My dog was doing well until a "trained" dog, off the leash, attacked her. Wounded face, badly bruised ribs.
Then, about a year later, a "trained" dog, off the leash, ran up to her and went to sniff her, she took it as a threat, and another fight happened. No blood this time, but still.
Then about a year later... a "trained" dog, off the leash... same fucking story.
10 years later, I am more vigilant and proactive. If another "trained" dog is around (telltale because of the lackadaisical behavior of the owners), I get my dog right up to heel on the other side of my body and get ready.
At least 10 times over those 10 years, I have a dog running at my dog with an owner just standing there yelling "don't worry, they're nice!", me replying "MINE ISNT", and then them jogging leisurely over while I am hunched over trying to keep the 2 apart.
I dont care how well you think you've trained your dog, be a responsible owner. If it isn't your home (front yard NOT included) or a dog park, leash. Also, don't approach a dog you don't know. You don't know their history. Be aware of your surroundings and pick a route that keeps your dog leash distance from the other dog.
This “Don’t worry he’s nice” shit is pretty irresponsible imo. Ignoring the fact that animals are still unpredictable regardless of their track record, people can sometimes have real trauma with dogs and letting your dog just trot up to people willy nilly could really upset someone. Also something could happen to the “nice” dog if the person or other animal isn’t nice and frankly the owner of the nice dog would have only themselves to blame.
2 dogs have been injured by my dog for it and I just can't blame my dog.
Felt bad for a while and then just couldnt justify it anymore.
And let me be clear, we have had friends dogs over to the house, done controlled introductions and it has been fine. Took her to a kennel one time when we went on a trip and no fights reported because it was a professional staff and a controlled environment.
However, when a strange dog runs up and puts a nose in her butt without pause, she starts biting.
That first time she didn't have her guard up and got seriously injured stayed with her. Simple as that and I can't blame her.
Because misguidance is easy, natural forces are disruptive, and this thing we call mental health is fragile and twisty, total satisfaction will never be possible. The next best thing to do is to prepare, and that helps at least half of things. Fortunately victory typically favors the wise if no gimmicks are used.
People whose ability to back themselves hold water compared to their opponents. But the “without gimmicks” part is key. Of course you’re going to have people who win because they cheated everyone or stumbled upon the keys to victory by chance. Hence the first part.
I’d like to think there’s a way to keep shitty people out of power and concentration of resources to a minimum, but unfortunately, that conflicts with human nature.
The people who have power are generally the type of people who want power over other people. We haven’t solved the problem of preventing sociopaths and psychopaths from becoming powerful yet, and it’s hard to believe that society will ever solve that problem, since sociopaths and psychopaths will always exist. People who care about others generally aren’t the type of people who seek power.
Even if, for example, we have a proletariat state, people who seek power will find a way to gain power. For example, if it’s a direct democracy without representatives, propaganda will be a very useful tool. If it’s a communist government with centralized planning, there will be a way to control the centralized planning. We already know how representative democracies can fall since we’re living it. With social democracies, capitalism still exists, so that’s pretty easy to exploit and revert back to straight capitalism.
We haven’t solved the problem of preventing sociopaths and psychopaths from becoming powerful yet, and it’s hard to believe that society will ever solve that problem, since sociopaths and psychopaths will always exist.
Yes, and it even works the other way around - we are choosing our leaders and we are choosing craziest ones. That is how group dynamic is working like, according to Bion:
And perhaps one of the most important findings in his experiments was that whenever a group is formed, it always seeks a leader to follow. The group then searches for someone who has questionable attributes with his or her mental health. Initially, the group will search for someone who is paranoid schizophrenic or someone who is malignant hysteric. If the group is unable to find someone with those attributes, the group looks for someone with delinquent trends and a psychopathic personality. Otherwise, the group would just settle on the verbally facile high-grade defective.
You might find his “Experiences in groups” quite interesting.
There is nothing new under the sun...we are the same monkeys that we have always been. Technology / circumstances have changed though, somewhat. Nature + Nurture, with the former unchanged and the latter altered might produce something different? But people thought that the internet would solve all the world's problems, and if you replace "internet" with anything else at all, repeat as nauseum, you get life... so no, it both "changed everything", while also changing nothing.
Strong societies beget weak children, who produce vulnerable societies, which after (as?) they fall apart beget strong children. That is what I see anyway, right or wrong. That is why it is important to ask questions as you are doing. Entropic decay can only be overcome with effort. You can't solve the world's problems, only your own - and those who are willing to listen. As an example, we cannot fix Reddit, only make a new place to be better, but that takes WORK.
No we won’t because soon resources will ends and the basic, like food, is already poisoned. We burned the candle very fast in this last hundred years, not very much progress that entertanament, we should have moon colonies at this point but we aren’t even closer to the idea. I think human race will ends in next 200 years.
I’m a fairly hardcore/radical determinist, and tend to agree that individuals shouldn’t be held morally responsible for actions, any more than a hammer is morally responsible for driving a nail. However, that does not mean people should be free from consequence. There are plenty of reasons - even as a hardcore determinist - to hold people to account for their actions, either as a social corrective mechanism, public safety, deterrent, or personal sanity.
As for getting their actions to align with your morals, that’s a more complicated question that depends on the type of person they are.
What drives the thing that drives the hammer? What drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the hammer? What drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the hammer?
Doesn’t that imply that people have the ability to change their behavior?
My answer changes depending on your meaning but:
Of course. My brain is constantly updating and improving itself. I’m just not ultimately in control of how that process happens. Though that does not mean that I should stop living. I can still experience and enjoy my life, and ‘choose’ to improve it. It’s just that the I that made that choice is a consequence of my brain calculating optimal paths based on a myriad of factors: genetics, culture, circumstance, biological drives, personal history, drugs, etc.
Let’s say you see someone playing in traffic, and tell them they shouldn’t be doing that. They respond, “I can’t not do it, because my brain already made the decision to do it, so I have no choice but to do it.”
Is this person correct? Or do they have the ability to just follow your advice and stop playing? Do they have the ability to ignore your advice and keep playing? If they have the ability to do both, then to what degree can we say that your advice is determining their choice? How can we say that choice is determined if we can also say that they should make a different choice?
We are constantly making and updating our choices in response to new information. Just because the brain decided upon one course of action at one point in time does not preclude it from changing course in the future. That’s just a new choice. All available information is taken into consideration at all points in time.
By determined, I mean it follows a logical set of rules, not that it is set on a specific action. The idea would be that it was determined to make all those choices because everything else is also following the rules of the universe. Just as it was determined that they play in traffic, so was it determined for me to tell them to stop, just as it was determined for them to listen. They didn’t choose to change their mind, they were always going to change their mind.
That’s what raises my question of when we say someone “should” do something. If what you describe is true, there are not any better or worse choices or actions, there are just actions that are consequences of a previous action.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar of Jelle’s Marble Races, but the general conceit is that marbles are sent down a track or through obstacles while a sports commentator analyzes the race as if observing human competitors. The humor arises from the cognitive dissonance of talking about strategy, risky decisions, athleticism, etc. while the audience is fully aware that these are inanimate objects being acted upon by mechanical forces.
Likewise, talking about what decisions should or shouldn’t do with a worldview that these actions are simply things that happen due to more complex interactions of cause and effect that we can’t immediately see causes a similar sense of cognitive dissonance for me. It seems that human minds and language have evolved to experience a world where our actions do have meaning and that we don’t really experience them in a way that feels deterministic to us.
You brought up the brain a vat thought experiment in another reply, and the answer is similar: even if we are brains in a vat, that’s not how we experience the world. And we don’t really experience the world as a deterministic one, either.
I believe consciousness is a result of processes of the brain, and the brain is a very complex machine. It’s hard to say anything too concretely beyond that because I don’t really understand how it works. I live as though the brain and my consciousness are in perfect sync, but I’m unsure how true that is.
Your brain is you, though, just like your hands are you. Whether there’s a lag between the time that imaging detects you made a decision and you say you made one does not change the fact that you’re the one making the decision.
That’s one way of seeing things, and I respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I primarily view myself as my consciousness; everything else is secondary. How do you know you aren’t a brain in a vat?
I’m a fallibilist: I don’t believe we can know anything for certain. The best we can do is base propositions off contingent statements: “If what I see is reliable, then what I see in the mirror is not a brain in a vat.”
A brain in a vat is not a very useful starting axioms, so I have no reason to give it serious consideration. By contrast, while taking the general accuracy of my own senses as axiomatic eventually leads me to conclude they can be fallible (example: hallucinations,) it is nonetheless a way more useful axiom for deriving a base of contingent knowledge.
The person making the claim has to advance the evidence. The default is the assumption that the way the universe presents itself is the way it is. If you want me to consider this possibility find supporting evidence for it.
The default is the assumption that the way the universe presents itself is the way it is.
Sure, but this is still an assumption I would need to agree to - though obviously a productive one - not necessarily true. The only thing I can know is my experience.
This isn’t particularly useful beyond explaining why I view my consciousness as primary and hands secondary or tertiary or something. The brain is tricky because again, I don’t know where it ends and my consciousness begins.
Incorrect. You can easily be deceived. The primary is physical reality that is the only thing that remains regardless of what you think. I have more evidence that the real world exists than I do that you are a thinking mind.
Descartes ruined philosophy. Reality exists everything else we should question.
If your perception is subject to failure, so to is the evidence, no matter how convincing. So yes, we act upon the assumption that reality exists. We both agree with this.
But that doesn’t mean it is true. And all I’m saying is for this very narrow point of what I care most about, Descartes does have a point. I care more about my mind than my foot. I mean, maybe you can think of a better way to frame the argument because I doubt you even disagree. If you have a gun and you are forced to shoot yourself anywhere on your body, would you choose your foot or your brain?
The better counter to me would be to prove external value. Would I sacrifice myself for someone else? If I believe reality doesn’t exist, the answer should presumably be no. If I believe reality does exist, the answer could be yes. Or alternatively, shooting myself in the foot suggests I believe in a causal relationship within reality towards shooting my brain and losing consciousness, which I shouldn’t necessarily believe.
But even then, it’s not that I disbelieve reality, it’s just that I can’t know for certain what’s real outside my mind, so there’s not really any contradiction between acting as if it is real and being uncertain if it is.
All this is doesn’t matter anyway: the point is less you could be a brain in a vat, but rather if you were a brain in a vat, would you be any less you? I don’t think so.
I have more evidence that the real world exists than I do that you are a thinking mind.
I have more evidence that I am a thinking mind than that I do that the real world exists. There’s no point arguing this point it won’t go anywhere.
I am genuinely and in good faith interested what you think about quantum mechanics and that there seems to be an element of true randomness there.
I was pretty much a determinist until an actual physicist that I know and respect told me that he is totally convinced that there is stuff in quantum mechanics that just cannot be predetermined.
And if anything can be undeterminable then by influencing other things there would exist true randomness and then a fully deterministic world cannot exist in my eyes.
But I am very willing to learn more if you know a good counter-argument since I always thought determinism is quite an elegant view of the world.
I just cannot follow it if I am not convinced it is true.
There are layers to the universe. While you can’t predict everything you don’t usually need to. The object is dropped and therefore it falls. If you zoomed in deep enough you would see the chaos that is going on in the subatomic but the object still falls all the same.
Not being able to predict everything does not mean we can predict nothing.
One interpretation would be Many Worlds; that is, every quantum possibility is real in its own multiversal branch. So, to assign moral agency you would need to show that I chose the world I’m in now, over some other version of my life in which different choices were made. Although, I’m not certain you even need to go that far: I have no idea to what degree quantum randomness can actually affect our choices. But, in any case, that too would be out of our control.
Randomness doesn’t really save traditional free will. A robot that selects its actions by rolling dice is not any more “free to choose” than a robot that selects its actions according to a deterministic program. There isn’t any free-will juice that gets introduced by adding randomness.
Your “free will” is the process by which you select actions. For humans, that’s a bunch of physics and chemistry happening in your brain; it receives influences from your senses, your body, and its own self-awareness (i.e. its model of you, your actions, tendencies, etc.). Whether that process depends closely on QM, or is boringly classical, doesn’t control how “self-determined” it is.
I am not sure you replied to the right comment since I never mentioned free will at all but was more interested in how a person believing in determinism handles the current state of science that at least suggests the existence of true randomness.
In my eyes true randomness contradicts a deterministic world, but I am interested to learn more from anyone who is more educated on this topic.
If I understand you correctly I agree with you though that what might be called free will is what happens in an individuals brain when they make a decision.
The discussion whether this decision making process in the brain can be truly free is a very interesting one, but not the one I wanted to have.
My personal layman’s opinion is that my brain has enough uniqueness to it that the decisions I make are individually mine and there are other unique people that make their own individual choices.
If those choices and decisions are truly free matters less to me as long as they are truly individual.
I’m not the other person, but I think you might be confusing the term “determinism.” I think you might also have a bit of an over-enthusiastic understanding of quantum mechanics, which is a very common problem when people have QM explained in lay person terms I’m not going to get into the QM stuff because I’m a biologist and not a physicist, and I think your world just became more interesting with your new information. I’d just say hold off on the conclusions until you read a bit more, and start sliding towards the actual science books rather than the pop science books as you get your feet under you. You’ll have a different appreciation once you can read an advanced undergraduate textbook on modern physics.
Determinism as used here means behavioral determinism. There is significant evidence that a large number of our actions and reactions aren’t thought through, but rather are “automatic” responses. In fact, some neuroimaging work on decision-making has indicated that we reach a conclusion and then reverse-justify it by thinking we’re thinking about it. My subconscious mind has already decided to buy the bagel, but my conscious mind is still talking itself into it.
Again, people can take that kind of thing to an unjustified extreme. I think free will exists in a limited sense, but that it is highly constrained. In this case (the original question, not the person to whom you’re replying) is using their own misunderstanding of behavioral determinism to excuse their misbehavior. It’s a self-indulgent philosophy that you can probably pick apart if you really wanted to spend the time and effort in making them meticulously explain every step and aspect of their position, but it’s probably easier to just drop the person or to deal with them while remembering they’re possibly clinically psychotic, but almost definitely at least an asshole.
I thought that to be the case for a long time.
If I could control all the variables I could roll a die to a 6 every time or at least tell the outcome as soon as it’s thrown if I know everything else there is to know.
I also recognize that my understanding of modern physics is minimal at best.
But a physicist friend of mine told me that there is stuff that is truly random, so in gross simplification if I throw the exact same die in the exact same way under the exact same conditions it could still show different results making it impossible to predetermine the result.
If that is the case I don’t think this world is a system where it is possible to determine the future even with perfect information.
And maybe you are right that my knowledge is just too superficial to hold a real opinion in the debate between determinism and indeterminism, but I also don’t really have a horse in this race.
Just if you were to ask me as a layman I would think indeterminism to be more plausible given the (grossly simplified) information above.
The OP that I replied to described himself as a determinist, so I was just curious of their response.
But now I got a lot of other input to think about so I am happy either way.
Again, none if this is meant to attack you and I realize to someone more informed this might just seem as random rambling, but I was just honestly interested so thank you again for the response.
Have you tried Apple’s included “News” app? I’m in the US, so I’m not sure how well it would work for you. But Apple generally doesn’t sell your data, although I’m sure they do analytics for internal use.
I use that, Ground News, and daily digest emails from my local city newspaper and the indie neighborhood news site.
I might try Apple News, but I’m afraid of a possible bias. Ground News on the other hand seems to provide many sources for one subject and I’m digging it for now
Every now and then a post with a question like this pops up on lemmy and I wonder if the Sync company has anything to do with it, because Sync always gets to be the most mentioned answer. It is beyond me why anyone would use an app that pushes ads on you while browsing content from a website that doesn’t have any…
ljdawson and rmayayo did great work on their apps, and I purchased both of their apps.
Making software is not easy. I’m a software developer, too. I’m very happy that there is a paid version without ads, I definitely wouldn’t use them if I had to use the version with ads.
In my experience, they both provide superior experiences that are both familiar to people and well integrated into Android, especially Sync. Boost has more features however.
If you’re looking for a FOSS app, Connect is the next best thing IMO.
I’m currently using the free version. I had the paid version for Reddit, but just haven’t purchased the Lemmy version yet.
The ads are really unintrusive though. I think it’s one ad every time you reload the feed, about four posts down or so. After that, I think there’s no more ads. It’s extremely minor, hence why I haven’t really felt like I needed to get around to purchasing it.
It's a hack - unsanctioned third party extensions are inherently pretty hackish and just work however they can. They frequently depend on things that can change in unpredictable ways, so breaking with updates is just business as usual.
Assuming the project is actively maintained, there should be a fix available at some point.
Edit: this is assuming they have their own infrastructure, I have no idea if that's true. If things were really relying on hidden but "deprecated" API stuff, like some people ITT say, you could be SoL - they can just remove that at their leisure and it's odd they haven't.
They do have their own infrastructure, the old api was 100% killed a long time ago. Before that happened they scraped and archived as many youtube videos as possible (through a distributed computing effort) now they use a combination of historical data and likes vs views to give a best estimation of the true dislike amount. It has been tested to be close but of course not exact.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.