It's clear that "privacy " in public spaces requires a fair bit of entitlement, why can't we all just love one another and let it go? What harm comes from being in someone's cool AirSoft video? Is it just a matter of principle that bothers you or something deeper?
For one thing, the video might have objectionable content edited into it.
For instance, one video could be filmed by a genocidal maga nutjob, and a second could be a documentary about how PLA doesn’t biodegrade, made by a woke LGBTQ+ immigrant with a working understanding of chemistry, physics and biology.
Almost 100% of the US would be upset to know they supported the production of at least one of those videos.
That they're upset does not mean that the world should bend to their feelings. I think you would agree that getting upset does not necessarily mean something is wrong externally, oftentimes things are wrong internally. Thank you for taking the time to reply
Their point is that the name and logo are clearly drawing from the Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, with all the potential baggage that comes with it. It's an interesting choice.
The novel was the first popular codifier of the concepts of strongly superhuman ASI and hard-takeoff singularity, literally the work that introduced these ideas to the then quasi-New Atheist hangers-on among the kuro5hin crowd who became the initial core of what would develop into the follower base for singularitarianism. It was quite well written for that purpose, with enough sex and action to paper over the slow parts, and a real grasp of what it feels like when time contracts and dilates at once in those dolly-zoom moments where the universe is different forever and nothing outwardly changes. Combined with the seductive appeal and literally universal scope of the ideas that power its plot, it is no wonder the novel should have left so strong an impression on a few.
Someone intentionally invoking that history is interesting indeed. Someone doing it by accident might be more so. But I already gave that choice the name I judge it deserves.
A better title would be "Likelihood of moral injury differs among different combat contexts," though that doesn't serve as quite a catchy title as the original.
The problem with "moral injury more common among those with high moral standards" is that "moral standards" is not what is being observed, rather, the study specifically finds "diverging effects of KIC on veterans from combat-oriented and peacekeeping missions-" making no judgement about personal "moral standards."
Your "high moral standards" bit seems to be an assumption about the difference between peacekeeping forces and combat-oriented forces (which sometimes even overlap) rather than something to do with the actual research article at hand.
The democrats seem as likely to choke down on speech, but it tends to be speech that represses others. The republicans choke down on speech that contradicts their vision of society or their personal moral compass. Although both contradict free speech absolutism, they are IMO fundamentally different.
If I were possessed of a religious faith that considered my name to be so holy that it must not be spoken, would a law against saying my name repress others, or would lack of that law repress me?
I find democrats efforts misguided, but rarely are they "my views only, exclude all others". They don't typically involve library book challenges, what appear to be ctrl+f searches for specific terms that relate to people unlike them, don't involve "report on your coworkers" type demands, and so on.
And most of all they don't seem to identify any and all differing views as "enemies" and so on.
Why is Grok not in their benchmarks? I don't see comparisons to Grok in any recent announcements about models. In fact, I see practically no discussion of Grok on HN or anywhere except Twitter in general.
