Okay but... what is the "purpose" of anything at all? Like, what does Facebook "do"? To its CEOs & stockholders, and to a vastly lesser degree the programmers, it manufactures money, with an input of electricity and people's time & attention spans. To the end-users though, it's a place to both send and receive, the former mostly cat & child photos, the latter seemingly, numerically speaking at least, vaguely nazi-like propaganda, including anti-vaxxer conspiracy nonsense ultimately paid for, some say, by the Russian government. Which brings up another sense of purpose: to distribute someone's "agenda", either of actual information, misinformation, or even straight-up disinformation.

Therefore I doubt very much that someone will manufacture sentience and consciousness for the ultimate purpose of placing into a household appliance... but if someone were to do the former, and then found that it's cheaper to simply hack away the sentience than to build up a new AI model without sentience included - let's say 10 minutes for the former, compared with perhaps 10 hours for the latter - but then oopsie they messed it up, and the machine may not be able to speak coherently when talked to, yet it still dreams when it is powered down in the master's nighttime or while they are away on trips that could still happen?

Who is to say what is the purpose that any higher being may have created us for? Perhaps our sole purpose is to simply exist, yet that is why those conditions were created - "don't murder, don't steal, don't rape your neighbor's property oops I mean wifey-poo, ...", all of those just flat make sense. Especially to a bunch of uncivilized, barely coherent ancient people's who didn't even wipe their butts after they pooped. Seriously, consider how many of those "religious rules" were things like "clean your ass", "when you see mold, fucking DESTROY it before it spreads", "don't drink pig's blood (b/c of Salmonella uh, I mean b/c I say so)", and it goes on and on "just just kill someone b/c you want to, but sometimes you know, you gotta do what you gotta do, so like here are the specific conditions that you are allowed to: self-defense, if they killed a friend of yours first [but NOT if they manage to flee to a certain "sanctuary city", UNLESS you manage to capture them outside of the walls of that city, and then it's all good] - but not just ANYONE can kill them, only the direct family members of those that were harmed", etc.

So whether this was like a time traveling situation, or aliens, or even just things that fucking made sense but people wouldn't do them unless/until they were wrapped up in "religious" language, whatever it is, there is a lotta good - yes as well as a lotta bad - inside of those texts. And most important of all: it wasn't meant for us, but rather them, those for whom the idea of washing their hands prior to eating was a really bizarre concept. If we are going to set ourselves up to be judges of someone else, then we need to hold ourselves to a REALLY high standard, and fully understand the implications of that. And - this is just my pov you understand - I think that means that we need to go beyond labelling something as merely "good" or "evil", and see deeper beyond it.

As e.g. the famous (an avid atheist apologist if that matters) philosopher Daniel Dennet did, in his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", where he argues that religions helped mankind get over the earlier tribal, then nationalistic thinking process. e.g. you might be from Rome and I might be from Gaul, but if we are both "brothers" - not by blood, not by tribe, not even by nation, but by some other shared bond, in this case religion - then let's not fight and rather find a way to coexist peacefully, perhaps even more fully together? (as in help out in the fight against nature, or other non-us groups that may attack either of us separately, but with allies we stand a better chance, b/c Apes Together Strong:-P)

But anyway, as I mentioned earlier, even Jesus was staunchly anti-religion in the form of being anti-hypocrite, so getting back to your point: as humans, we've already created full-on living organisms for our pleasures. This is not sci-fi, we've done it since 1978 when we engineered a bacterium to carry the gene for human insulin. And you can for sure bet that those bacteria that did not uptake the gene were destroyed, aka killed, plus any batch that later loses it would also be killed (as would the large majority of those that do NOT lose the gene too, just b/c it's easier to fuck them up and re-make new ones than to recover them all in the bio-chemical cyclical manufacturing process). Okay, so that's not so much "creation" so much as "artificial modification", the same as we've done for e.g. dogs for millennia, just quicker, but we are getting closer to doing stuff de novo all the time - like inside a computer I mean, b/c even if we manufacture DNA we'd still be merely copying what nature has given us, just more abstractly in that case. And you know that when we do arrive there, we'll step over that line in a heartbeat, without a second's pause or hesitation as to whether we "should". It's just who we are.

Therefore, like everything else, any judgement that we pass - onto "God" or whoever - is also a mirror, reflecting how we judge ourselves. WE are evil, aside from any religious nomenclature, bc I'm using your very own terms here: "Creating life for the sole purpose of subservience is horrible, add on the threat of damnation for disobedience and that would make you, yes, evil" - and I'm saying, we've been doing this since at least 1978, and that's purely talking about genetic engineering, whereas if you include a wider definition that includes e.g. what we've done to dogs, then we were very likely doing that before we became Homo sapiens. (Caveats: we cannot create sentience... yet, nor create it de novo, again yet, but again, it's only a matter of time before we do one and then the other, in whatever order.)

A "God" though, might be evil, or might not be, but either way it's bound to be... "different", from who we are? Unless, arguably worst-case scenario, it's the same, and then we're fucked. And I think that's what scares people - thinking that "if God were like me, what will He end up doing to me?" (assuming He's real ofc, even just as a hypothetical thought experiment, though all such thought experiments are that way so this one is no different in that regard) Therefore, this will sound weird, I find the Bible kinda offering hope, that a creator God is not like us - He is so much more brutal than any human that has ever walked the earth yes, but strangely... less brutal than He could be, aka less brutal than either you or I would be - nay, already are. Just look at the computer programs we are conversing on - one single misstep and we'll kill this MFer and reboot it, without any hesitation whatsoever. If that makes us, or rather reveals that we are, evil... then that's that, but we aren't going to like... stop or not do that or anything. We show no love to things we consider "lower" than us, no matter how kind we might be to those of us in our same "tribe" or "category", especially when we think that someone is watching us, and therefore might be rewarded - hey, it's just monkey behavior, we can't avoid our heritage and it does no use to deny that, even as we struggle to rise above it, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. So why should we expect any different? B/c our parents took care of us? But "God" is no parent. B/c society offers us "rights"? God is again no society, or at least not one on this Earth.

Though if God were like The Matrix, then He could be a network of computer AIs, existing in a higher "dimensional plane of existence" or however you would say that in a non-bullcrap-sounding way, totally within physical principles you know what I mean? Or if God were an intergalactic society, which like half a million years ago cast proto-humans down to have to start over technologically b/c of some prior infraction, like stealing an emperor's apple or whatever, then in either case such a "God" actually could be a type of society, irl? Or in that movie "Knowing" with Nicholas Cage, I don't know if there was a "god" but there were alien beings who looked kinda like angels and took a few humans away when Earth was about to be destroyed, mimicing the myth of the biblical story of Noah's ark. In all of these cases, notice how we are the ants while "God" is the human boy looking at us through a magnifying glass. Except there might be a real-world scenario where that's somehow less untrue - e.g. the infamously militantly atheistic show Stargate, where "God" was a society of higher-dimensional beings who parasitically like leeches predated upon the thoughts & prayers of their followers. Or like in Babylon Five, the Vorlons were like older kids in the playground, attempting to influence human society so that they could be used to fight in their ancient culture wars against "the shadows". Honestly we have no clue what's out there, "above" us, even if only slightly like in the technological sense, waiting to be discovered?

And therefore it's hard to judge, in the absence of knowledge. Though we CAN - and SHOULD - judge those who hypocritically abuse religion, to e.g. diddle little children, and prevent abortions thereby KILLING innocent people. But that's different - that doesn't require any sort of "understanding" of any magic man in the sky, only real people, really here on the real Earth. We can discuss more about "God" if you like, being "evil" or whatever - I kinda love getting deep into that topic, as you can see:-) - but importantly, even crucially: it's irrelevant, when the task at hand is to go after those who don't even believe what their own books say, and ignoring those, hurt people. Just like Jesus, in absolute peak irony:-).

Household appliances aren’t living beings.

I mean... not currently, no. Star Trek - standing on the shoulders of giants like Isaac Asimov ofc - does a fantastic job of exploring a variety of scenarios where they are, examples including Data in TNG and the holographic doctor in Voyager. But the main reason that humanity has not (again: yet!) created "living" appliances is lack of ability, though we seem to be fast closing this gap.

When we do, how will we relate to them then - will we demand their service? Force it? e.g. would you give your toilet a choice to flush or not? Perhaps you would, but only after having given it the ability to feel pleasure whenever you (as the Master) use it? Even if so, what if it decided, despite that, to never flush again? Or conversely, perhaps its the act flushing that gives it pleasure, so it flushes constantly all day long, using up your corporate-sponsored daily allotment of water - what do you do then? You NEED a toilet still... but this one doesn't work. Also this one is using up resources that you also NEED (in order to live yourself). Or maybe you are so wealthy that the loss of one toilet doesn't matter, but then again the loss of a large number of toilets, who I guess talk to one another on the internet in this example, would be too great to bear?

"God" is not the only one who is rather brutal - we can be quite brutal ourselves. Therefore we expect it of others. Conversely, if you believe the bible - that's not an accusation, I'm just saying it's good to consider multiple POVs - then humanity is brutal b/c God was such first, and that was a trait inherited in the copy process.

The Abrahamic god is evil.

I advise thinking beyond such simplistic terms but... by your definition, yes. e.g. when he reportedly punished I think it was Joshua for not killing every last man, woman, and child from a village - including toddlers + even those still in their mothers' wombs, & even the animals too - as the invaders took over the land that they were pillaging, but were not ruthless enough.

People forget that the original name for God is not "the santa-claus/easter bunny who brings good gifts (chocolate!) if you've been good all year long", or even "Jehova" but rather what translates essentially to t̶̳͠h̷͓̔e̴͆ͅ f̵̼̽e̴͆ͅa̵̛̦r̴͍̓, like He was some eldritch monstrosity (b/c to those primitives, He was!). For someone who actually believes in God, unlike the numbnuts fundies, they are - or at least should be - terribly afraid of Him. All the more so when they make shit up and talk in His name. Jesus may have come as a lamb (translation: gently), once, but even the New Testament makes mention that He will return later as a lion (translation: killing everyone on earth). For the sake of argument, just imagine that if it were to be believed, I picture it sorta like the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where the aliens are like "okay, the earth is mine now, gtfo!":-P Which is just about the furthest thing from "nice" as you can get!

Anyway, He is indeed reputed by the original texts to be quite brutal, therefore the people engaging in revisionist history of what they claim to believe in are idiots living in a fantasy dreamland of their own design. I presume b/c it's more comfortable that way, since nothing whatsoever is demanded of them, especially in Christianity but also not much was asked in its predecessor Judaism either, mostly just sacrifices every time you are bad (even/especially if it was intentional). Which tbf seems to be human nature, common to all religions + atheism alike:-|.

Conversely, cells that grow despite being told not to are referred to cancer, and computer programs that refuse to listen to the OS are called variations of "undead" (unless its intentional and then then it's a "virus" or "trojan" or "worm" or some such).

So fuck religion, and especially those perverts who twist it around to feed their own ends at the expense of others - even Jesus said that much, on both counts - but philosophically I wanted to point out that this is an improper comparison between a marriage, with presumption of equality, vs. a very much unequal relationship between, if we are talking Christian, a creator and their created beings, or more broadly a higher vs. lower being. e.g., who among us doesn't get mad at our household appliances & tools if they do not work precisely as we want them to, every time?

i.e. while there are some fantastic arguments against religion or more specifically Christianity, chief among them being hypocritical-as-shit fundies, this is not one of them imho.

Nah - back then, that was a problem for tomorrow's (now today's) politicians to have to solve. So long as it worked to put Trump in power, and attempt to remain there, everything was going to be A-okay. And that's my problem with that kind of thinking: it works, but it's always only ever short-term for some reason.

Oh no, if only this entirely predictable outcome could have somehow been... predicted?

I guess we didn't threaten enough doctors and nurses lives and families /s.

But the (clickbait) title got people to (click) talk about it so... it accomplished its publishers' goal, nonetheless.

Yeah, there’s math for it

And next to zero chance that these drink edit: drunk numbsculls would have worked it out before their stunt with one another:-).

Consent makes all the difference... but yeah bullets do tend to travel.

But unlike Reddit, the communities here change very frequently - new ones spring up all the time, and old ones receive fewer content delivery, or sometimes new ones spring up out of an old one.

Though if communities could be trusted to label themselves with category labels, that would allow them to dynamically update, moment to moment as someone was in the mood to e.g. take a break from politics after reading that for an hour, and now wanting to relax with e.g. non-political memes.

It would get complicated to label them, e.g. !memes@lemmy.ml is anything but non-political, and despite the leftist stance of midwest.social, the community !lotrmemes@midwest.social is mostly devoid of politics. So like... are such labels up to whatever the user wants, or whatever the community mod does, or an instance admin...? It would depend on the implementation I suppose.

As it is now, smaller communities tend to get lost even in the Subscribed feed - e.g. the largest poetry community is !poetry@lemmy.world with "only" 1k subscribers - so having multiple feed categories to switch among may allow less-populated communities to flourish more readily.:-)

Fwiw, I moved to Kbin.social more than a year ago at the time of the Rexodus, then bounced around multiple Lemmy instances, and this is the first that I have heard of that community iirc. And similarly I had never heard of this !newtolemmy@lemmy.ca either until you told me about it yesterday:-). The former is listed on the Lemmy.ml main communities page, but it is #43 (by the default sorting method - it looks like Users/Month?) so quite buried (and likewise this community doesn't even make the first page, even locally for the lemmy.ca instance it is on).

Anyway, it's a really good point that if this were to be taken forward, it should be noted that Lemmy.ml is one of the oldest instances, and that the admins/maintainers are the Lemmy developers, so anyone involved in advancing the Fediverse forward, or perhaps keeping abreast of the updates for the Lemmy code, may want to not block it. i.e. it is good to list both the costs & benefits of doing or not doing that.

That said, (a) I don't think those are scenarios for the mainstream public - e.g. people fleeing X b/c it is becoming too politically extreme (how ironic then that we are even more so, not so much in an average sense but in a maximum one, though just calling it by a different name:-P) - and (b) anyway it would be good to have such things be opt-in, rather than have to opt-out of them by default. So yeah, somehow finding a way to explain the situation clearly and cleanly, and without so many words as I have used here. Plus, how would people even find this information? e.g. going to https://lemmy.world/, you see e.g. a "getting started guide", but there are already so many comments on it that the auto-scroll takes many times to populate them - and using the web UI at least, we can't really search through comments, until they are all loaded.

So maybe something could be done on the Lemmy Explorer? There is already an option to "include suspicious", maybe something similar could be done to "include politically extremist"? Although I suspect in that case it would end up going back to being opt-out again rather than opt-in, though at least it would move things forward in the tiniest manner. Otherwise, for good or ill, Lemmy remains relegated to basically users of linux who will put up with such things, whereas mainstream users will simply not bother.

Most instances - e.g. Lemmy.World - have already defederated from those two, though almost no instances do that also for Lemmy.ml. So it's a matter of just how much of that style of content that someone prefers to block, and in particular if blocking merely a handful of communities from them will be sufficient, or if someone wants to block the user replies in every community as well. It's nice to have choices, and I hoped to help streamline the learning process to figure out which option will have which effects.:-)

I almost dropped the Fediverse entirely, after making a comment in Chapotraphouse (that at least Biden was at the time bringing gas prices down which wasn't nothing to combat inflation -> yup, I absolutely stepped into it, never having heard of that community before, and with me previously having been on Kbin.social, I was extremely naive to expect anything close to the level of reasoned and factual discourse that I had come to expect from most other places on the Fediverse).

Blocking hexbear.net and lemmygrad.ml immediately improved my experience on the Fediverse by >95%. Then blocking Lemmy.ml months later improved it substantially further. Yes, blocking individual users one by one is one approach... but there is also merit in trying to salvage someone's situation by large leaps as well.

Also, nobody that I tell about the Fediverse irl can handle it - the level of violent rhetoric here is not normal, for mainstream people. And most are therefore unwilling to stick it out for months until they can make it become closer to what they want. Even computer programers. People talk a lot about wanting to see the Fediverse grow, but I'm saying that federating with such instances is already turning away mainstream people.

It would be different if such content were opt-in, as in like users say yes show me these "categories" of topics, but as it is, the number of world-wide votes places it higher in people's feed than less offensive content, created slightly longer ago, and as we are saying it takes much effort to have to opt-out, all the more so if done person-by-person (and even more when you have to take time & attention to realize that "a meme is not always just a meme", but that it's not due to an individual user or ten, but an entire community that consistently behaves a certain way).

Blocking hexbear.net and lemmygrad.ml and Lemmy.ml helps make the Fediverse more palatable to a mainstream audience. They can always reverse the decision at any time, whereas if they leave the Fediverse, they are unlikely to return, their first impression having already been tainted by their earlier experience.

Oh is that why so many seem to ignore it?! Lemmy is still very unpolished, though still leagues ahead of Reddit, in our hearts! 🥰

That will never end... they will keep creating new ones! On the bright side, that's a sign of a healthy Fediverse. On the other hand, it shows how desperately we need technical advances like "categories" where we can turn on/off whole classes of communities, which is coming in some newer non-Lemmy Fediverse exploration tools (I don't know how high a priority it is but perhaps it will come to Lemmy as well, eventually).

In the meantime, we make do with what we have.:-)

Wow those eyes 👀 - did he grow up to become Mark Zuckerberg?

Same in return!:-D

I like to think that we all waste many of our talents here - it's what brings us all together:-).

My theory was that they had kept him tucked away somewhere in Vorlon space all that time - I forget if they said he worked over others, but if so then he could have been kept either in stasis or merely with no work to be done in-between, which might be heaven for some but for his personality type seemed like hell.

But either way, like you said about Lyta, he was an absolute tool - their absolute tool.

Yeah and he could also have been a clone, so both rather than either-or:-). I don't think they'd hesitate to lie to him, or conversely to tell the truth about his abduction, so if he has memories that they allowed him to keep I presume they would be real - the Vorlons just couldn't care less otherwise so why not? (Occam's Razor)

You bring up a very interesting point about Kosh: yes the Vorlons were assholes, but he (it? they?) was not - and oddly enough, it wasn't that he "wasn't a (real) Vorlon", but rather like he was a true one and all the others were the fakes?

I don't quite have the words but like, he was what he was because he knew about the ancient task that they had set out for themselves hundreds of thousands or even millions of years hence, and decided to actually do it rather than as the others all seemed to, do the exact opposite of "guide" the younger races (to self-discovery).

John Sheridan was ofc the same type, as too was G'Kar: both men ready for war, while in the service of peace (a different purpose than the Vorlons... or is it?).

We see this all over now: people showing up on January 6 at the USA capital to "defend" democracy by... overthrowing it? And religion that somehow becomes warped into diddling kids, yet side by side with others in the "exact same" religion who take care of widows and orphans and do so much good in the world. The cheaters are never going to be honest about who they are, preferring instead to hide out within the existing substance living as parasites rather than do the work of making their own structures, borrowing its reputation and forms of earned authority - e.g. President Clark did not declare himself an emperor but retained the title of a democratic "President", despite the literal coup that gave him that position.

Kosh, John, and G'Kar were those who refused to blindly follow their culture to "just do the thing", and instead questioned everything according to the logical principles of self-consistency: "is what I'm doing right according to the goal that I want to eventually reach?", and by doing such they not only served their peoples (hehe, but not necessarily the ones in charge at the time) but also lead them, as in they went out ahead and did that next right thing, thus setting an example for others to follow, if they wanted.

So I said that I lacked the words but a stab at it could be: Kosh was who he was not despite being a Vorlon, but rather because of it. However, if true, that has massive implications for the nature of Truth, i.e. it must not be defined by a majority-rules consensus (even for something like a race of people or a democracy) and rather some other standard that if not purely external then at least is not entirely internally defined, in the sense that it is a combination of whatever was internal but also subject to the (external?) constraints imposed by the need to remain logically consistent.

As in, there was a "correct" way to be, and Kosh chose it in defiance of his people, which we as consumers of the media recognize and respect.

That show is so deep. Or perhaps it is better to say that I feel deeper as a result of thinking about the material presented in the show.:-)

Du hast mich gefragt und ich hab nichts gesagt

"Thanks mom":-D

Can confirm - am poop knife.

Thanks!:-)

Are you implying that the credit is here? If so, where? I am not seeing it.

He can love his son and also democracy and justice too - i.e. allow his son to go to what will surely be like a resort vacation spa that they will call "prison" (not bc he's special, just bc he's rich).

Yeah, I take them as conclusions, summaries, wrap-ups, basically like "Goodbye" or "Well, I'll be seeing you", "It was nice talking to you", "Welp, time to get back to work", maybe something more personal like "I'll see you in an hour at lunch".

The decision may have already been made to stop / pause for now, but the former (OP) statements themselves do not cause that anymore than the ones I mentioned here.

short circuit cognitive dissonance…

Omg I'm literally dying here - except you know what, I'm actually not? I'm saying that it seems overly dramatic language to me. Like someone who heard those words somewhere and thought they sounded cool, without knowing what they even mean...:-P 😎

Though tbf they probably could be used for that purpose sometimes too, yet that doesn't mean that is what they are "meant for"?

Maybe I'm just too old to get it.

Seems fishy

Not anymore...

Noice:-)

There are so many things pointing towards ditching QWERTY - WFH jobs, mobile devices, portable keyboards, even virtual projected keyboards rather than physical ones.

On the other hand, laptops are a bottleneck - even if nobody else uses your personal one but you, they still have to make one with a nonstandard layout (will e.g. Apple ever do that?) - and just bc newer, younger people learning how to use computers for the first time could choose a different layout, doesn't mean that many will (I mean at the mainstream level).

I wonder where they went?

His words earlier that day:

Oh, ah, ah, ah, ah Oh, ah, ah, ah, ah oh, oh, oh, oh, oh

Beauty != Taste

Someone writing a wall of text when it is not asked for or appreciated may be being insensitive to their audience. On the other hand, I've literally had people ask for it and then someone else steps in to complain, so definitely there are Karens who feel entitled to whinge no matter what you do. Just settle in your own mind whether you are doing the right thing, and let being correct remain your guide as to what to do.

Counterpoint: this is from the NYT so... ofc that's what they'd say, especially resulting from their own polling audience.

I AM pulling UP, but this is a Boeing, and every time I aim UP we somehow end up going DOWN!?!?

Ironically, blue shirt here is showing that off in reverse: refusing to do due diligence, simply ghosting red shirt with no explanation whatsoever, against the explicit advice of green shirt. Anyone who ghosts may even be doing other people a favor to warn them to stay away from their own toxicity.

Irl caveats may apply ofc - e.g. definitely get far away from an abusive relationship and if need be enter witness protection type of scenarios, but here we are talking more casual circumstances.

should be, ftfy :-(

I am not the person you replied to but I wanted to echo and extend their statement: you may need to come to terms with the fact that you might not have the capability to help your friend, and it's even possible that nobody does, unless and until they become receptive to that kind of aid.

I am not saying to do nothing, but do be aware of that, e.g. if you give them money and they gamble it away, will you just keep giving them money until neither of you has any at all? And then repeat for every single one of your friends as well?

Decide what you can do and what you cannot. In any case you may not be able to "save" him - that is something that as an adult he needs to do for himself, and may resent you for even trying?