The thing about adopting the “live and let live” philosophy with children is that children are psychologically incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, or exercising proper impulse control. If their parents have failed them then it is the moral obligation of the rest of society to make up for it.
What are you trying to achieve with this pointless aggression?
Some people in the tech community just seem to have this weird superiority complex for some reason. They think they’re smarter than everyone else and look down on the normies, meaning they come off… Like this guy. It’s like they put all of their skill points into INT and none of them into WIS.
I was a high schooler last year and by this standard, every single one of my classmates’ parents are complete failures, including mine. Not that I disagree, but clearly we can’t trust the parents to do anything about this.
“Then who’s vice-president, Jerry Lewis?”
Everything in moderation as long as it isn’t straight up poisonous.
Legalese is actually a good thing because it covers every possible situation and reduces the number of loopholes. We have people like LegalEagle to break shit down for us into plain English. If we write the laws themselves in plain English then corporate lawyers will argue, successfully, that there’s a loophole that lets them violate the spirit of the law, or the government will apply the law in situations where it wasn’t meant to be applied in order to fuck over innocent people.
It’s not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.
This is true, and it is true that the standards change depending on what type of society you’re in. For example, in pastoralist societies women went after men who were strong and displayed risk-taking behavior because that kind of behavior is what got you ahead in a pastoralist society, while in parts of Asia, some genes which are known to correlate with ADHD (commonly known to cause greater impulsivity and risk taking behavior) are exceedingly rare because rice cultivating societies do not mesh well with impulsive risk-takers, so those people just never got laid.
That being said, I don’t believe the rate of biological adaptation as a result of sexual selection was ever really fast enough for modern humans to qualify as truly adapted for the societies they lived in. All the stuff we just talked about above is barely just the beginning of the adaptations we’d need to be suited for an agricultural society, let alone an industrial or digital one. The main adaptations were in the form of social constructs like etiquette and religion, as well as technologies designed to make things more comfortable, and of course, drugs, all of which made people more easily capable of coping with their unnatural habitats.
short snouts are dumb
we in agreement here
Also I’m glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It’s a world of difference from Reddit.
Depends on which community, the politics community on whichever instance it was is just as not worth using as it was on Reddit
The former, by definition, because the vast majority of society does the latter. Extremists always try to reframe themselves as the moderate ones and say mainstream society are the extremists instead, so I’m not surprised you’re saying this.
We should have that in America
Achsjullllyallyyyyiu, humans also do a form of Selective breeding voluntarily and it’s why families that tend to live in a more rural farming type communities tend to naturally be larger. We breed for what our families job is going to be.
This is not really what I’m talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they’ll protect your livestock
All I’m saying is the Human race is very adaptable and we have changed a lot since drawing on cave walls.
Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.
Achsjulllyally, dogs and cats changed quickly on account of selective breeding. Natural selection, especially in cases where flaws in biology won’t immediately lead to someone losing reproductive fitness, operates on much longer timespans.
Ackshyually, we’ve had millions of years to get used to fire, about 200,000 to get used to being sentient, 20,000 to get used to agriculture, about 150 to get used to industrial society, and about 30 to get used to computers. We have just barely figured out how to cope with knowledge of our own deaths by making up supernatural stuff about it and we have not gotten used to any of that other stuff at all.
So when flowers rub their gametes on passing animals in the hopes that those animals transmit them to other flowers, it’s fine, but when I do it, everyone loses their minds???
Why would you specifically use the sentient robots for your grunt work and why would an artificial intelligence have problems with the same things humans do? Especially if an AI was made for the specific purpose of doing work. The reason humans don’t like doing work is because evolution naturally selected for us to be good at things like
-hunting gazelles
-gathering berries
-making finger paintings on cave walls
-sitting around a campfire making ape noises
and not working at a corporation. For an AI, it’d presumably be the opposite, meaning that AIs would be about as content with their lives as humans are in their natural environment.
r/Imaginarymaps.
Idk I just heard that apparently knowing how to use file explorer is considered impressive in modern CS classes
gen z, hate that trillion dollar corporations run our social media.
This isn’t even an issue for me so long as those trillion dollar corporations let me use social media the way I want to. I can just download an ad blocker and stay off the more garbage parts of their websites. The reason why I like the Fediverse is not because trillion dollar corporations don’t have a stake in it, because let’s be real, money was always gonna be involved. The reason why I like it is because I will most likely be insulated from the effects of enshittification and corporate incompetence on company-run instances. Even if the instance I’m on gets enshittified, it won’t be that difficult for me to just move to another instance, especially once the Fediverse matures and we get things like account migration, or even account federation, if I wanna keep one foot in both instances. Same for whatever community I’m involved with. Plus the fact that I can just block any community who’s users I don’t like means my experience will be way less toxic than it would be on Twitter, where avoiding toxicity requires a lot of effort. That’s one of the things I liked about Reddit, the structure kept the toxic people in their own little bubble and I was able to ignore their existence if I stayed off mainstream subreddits.
TL;DR: It ain’t about the money (or lack thereof), it’s about the potential for a better service.
I’m Gen Z, don’t use Linux, don’t know the first thing about programming (I know how to use file explorer though), and never intend to learn, and I’m here because I don’t wanna use the official Reddit app and because I’m convinced that the Fediverse is likely to become big in the future and I wanna be able to say I was here when it all began.
High school aged children are well known to be complete and utter dumbasses, especially when it comes to making mistakes who’s consequences are abstract and long-term in nature. Punishment by social superiors is oftentimes the only thing preventing them from doing idiotic things, because their brains are not developed enough to think very far into the future. And even then, proper impulse control is one of the last things a developing brain develops, so they might understand the issues but be psychologically incapable of the self-control needed for it. Not to mention, social media apps are designed by psychology experts in Silicon Valley to be as addictive and distracting as possible, since that’s how you get people to use your app. Having those in your pocket, when you’re too young and dumb to understand the consequences of overusing it, and can’t even exercise self control when they’re pointed out to you? It would be irresponsible for us adults to continue allowing it.
Parents aren’t worried about this, and that’s the root of the problem. If the school system does nothing about it, then the kids will just end up addicted to TikTok and completely unprepared for the world on account of being distracted in class. Their parents aren’t going to do anything about it until it’s too late.