It would help if they provided literally any way for a squeaky wheel to squeak at them aside from squeaking at the employees with a modicum of dignity (if they still exist)
I hate this sort pedantry when this perspective dodges the ultimate lack of competing interests necessary for a market to produce goods and services efficiently. Just because our country has horrifically bad antitrust legislation doesn't mean we need to lower our discourse to that level. People have always used "monopoly" to mean "noncompetitive"; so just take it to mean the latter.
Unfortunately this sort of advice also leads to people not exercising. I don't enjoy lifting, and I don't see an easy way to make it fun, but I feel better and I'm healthier for it.
… “Smile while you train”, ie make training fun, results in not training? That is nonsensical.
You can’t figure out how to make lifting fun? Bruv, google Eric Bugenhagen. Shirtless, 70s rock, singing out loud, a tye-die hairband, strong coffee and fun exercises. Lifting is awesome, it happens in a gym, and there are 9,000 colours of fun. Homegyms rule, hip thrusts in between air-guitar with the toddler, air kicks and slam balls… and it is as easy as a patch of alley and a kettlebell or tire, if you let it be.
The entire point of my post is the opposite of your takeaway. Learn what you find fun, what makes you smile hard when lifting and by definition you will be having fun lifting.
Lifting is easy mode for fun. Speakers, smoothies, cuties, technique variants, bar variants, ego-stuff, posture-stuff, program stuff, dips, pull ups, and bouncy crap too. Ultra running, where that quote is from, involves eating a slight bit more shit for more than an hour (in AC).
Plus, you do NOT have to “lift” to “pick up something heavy, move it around, and hold something above your head”. Feeling better and healthier, hypertrophy, and targeted resistance exercise are available from a near infinite variety of activities. Some are very enjoyable, the rest can be made so with effort, creativity, and will.
That's true, there is also bodyweight and machines and just hard labor.
And of course there's cardio but that's not terribly difficult to fit into any lifestyle—lots of fun options. That's just not going to hit all your needs by itself.
Maybe—I don't think anyone is choosing between the two based on access to grok of all things. I think it's simply treated as an extension of twitter, which will almost certainly never be forced out while it remains the premier app for diplomacy and AI porn.
Twitter is already a bit of a special case because porn is so accessible (although, you must opt in through the browser and cannot opt in through the app).
Discord works the same way I think, so I'm not sure Twitter is special in that regard (there exist a myriad of porn servers on discord, and the company is constantly getting in hot water because of its popularity among kids/teenagers).
I'm guessing incomplete migrations or similar problems where stuff is just partially written, or out of sync. The Plex db is kinda complex under the hood.
That's exactly the point every prominent member of the "Doomer" community is making: Violence isn't an effective action; it is a counterproductive action. It is actively destructive.
Lenin called this kind of individualistic, unorganized violence "revolutionary adventurism", and strongly condemned it. The lesson is not that violence isn't effective, it's that unorganized violence isn't effective. Sufficiently organized violence can be very effective indeed.
Well what other tools do we have? Waiting for the market to fix things is also destructive and harms orders of magnitude more people than violent direct action does; democracy is wildly ineffective compared to violence even at its most optimistic; what else remains? Fleeing the planet?
Giving this a less glib response: https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/article/2043601524815716866 goes in to some detail, but Eliezer has always had a fairly clear call for action, which is international regulation. And in particular, he makes the point that random acts of violence are actively counterproductive to his goal.
We walked out of the Cold War alive. Humanity has faced extinction before, and despite it all, we walked away alive last time. It's not unreasonable to think we can do it again.
I'll answer with a quote from the founder of the Rationalist movement, Eliezer:
"How certain do you have to be that your child has terminal cancer, before you start killing puppies? 10% sure? 50% sure? 99.9%? The answer is that it doesn't matter how certain you are, killing puppies doesn't cure cancer."
The point is that violence isn't actually a tool, just like killing puppies isn't an actual solution.
I can know "this doesn't work" without knowing exactly what does work. "Violence is the only tool we have, so we have to use it" is the sort of logic that leads to the Holocaust.
If you want my own personal observations: Over the past few centuries, we've managed women's suffrage, black suffrage, gay marriage, etc. largely without violence, so clearly there are processes out there for progress. We fixed the Ozone Hole without killing people. I don't think murder was involved at all in finding recent AIDS medication, or GLP-1.
There are tons of examples of successful social progress in the past few decades that don't involve violence. Conversely, I struggle to name any terrorists that accomplished their goals by bombing scientists.
If nothing else, we can make violence a lot more legible by embodying it in a legal process, and bringing society onto the same page about it's necessity.
reply