Deep into that diatribe:

Some people's moral intuitions are that nonexistence is preferable to, or not obviously worse than, existence in a less-than-ideal setting. I wholly reject this intuition, and looking at the record of the persistence of life in the face of adversity, belong to a heritage of those who have, time and time again, rejected it. Life is Good.

What a disgustingly privileged thing to say. People have survived in shitty situations so therefore more children in poverty is axiomatically good? ~~This guy deserves poverty.~~ (edit: maybe that's a bit too far but I fucking hate this guy)

I think you're being too generous. What they wanted to say is "There are genetic traits associated with intelligence." However, not inserting probability distributions in every fucking sentence is a class 2 misdemeanor in Rat circles, hence what was written.

I guess good on you for not having the will to analyze anything beyond the surface level?

listened to this, they do a great job of breaking down the berniecrat -> orangeman pipeline, characterizing it as mainly driven by vibes and unserious thought.

When you feed the world to a technocapitalist machine that produces misery and CO2, the price tag of a good night of sleep rises to donating some of that sweet, sweet value to save a few people from getting malaria.

Jesus fuck, I hate myself so I couldn't help but take a peek. The first comment says "TL;DR but I will still counterargue!" The OP then responds "that's stupid" and gets slapped by the admin for personal attacks. So basically, you can make personal attacks if your account has a history of agreeing with the zeitgeist and you veil them behind enough qualifiers. What an absolute joke of a message board.

This is (not) the greatest essay in the world, no. This is just a tribute.

So who are you going to vote for, and what do you hope to achieve with that?

The first footnote makes me want to give myself a lobotomy with a no. 2 pencil:

I wish to note here that Richard took this “as evidence that John would fail an intellectual turing test for people who have different views than he does about how valuable incremental empiricism is”. Of course I couldn’t just ignore an outright challenge to my honor like that, so I wrote a brief reply which Richard himself called “a pretty good ITT”.

If this guy doesn't masturbate his successful polemicizing every 1.5 paragraphs, he'll go into septic shock.

More like "People want things and hurt if they don't get them. Also, look at me saying things like utility function! Function is math! Math is smart. I am smart! Isn't that so cool?"

Random musings but I feel like posting: I almost got sucked into the urbit hole. I thought it was such a cool idea and implementation, and all the fun names and technical purity was so attractive to me at age 18 (this was before the crypto circus and urbit barely did anything except talk to a terminal).

It took me a while to realize that there is, actually, zero reason to give nonsensical names to literally every aspect of software, and also pretty dumb to try to shoehorn everything through a tiny functional core ("Nock") while slowly re-learning all the lessons of 50 years of compiler development. So why use it at all?

Using urbit over a normal Linux stack comes purely with downsides. Slow, buggy, obscurantist, and so on. This means whoever actually dedicates their precious time to developing this unconditionally buys into the ideology. I never thought an ideology could be so powerful that it could corrupt the minds of my people (software monkeys).

Urbit is a truly fascist^H^Hnating phenomenon.

For how much these fucks talk about "overcoming bias", they seem ABSOLUTELY incapable of overcoming their bias for IQ as a good measure of anything outside of acute mental disability. They want a simple answer to the question that has plagued their small minds forever: "Am I smarter than that person over there?" They cling to their number like a life-preserver in the ocean of society.

It's just so pathetic.