papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on Kings of the losers in ~life
-
Comment on Has anyone else seen a LOT of dead birds on the side of the road this year? in ~enviro
papasquat Link ParentTo be fair, you are asking an extremely local question. It's very unlikely that there's some global event going on that would cause birds to die at a rate so much more dramatically that you'd...To be fair, you are asking an extremely local question. It's very unlikely that there's some global event going on that would cause birds to die at a rate so much more dramatically that you'd notice it this year.
It's definitely possible that there's something environmental going on near where you live, like pollution, or altered migration patterns, or disease, but for something to affect all of the worlds birds so much that people across the world notice, it would have other, way more catastrophic symptoms that people would also notice
-
Comment on Do we want to stop all crime? in ~society
papasquat Link ParentMore severe punishments might not deter crime directly, but I don't think it's possible that punishment itself doesn't deter crime at all. Also, incarceration isn't the only punishment for crimes....More severe punishments might not deter crime directly, but I don't think it's possible that punishment itself doesn't deter crime at all. Also, incarceration isn't the only punishment for crimes. Fines, community service, and probation are all punishments too. I mean, even the process of actually being arrested is a punishment, because it's hugely disruptive to your life and embarrassing.
Like if Walmart had a policy where you shouldn't steal, and stealing was illegal, but if they found out you were stealing, they couldn't actually do anything about it, why would anyone pay for anything at Walmart again, other than feeling that they should? I'll grant that some amount of people would continue to pay for things just because it feels morally wrong not to, but would most people?
I can say from firsthand experience working as a waiter who primarily lived on tips, if there's no punishment for not paying for something, a lot of people just won't. On a given shift where I had maybe 30 tables, I'd say 5 or so of them would stiff me. I think that's a pretty close comparison.
-
Comment on Tildes Survey #8: What is your favorite video game? in ~talk
papasquat LinkIt's gotta be Homeworld for me. I'm not even a massive RTS guy. The most RTS gaming I ever did was a bit of laddering on StarCraft 2 when it came out for about six months. I don't mind the genre,...It's gotta be Homeworld for me. I'm not even a massive RTS guy. The most RTS gaming I ever did was a bit of laddering on StarCraft 2 when it came out for about six months.
I don't mind the genre, but 1v1 is some of the most stressful gameplay in the world for me, and I'm really quite bad at multitasking, so it's not something I'm particularly great at.
Particularly, RTS campaigns really tend to bore me. Their stories are usually just "you're a commander fighting this war", and the levels feel mostly contrived and handicapped for no reason (oh, you know that huge army you built on the last mission? Yeah, it's gone. You're now one guy and a few other disposable guys trying to infiltrate a base for some reason.)
Homeworld managed to convey one of the most emotional, powerful stories in a game I've ever played, and it did it without showing a single human face.
For those that don't know, the game is about a fledgling race taking their first steps from a desert world, who slowly realize that they're not actually native to that world, and find evidence of where their actual origin is. The issue is that it's across the galaxy. Luckily they also find an ancient hyperdrive, so they jumpstart their entire world economy over decades to launch the greatest expedition they've ever attempted, sending 200,000 people to find their Homeworld. Diaster ensues en route, and the success of their expedition becomes much more important.
One of the great things about the game that I wish more RTS campaigns did, is that you play as a ragtag fleet. There's no "high command", there's no backup, there's no other theaters of this war. It's just your fleet, your journey, and what you can build, salvage and research on the way.
Importantly, that means that the army you finished one mission with is the army you start the next mission with. This can massively throw off the balance of the game. If you're obsessive and salvage enemy ships and strip mine the whole level, you'll have a huge fleet that snowballs into huger fleets. The enemy fleets adapt to that, but it still makes the game easy, which I actually appreciate, because it makes it feel like the choices you make matter.
The gameplay is so satisfying, the score is so emotionally powerful, the voice acting conveys so much in a clipped, military manner.
I love the game so much, and still play through the campaign every few years. It may be the only game that ever made me cry.
-
Comment on Do we want to stop all crime? in ~society
papasquat Link ParentKind of a fallacy there, isn't it? Punishment doesn't have to stop all crime for it to be effective. It just has to stop some of it. Haven't really done any research about it, but the fact that...Kind of a fallacy there, isn't it? Punishment doesn't have to stop all crime for it to be effective. It just has to stop some of it. Haven't really done any research about it, but the fact that you might go to jail seems like it would at least deter some amount of people from walking out of best buy with a new phone they didn't pay for.
-
Comment on Have you tried Pewdiepies' self-hosted AI workspace, Odysseus? in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentI agree with you, but to me, that's an argument against using vibe coded software at all, not just against using vibe coded software that you personally created. When I say vibe coding, what I...I agree with you, but to me, that's an argument against using vibe coded software at all, not just against using vibe coded software that you personally created.
When I say vibe coding, what I mean is code that the human "producing it" doesn't understand. I fully see the value and use case for AI code assistants. I even see the value in vibe coding small one off applications. What I don't see the value in is paying for, or even using for free, someone else's vibe coded output.
-
Comment on Have you tried Pewdiepies' self-hosted AI workspace, Odysseus? in ~tech
papasquat LinkMy take on these vibe coded AI tools is that maybe they're useful to some people, but honestly if I had a real need for something like this, I'd just vibe-code it myself. If we're at the point...My take on these vibe coded AI tools is that maybe they're useful to some people, but honestly if I had a real need for something like this, I'd just vibe-code it myself. If we're at the point where YouTubers without actual technical backgrounds are releasing open source AI tools, the barrier to entry is so low that theres really no reason not to just do it yourself.
It's part of what I don't think people grasp about the big picture implications of all of these ai tools and startups built around them. If the entire prospect is that LLMs are good enough that you don't ever have to think about code again, why would you ever engage with some 3rd party tool or product. Code is fundementally worthless at that point, and paying for, or even downloading for free someone else's AI generated code makes as much sense as paying someone to transcribe your messages, or perform Google searches on your behalf.
-
Comment on My partner says our relationship has always felt suffocating, but she does not know what she wants. What would you do? in ~life
papasquat LinkMy take is that long term relationships are hard. They require constant work, because two people inevitably change and grow, and learning how to incorporate those changes into your dynamic is...My take is that long term relationships are hard. They require constant work, because two people inevitably change and grow, and learning how to incorporate those changes into your dynamic is difficult and takes active effort. However, they generally shouldn't start out hard. The reason long term relationships work out is that you have a strong base to build on. When you first meet a partner, ideally, it's not difficult at all. Being apart from them is difficult, but you're compatible enough, and infatuated enough that when you're together, there's no problems at all. In most good relationships I've been in, this phase lasts 6-12 months minimum. After that, you start fully understanding each other on a more realistic basis, and you need to start actually working to accommodate one another, but beforehand, none of that really comes into play.
To me, it sounds like you never really had that strong base. You liked each other, but you were never really fully compatible. It seems like it would be extremely difficult to have anything work out long term without that foundation existing.
It sounds like you know that you need to move on for both of your sakes. Life's too short to be stressed out about your relationship all the time if you're not actually getting anything out of it. Go be single. Being single is awesome. Enjoy the feeling of being able to do whatever you want whenever you want with your free time without having to worry about someone else, and let her find the same joy.
-
Comment on The big little penis panic in ~life.men
papasquat Link ParentI think that would be pretty solid advice with some more nuance, and it's advice that women often get. "Men should stop being assholes" isn't advice, because its not actionable by the person...I think that would be pretty solid advice with some more nuance, and it's advice that women often get.
"Men should stop being assholes" isn't advice, because its not actionable by the person receiving it. The only actual, useful advice in any situation, are suggestions of what you can do differently.
-
Comment on Do we want to stop all crime? in ~society
papasquat Link ParentI think it actually is quite applicable to the real world, even though the scenario itself is obviously unrealistic and impossible. The thought that led me down the road of pondering this in the...I think it actually is quite applicable to the real world, even though the scenario itself is obviously unrealistic and impossible. The thought that led me down the road of pondering this in the first place are proposals in my city for instituting some new surveillance technology (flock cameras, and some drone as first responder stuff).
A lot of the arguments against those technologies focus on all the harm they cause if they're misused, or exploited. But it made me think that even if they weren't, would they still even be desirable? Would we even want a perfect version of them?
Usually when there's a proposal for something, opposition is focused on the negative side effects that maybe haven't been considered. The noise a new train line makes, or the crime that a casino being built would bring. The benefits that the people who are bringing the proposal are touting are usually universally good things, and if the idea was perfect, everyone would support them. It's the implimentation that's the problem. I was wondering this is truly the case with police surveillance technology though.
I saw this in my city a few years ago as a microcosm. They put red light cameras at a lot of stop lights. In theory, it's a good idea. It just mails you a ticket when you run a red light. They're pretty accurate, they have a recording of the incident so it can be reviewed and appealed if there's a problem. Everyone, including myself, hated them. They were deactivated after a few years. Why? I don't really know. If I'm honest with myself, I want to be able to run red lights sometimes I guess, and I want other people to be able to run them too sometimes? I don't know, it's a weird idea, but in that case, I want crime to be possible on some level.
It made me think about the idea more broadly, because if most people truly do want a little bit of crime, isn't there a good chance we may be over investing in law enforcement? Or at least, investing incorrectly?
I never see this argument being made, most probably because it would be political suicide, but maybe also because it's not something a lot of people considered.
-
Comment on The big little penis panic in ~life.men
papasquat Link ParentYou are a man, so I assume that's why she gave advice that puts the responsibility on the man in this scenario. You don't have control over what other people do, you only have control over how you...You are a man, so I assume that's why she gave advice that puts the responsibility on the man in this scenario.
You don't have control over what other people do, you only have control over how you react. Because of that, advice is always going to put responsibility on the person that's being advised. It doesn't make sense for someone to say "this is what those women should do", because those women aren't reading the post.
-
Comment on The big little penis panic in ~life.men
papasquat Link ParentHonestly, I hate to say it, but that whole feeling you have of women not being held responsible for anything is also due to patriarchy. I fully agree with your stance that the whole equality thing...Honestly, I hate to say it, but that whole feeling you have of women not being held responsible for anything is also due to patriarchy. I fully agree with your stance that the whole equality thing has been weaponized by some people, some of them women, to totally absolve them of shitty things they do. At its core though, the idea that women are innocent angels that can do no wrong is a sexist prejudice perpetuated by patriarchal ideas about female purity.
As far as being part of a privileged class, well, I think that's entirely misinterpreted as well, and at this point the concept may also be doing more harm than good in the general public. In theory, it makes sense. It's the idea that based on this one aspect, if all other things about two people were entirely equal, the one who is part of the privileged class has more overall power in society. There are obviously already problems there (how do you define and measure power, for instance?), but the idea is sound. The problem comes in when people misinterpret that idea to mean "if you're part of a privileged class, your life is better than anyone who isn't" which is obviously complete bullshit.
The white guy begging for money on the corner every day is very obviously less privileged than Beyonce.
Overall though, I think I'd say that you may want to reframe how you think about men and women and stop thinking about them as unified blocs, and instead as individuals, because every man and every woman's view are unique on everything, including gender dynamics.
Try not to associate with people who buy into the gender war paradigm, whether they're men or women, because regardless of their true intentions, they're really not making things better for anyone, and it really leads down a dark rabbit hole.
-
Comment on What do you think about Destiny 2’s imminent death and games as a service? in ~games
papasquat LinkI generally dislike games as a service in general. Even divorced of the shady business practices that seem to be common in the genre, it starts feeling like a chore to me. I like games that...I generally dislike games as a service in general. Even divorced of the shady business practices that seem to be common in the genre, it starts feeling like a chore to me.
I like games that release basically content complete. There's a fixed chunk of content and mechanics I learn as I progress through the game, and I can choose to master those mechanics as long as it remains fun for me. If I want more content, if there's a modding community, I can install mods.
I don't like live service games that add new content every six months that I have to read patch notes for if I want to continue understanding how the game works. I don't like taking a few month break and coming back to a fundemnrtally different game, or reminiscing about the good ol days when the game worked like x or y. I don't want to have to care about "the meta".
I think when you compare something like destiny or overwatch to something like Counter-Strike, it's pretty clear that a lot of people feel the same way.
Valve has added live servicey aspects to counter strike, like skins and whatnot, but they've resisted the urge to turn it into a flavor of the month style full blown live service game.
Counter strike 2 is largely the same game that I played in middle-school 27 years ago. AK is a one tap headshot, M4 isn't, save round after you lose pistol round, fake the defuse if the bomb is in smoke, etc etc.
Slight things like level design, weapon balance, graphics, sound design and so on have changed, but after not having played counter strike for 2 years, I'm confident that I could boot it up right now and know exactly what's going on.
Hell, you could give 14 year old me a copy of counter strike 2 and after the initial shock of being amazed by the graphics and matchmaking (I can scrim whenever I want, and I don't need to boot up IRC????) I'd feel right at home.
Big game companies seem to just focus on that endless live service faucet now, instead of producing more, smaller games that have a defined end time where they're considered content complete.
-
Comment on Who’s buying SpaceX and Anthropic? in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentYeah, but the problem is that everyone else thinks those things too. In order to make money on them, you need an edge, and everyone and their mom already thinks that these are two of the most...Yeah, but the problem is that everyone else thinks those things too. In order to make money on them, you need an edge, and everyone and their mom already thinks that these are two of the most valuable companies the world has ever seen. That's built into their price.
-
Comment on Do we want to stop all crime? in ~society
papasquat (edited )Link ParentIt's obviously even logically impossible for a society to work this way, because it's impossible to get any group of people to completely agree what should and should not be a crime. But in your...It's obviously even logically impossible for a society to work this way, because it's impossible to get any group of people to completely agree what should and should not be a crime.
But in your questions, for the purposes of this experiment, the laws are according to your own personal sense of ethics, and the laws are instantly enforced. So if someone cuts you off on the road (and that's illegal in this world), they're instantly caught. Similarly, if adultery is legal (again, that depends on if you think it should be according to your own set of ethics), the system doesn't eliminate your passionate response, but if that response is murder/assault, you're instantly caught the moment after you do it.
Edit: I realized the topic said stop all crime, but in my head what I was imagining was really punish all crime. Stop all crime is basically just the plot of minority report and it's pretty obvious why punishing someone for something they haven't done yet is unethical, so I think it's a little more interesting to think about being able to detect, prove, and punish all crime after it occurs.
-
Comment on Do we want to stop all crime? in ~society
papasquat Link ParentLet's say that the laws of this society align perfectly with your own personal set of ethics. Even with that caveat, I think I would want some small amount of people to be able to get away with...Let's say that the laws of this society align perfectly with your own personal set of ethics.
Even with that caveat, I think I would want some small amount of people to be able to get away with things.
I thought about unjust laws, resistance to autocratic governments and so on, but if I'm honest with myself, even if I handwaved those problems away in my thought experiment, I'd want there to be a slight chance of being able to, say, steal a car. I don't know really why though. -
Do we want to stop all crime?
I was driving just now, and having a thought experiment with myself. I'll preface this that I have virtually no philosophy background, so if this is endlessly retreaded material, forgive me in...
I was driving just now, and having a thought experiment with myself.
I'll preface this that I have virtually no philosophy background, so if this is endlessly retreaded material, forgive me in advance.
With all of the talk about AI enabled security cameras, drone surveillance, digital fingerprinting and other technologies of the last few years, this topic has been top of mind for me. These technologies are being sold primarily with the goal of stopping crime, and improving public safety. There are obviously tons of issues with all of these technologies regarding bias, privacy, and so on, but I wanted to distill their pitch down to first principles, that is: is it even desirable to live in a world with perfect law enforcement?
Come with me on a magical thought experiment, and put aside real world law enforcement concerns like racism, invasive surveillance, weaponization, and all of the other problems with police for a moment.
Imagine we lived in a world where if someone committed a crime, they were instantly caught, a speedy trial was given to them, and they were quickly punished. This world does not surveil people who are not committing crimes. It doesn't get the wrong perp ever. It doesn't use excessive force to apprehend them. It doesn't selectively enforce laws against people it doesn't like.
It's as perfect of a law enforcement apperatus as we can possibly imagine. It's the fantasy that all of these security vendors and tech bros are trying to sell to us. Imagine that world is not only possible, but real.
Even with all of those caveats, would that desirable?
There's something to me that still feels dystopian about not being able to get away with crime under any circumstances.
Is it possible that we all have this quiet compulsion and drive inside us that we think that some amount of crime is desirable in society? Do we secretly want the option of doing crime and getting away with it if the need arises?
I can't quite pin down why I want crime to still exist at some low, simmering level, but I also can't ignore the fact that I do, and that when I imagine an entirely crime free society, it feels oppressive and stifling in my head, even though in this thought experiment, it's as perfect as can be. I think I'd probably feel differently if I had ever been the victim of some horrible crime, maybe? But I have been robbed, hit and run, and so on, and I still feel this way, so maybe not.
Has anyone else had a good think about this? Anyone else feel similar? Any possible explanations?
32 votes -
Comment on How has inflation changed your quality of life? in ~finance
papasquat Link ParentI used to think this. I'm a big Iain Banks fan, and in the culture books this is how society is governed. Shame based justice, more or less. Lately, I've noticed that there are a lot of people out...the societal pressure of a council and everyone else's disapproval, and the perception of harming others as not just "illegal" but "taboo" can do as much as police
I used to think this. I'm a big Iain Banks fan, and in the culture books this is how society is governed. Shame based justice, more or less.
Lately, I've noticed that there are a lot of people out there that will blatantly and openly screw other people over and not even try to hide it. They're just completely immune to being ashamed of the harm they cause other people. Shock based influencer types, crypto/nft/AI grifter bros, the president.
I'm pretty convinced that you need strong, codified laws, and people with guns to enforce them nowadays. Even though 99.9999% of people are generally good and won't actively screw other people over, that last remainder sure can fuck a place up.
-
Comment on The big little penis panic in ~life.men
papasquat Link ParentMay be different in other countries, but I never got naked in front of other people until I joined the military. We changed in school for gym, but we generally didn't change our underwear. The...May be different in other countries, but I never got naked in front of other people until I joined the military. We changed in school for gym, but we generally didn't change our underwear.
The military is a different story, and after 20 years, I'm pretty confident I've seen more dicks than anyone I know. It's gotta be thousands or more at this point. Very early on I found out that I was quite average, and any fear in that area quickly went away.
The real question is what would I do if I wasn't though? If I was truly way smaller than every other guy in the barracks or locker room, how do you deal with that, in a society that makes it out to be one of the most important aspects of being a man?
I shudder to think about it, to be honest.
-
Comment on The big little penis panic in ~life.men
papasquat (edited )Link ParentWomen aren't a collective consciousness, just like men aren't. Blaming "women" or "men" for any manner of things wrong with society doesn't make any sense, because there are men that contribute to...Women aren't a collective consciousness, just like men aren't. Blaming "women" or "men" for any manner of things wrong with society doesn't make any sense, because there are men that contribute to the problem, just as there are women that contribute to the problem as well. Women as a whole aren't responsible for body shaming men, just as men as a whole aren't responsible for sexism against women. Certain men and certain women contribute to both of these problems to varying degrees.
Part of what I can't stand about this gender war nonsense is how reductive and oversimplified it is. I don't think it's ok to make fun of men's height, or women's weight, or men's penis size, or women's vulva shape, and both women and men do both of these things, but they shouldn't. I mean, even in your story, it was other men objectifying you, not women. I've heard many guys call other men little dicked as an insult, I'm sure you have too.
I do agree with you though, and all of what I said kinda goes along with that, that it's not fair that cis men are punching bags that are supposed to be ok with whatever you say about them because they have privilege. Cis men aren't the patriarchy, they're not sexism, they're not homophobia. There are women who enforce the patriarchy, there are sexist women, and there are homophobic gay people. They're society wide problems, so it doesn't make sense to single out one group as responsible for all of them, especially when the groundwork for those problems was laid down generations before any of us were ever born.
One of the annoying things about the mainstream response to incels is the knee-jeek reaction to refute everything they believe in with the exact opposite point of view.
I think "black pill" and incel logic came as a reactionary view towards the sort of feel good, soft nonsense advice and messages that people give to each other during their formative years.
Namely, I'm talking about things like "just be yourself", and "it's what's inside that counts" or "don't worry, you'll find your soul mate".
If someone is unattractive to women and spends all of their time watching anime, no, just being themselves will not find them a girlfriend. Yes, what's inside counts, but what's outside counts too. Physical attraction is almost always the basis of romantic relationships. And soul mates aren't real, but even if they were, some people will obviously never find them.
These are uncomfortable truths, but they are truths. Telling kids feel good nonsense about how relationships work makes them feel completely betrayed when they find out how the real world works.
That doesn't validate the black pill ideology, but it does mean that there's a pinch of truth there.
If one wants to find a romantic partner, the best thing to do is to make yourself as physically and mentally attractive as you can, within reason, change your hobbies to things that puts you around the opposite sex often, and actively look to date.
"Just be yourself" is nonsense advice, that doesn't mean anything. It makes sense to tell someone if they're just lying to people about their achievements and their personality, but don't tell a nerd that spends all day playing video games that. Being themselves hasn't gotten them what they want.
Where incels get it wrong is that they think that women don't face similar struggles as they do. Sure, if all things were equal, and your average woman wanted to have no strings attached, one night stands, they'd prefer to do it with the tall guy with chiseled abs and a perfect jawline, just like the incel boy would prefer to do it with the supermodel with perfect skin and huge boobs. The average woman and man aren't sleeping with or dating people like that though.
Most men and women want to be in relationships with people similar to them who they're attracted to, that's it.
If your only goal in life is to have sex with the most, hottest women you possibly can, then yeah, you should probably strive to be as tall as possible, as muscular as possible, with perfect teeth and hair and with a cool, active lifestyle. If that's your goal though, you should probably take a step back and examine why though. It wouldn't be a very fulfilling life.