our media about the future seems to become.
I honestly cannot think of a movie or tv show released in the past 20 years that depicts the future as a good place to live. Even Star Trek shows released recently depict a future filled with war and distrust and hatred. Maybe it's just rose tinted glasses and there really was always a lot of dystopian sci fi, but it definitely doesn't seem that way to me when I think about it.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentAt this point, I really wish creative people would stop making interesting dystopian sci fi stories. The people in charge of the economy seem way too eager to use them as a roadmap. I love all of...At this point, I really wish creative people would stop making interesting dystopian sci fi stories. The people in charge of the economy seem way too eager to use them as a roadmap.
I love all of the movies you listed, but every tech billionaire does too, and they all apparently missed the fact that they were all cautionary tales, not how-to guides.
Just keep making more Star Trek: The Next Generation please. I don't think I can handle another torment nexus.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentNah, the aesthetic sucks too. It's cool to look at and watch movies about and play games in, but living in any cyberpunk world would monumentally blow, even on just a superficial level. The...Nah, the aesthetic sucks too. It's cool to look at and watch movies about and play games in, but living in any cyberpunk world would monumentally blow, even on just a superficial level. The constant dreary rain, the small hermetically sealed apartments, the bright, loud advertising at all hours of the night, which it somehow always is.
Literally none of that would be appealing to me to live in at all. It would probably make me mentally ill within a few months.
I think flying cars are the only thing from cyberpunk I think would be cool to have in real life, but only if people weren't allowed to manually fly them, because otherwise I'm sure one would crash into my house.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentIS that the tradeoff though? I go outside all the time and see my friends in person at least two or three times a week. I can't imagine how not having a phone would affect that, other than maybe...Would a peasant from the middle ages want a mobile phone if the trade off was rarely ever going outside and seeing your friends in person?
IS that the tradeoff though? I go outside all the time and see my friends in person at least two or three times a week. I can't imagine how not having a phone would affect that, other than maybe making it more difficult to make plans with said friends. I guess you could just choose to not see other people and stay inside on your phone all day, but that's a choice you're making, not something the phone is making you do.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #9: How optimistic are you about the future? (Results) in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentMost human societies in most places are able to adapt to their circumstances no matter what and be generally happy. People find happiness in the middle of wars, in concentration camps, in famines...Most human societies in most places are able to adapt to their circumstances no matter what and be generally happy. People find happiness in the middle of wars, in concentration camps, in famines and all sorts of objectively horrible situations. I'm sure that the people that built Stonehenge weren't miserable, but that's not really a good measure of their actual quality of life.
All things the same, I'd much rather live in a time and place where if I get an infection, I can go to a doctor who tells me exactly what's wrong with me, what the cause is, and then gives me the drugs I need to fix it versus praying to sky god and hoping I don't die.
Yeah, I have to work a job that I don't particularly enjoy, but I only have to do it 8 hours a day, I get to do it in air conditioning sitting down, and I don't have to worry about megafauna deciding that I look like a delicious lunch. I don't really get scared of anything on a day to day basis, in fact, which is pretty damn rare for most of human history.
-
Comment on Access to Fable and Mythos 5 cut off after US government order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentAI can't be "jammed", but it can be controlled. Probably much more easily than GPS can in fact. GPS relies on MEO satellites and relatively simple electronics that can be manufactured en masse for...AI can't be "jammed", but it can be controlled. Probably much more easily than GPS can in fact. GPS relies on MEO satellites and relatively simple electronics that can be manufactured en masse for a couple bucks per unit. You can jam it locally, but jamming an entire country or region would be nearly impossible.
AI on the other hand, requires GPUs, which are the most sophisticated piece of technology humanity has ever mass manufactured. The high end units that frontier AI models require are manufactured only in a few places in the world, using advanced equipment that only a few people know how to operate, which are manufacturered by literally one company.
If you cut off GPU supplies to a company or country, they can no longer do AI at any meaningful scale. They could smuggle some GPUs in, but not enough to be useful. Even if they do get some in, they're quickly made obsolete, and they fail frequently at the duty cycles they're used in. You need a constant stream of cutting edge GPUs to have an AI industry, and I don't really see that changing soon.
If we wanted to virtually stop all AI globally, we could do so by sabotaging around 400 EUV lithography machines. It's a ridiculously fragile industry compared to how insanely profitable it is.
-
Comment on Access to Fable and Mythos 5 cut off after US government order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentI don't think it's necessarily manager v manager or eliminating white collar labor. At a manager level, they just want their team to perform more/better work without having to justify more...I don't think it's necessarily manager v manager or eliminating white collar labor. At a manager level, they just want their team to perform more/better work without having to justify more headcount. They don't actually want to reduce the size of their teams.
I think overall, that's probably the goal at most companies. Do more work with the same amount of people, rather than do the same amount of work with fewer people. That obviously only works when things are going well for the company though.
Overall, the reason AI is so popular is that promise. Get more work done, require fewer people to do it. Same reason forklifts got popular, or CNC machines, or phones or basically any other technology that businesses use. I think "reduce labor" is probably more accurate than "eliminate labor".
-
Comment on Access to Fable and Mythos 5 cut off after US government order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentWell, because both Uber and Lyft need to constantly develop software. Bugs are found, APIs change, features are added. If it takes both Uber and Lyft, say, 300 developers to do all of that work,...Well, because both Uber and Lyft need to constantly develop software. Bugs are found, APIs change, features are added. If it takes both Uber and Lyft, say, 300 developers to do all of that work, and you're paying them $100k a year, they're paying $30m a year in developer salaries. If Lyft can figure out a way to do that same work with 150 developers + AI, they've saved a ton of money, which means they can afford to take less of a cut of what a ride costs, which means they can charge lower prices, and people will get the option to take a Lyft, or a more expensive Uber, and they'll start eating up Ubers market share.
That's the concept anyway. It's debatable about whether that would actually happen, but the point is that both compares are afraid it might, hence the arms race.
-
Comment on Caught the cycling bug. Anyone else? in ~hobbies
papasquat LinkI suck ass at riding a bicycle. It's one of those things that I've been meaning to get better at, and it's pretty amazing how bad I am at it. I do HIIT, and I can run for miles, row for a long...I suck ass at riding a bicycle. It's one of those things that I've been meaning to get better at, and it's pretty amazing how bad I am at it.
I do HIIT, and I can run for miles, row for a long term on an erg, do burpees well, you name it. I'm not a cardio beast or anything, but I can hang in there. When it comes to biking though? Five minutes at a decent pace and I'm done.
I don't know why I'm so horrifically bad at it, but I have been all my life. I'd like to get into cycling at one point just to see if there's something about my physiology that makes me terrible at it or if it's something I can overcome with practice and conditioning.
-
Comment on What’s something that didn’t work for you? in ~talk
papasquat Link ParentOh man, I just saw this one and I have maybe the exact opposite travel style. My sister is similar to you though, and I'll never travel with her again because of it. We've gone to a few places and...Oh man, I just saw this one and I have maybe the exact opposite travel style. My sister is similar to you though, and I'll never travel with her again because of it. We've gone to a few places and she always has a very strict itinerary she has to meet, a tight timetable, and if anything goes wrong to impact any of those things, it throws the entire day off. I don't really like that level of stress on vacation, but what I've found that really puts me off of traveling that way is the lack of spontaneous discovery.
When we traveled together, sometimes I would learn something either by reading a sign, or talking to a local, and it seems unique and interesting. We never had any time to do that stuff, and I always felt like I missed out, because my sister always wanted to do her itinerary which consisted of the "main thing to do" at that place. Personally, I don't really care about seeing the Eifel tower or the pyramids of giza or the acropolis, because I've seen all of those things on postcards or pictures or tv shows a million times. Every time I do eventually see one of them, I'm like "yep, that's the Eifel tower alright".
The weird underground restaurants or night clubs or markets are the things you never really hear about and are the interesting part of traveling to me.
To each their own, but I've definitely noticed that when it comes to travel, the preference to meticulously plan versus discover on a whim is the most important spectrum to consider when choosing travel partners.
I went on a multi week central Europe trip a few years back with a friend of mine with a backpack of clothes, a vague idea of where we'd be staying and that's about it. It was such an amazing trip and I just know I would have hated it if I went with my sister.
-
Comment on US battery industry cuts losses, shifts to new ventures amid electric vehicle bust in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentBy a third the price, I mean versus the kinds of vehicles that are by far most frequently sold here; trucks and SUVs, which tend to be much more expensive than the types of vehicles Chinese...By a third the price, I mean versus the kinds of vehicles that are by far most frequently sold here; trucks and SUVs, which tend to be much more expensive than the types of vehicles Chinese manufacturers make.
It's a compelling argument for a lot of Americans to spend a bunch of extra money to buy a massive SUV versus a hatchback. I don't know if it would still be as compelling if the gap was even wider due to cheap Chinese EVs.
I see so much worrying and pearl clutching and hand wringing about this online. I understand that we have economic systems that necissitate the young drive the economy for the old, and that a disruption of that would be very uncomfortable, but what truly is the long term concern? Are people concerned that this trend will continue forever, and our population will half, then half again, and so on until we have only a few thousand people left?
It seems to me that the problem is going to self correct after some time. I mean, when you look at most parts of the world, and just walk around, you're struck by how many fucking people there are everywhere.
That's gotta do something to your reproductive drive on a base, subconscious level. Like, if I compare how I feel when I think about living in a cramped city surrounded by millions of people versus how I feel when I think about living in a remote homestead cabin surrounded by thousands of acres of wilderness, one of them makes me want to have kids on a visceral level versus the other.
It seems to me that if you zoom out past women's rights, birth control, economic concerns, and so on, in just about every western country, we have more people around than ever before, and that may just blunt people's drive to contribute to more of it. I have a strong suspicion that once we start seeing fewer people around, that drive comes back and we eventually settle on an equilibrium.
It's much better than the alternative of endlessly breeding ourselves out of the possibility of a decent life.