PhilipTheBucket

Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?

I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.

Sounds like you're not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I'm not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.

Do you think that would be productive? (edit: ~~I have some kind of strong hunch that it's one of your admins.~~ it is not)

I think people are just weird sometimes.

Update: I've just been banned from some of the db0 Stable Diffusion communities for being an "anti-AI troll," I think for posting this story?

db0 I love you guys but you do weird stuff sometimes

Hm... according to this article, it's the opposite. He started out as a Hippie and then married a Republican and everything went to shit.

I hadn't know that much of the history (that link's article links to an even more in depth article), but that's what it says. I think the truth is probably a little more complicated; as you noted his most hippie-ish books came out after this thing says he was already a fascist. I think a certain amount of it is that he didn't really have a single consistent ideology (and felt very differently about personal liberty as he did about governmental structure.)

I really liked The Egg, The Martian and Project Hail Mary. It's not any kind of earth shattering literature but it's good and original and I like it. No idea about Artemis, so IDK how relevant any of these reviews might be for you.

Helinlein stayed in the navy long enough to pick up all their authoritarian traditions and buy into them full throatedly, but not long enough to go into combat and see them all falling apart and gain some wisdom about it.

He is fine and he wrote some gems but his political viewpoint is a bunch of poo poo.

Edit: Also, WTF, I am listening and who has a problem with Andy Weir?

At least for the tool I was talking about, it wasn't planning on banning anyone. I've been a moderator for a decently large collection of forums on Lemmy and I can't even remember the last time I banned someone, although it did happen a handful of times months and months ago. The tool was planned as purely something to give input to the participants about elements of the other person's point that they were getting carried away with their own stuff and not addressing.

No, I just know scripting

Supplies cannot meet the rising demands.

Wait, is this a dragon fruit? I have I think exactly this plant that I was given, and aside from a single big red flower one time it's never made any effort to make dragon fruit. I thought it was just a aggressively minded cactus...

I love how everyone in your replies is all of a sudden an expert on hitmen and their parameters.

Yes, a few minutes alone in a room with someone is long enough to kill them and make it look like something else. I'm as qualified as anyone else here (I've even seen a YouTube interview with an ex-professional hit man, so probably more so), so I can just say that and it becomes so.

Yeah, generally having it read the conversation (I think as JSON, maybe in markdown for the first pass, I can't remember, it's a little tricky to get the comments into a format where it'll reliably grasp the structure and who said what, but it's doable) and then do its output as JSON, and then have those JSON pieces given as input to further stages, seems like it works pretty well. It falls apart if you try to do too much at once. If I remember right, the passes I wound up doing were:

• What are the core parts of each person's argument?
• How directly is the other person responding to each core part in turn?
• Assign scores to each core part, based on how directly each user responded to it. If you responded to it, then you're good, if you ignored it or just said your own thing, not-so-good, if you pretended it said something totally different so you could make a little tirade, then very bad.

And I think that was pretty much it. It can't do all of that at once reliably, but it can do each piece pretty well and then pass the answers on to the next stage. Just what I've observed of political arguments on Lemmy, I think that would eliminate well over 50% of the bullshit though. There's way too many people who are more excited about debunking some kind of strawman-concept they've got in their head, than they are with even understanding what the other person's even saying. I feel like something like that would do a lot to counteract it.

The fly in the ointment is that people would have to consent to having their conversation judged by it, and I feel like there is probably quite a lot of overlap between the people who need it in order to have a productive interaction, and those who would never in a million years agree to have something like that involved in their interactions...