1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn’t/couldn’t update their beliefs about the existence of “weapons of mass destruction etc”.
2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution “comrade kamala” (i.e., he’s implying hypocrisy when he doesn’t understand what lenin’s use of the term “prostitute” meant).
3. playing the fool until you can’t (i.e., making his base feel insightful and “seen”, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).

elizabeth warren lampoons trump and vance

seems more important that people wanted him to, even if he didn’t, as what a settlement might imply.

is the threat better than the existence of the threat? does threatening mean being constantly present?

have books become too heavy for men?

since 2008 (the artilect wars) or the third “a.i.” winter?

the gettier problem

South Park’s comedic antics will be lost on droves of beautiful souls unless The Critic is rebooted.

algorithms of oppression. noble.

institution: yet another non-human living asexual hyperobject constantly having sex with itself stopping only to shamefully laugh at the moments in which we respire.

ice cream truck driver

as a black person i’m worried that donald trump’s batting average isn’t showing the potential it should be this season. he should spend more time in the cages.

the quantum level of description is a luxury:

Conscious intentional communication, which we perhaps too hastily attribute to human beings as a mark of distinction, becomes a limited domain, the only domain where the distinction between desirable and ‘spurious’ uncertainty pertains. We may have to concede that the centrality of human communication, understood as a semantic and culturally saturated information system is, at least in principle, neither the first system in which information processes occur, nor necessarily the most efficient.

quick question: who will be left to avenge ms nina simone?

what i’m trying to understand is the bridge between the quite damning works like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Myth by John Kelly, R. Scha elsewhere, G. Ryle at advent of the Cognitive Revolution, deriving many of the same points as L. Wittgenstein, and then there’s PMS Hacker, a daunting read, indeed, that bridge between these counter-“a.i.” authors, and the easy think substance that seems to re-emerge every other decade? how is it that there are so many resolutely powerful indictments, and they are all being lost to what seems like a digital dark age? is it that the kool-aid is too good, that the sauce is too powerful, that the propaganda is too well funded? or is this all merely par for the course in the development of a planet that becomes conscious of all its “hyperobjects”?

the south thought it perfected slavery since antiquity. it’s supposed that “honor” can be restored or “retvrned” in the 21st century through refounding the colosseums

what about “the war on drugs” makes them say it was a failure in the peculiar institution since the end of the premodern period and the advent of modern capitalism lol? too many sparring partners of a certain melanin configuration not available to participate in all the naturally emergent belligerence?

qutebrowser ftw

first comment,

If the conventional wisdom is correct, Bayesianism is potentially wrong (it’s not part of the Standard Approach to Life), and [certainly useless] […]

what was actually said:

the abandonment of interpretation in favor of a naïve approach to statistical [analysis] certainly skews the game from the outset in favor of a belief that data is intrinsically quantitative—self-evident, value neutral, and observer-independent. This [belief excludes] the possibilities of conceiving data as qualitative, co-dependently constituted. (Drucker, Johanna. 2011. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.”)

the latter isn’t even claiming that the bayesian (statistical analysis) is “useless” but that it “skews the game […] in favor of a belief”. the very framing is a misconstrual of the nature of the debate.