Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula.
Author. Software engineer. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
dennishackethal.com
#5038·Tyler MillsOP revised 5 days agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person: it can only create whatever knowledge it originally did, not any possible knowledge, maybe until freed from the loop. Yet it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
A quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times.
How do you know this?
Some people are lactose intolerant.
Some people are lactose intolerant, others are vegan.
Replace dead link
I’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
I’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542179/, “CNS [central-nervous-system] development begins during the 3rd week of embryogenesis…”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
#299·Dennis HackethalOP revised almost 2 years agoI’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
Link is dead.
#5017·Dirk Meulenbelt, 9 days agoLess constant feeding can improve blood sugar swings and insulin sensitivity because every time you eat, your body has to run the insulin system again.
You can just eat fiber with your meals instead, that will slow down insulin secretion afaik.
#5021·Dirk Meulenbelt, 9 days agoI tried to look for good arguments against eating dairy for it being dairy and I cannot find any.
Some people are lactose intolerant.
One is that it's a way of reducing body fat, and overweight is likely a bigger problem for many people than potential short term negatives of fasting.
One is that it's a way of reducing body fat, and overweight is likely a bigger problem for many people than potential short term negatives of fasting.
#5015·Dirk Meulenbelt, 9 days agoOne is that it's a way of reducing body fat, and overweight is likely a bigger problem for many people than potential short term negatives of fasting.
When a question is a criticisms, you want to mark your answer as a criticism too so it counts as answered.
Yes. Very easy to overconsume, especially from hyper-palatable foods which are often greasy. I try to eat around 60g of fat per day.
Yes. Fat is calorically dense and easy to overconsume, especially from hyper-palatable foods which are often greasy. I try to eat around 60g of fat per day.
Yes. Very easy to overconsume, especially from hyper-palatable foods which are often greasy. I try to eat around 60g of fat per day.
I could see that. Milk is hydrating. Yogurt is a good source of calcium. Can go with low-fat or fat-free options to reduce calories.
I could see that. Milk is hydrating. Yogurt is a good source of calcium and protein. Can go with low-fat or fat-free options to reduce calories.
I could see that. Milk is hydrating. Yogurt is a good source of calcium. Can go with low-fat or fat-free options to reduce calories.
#4995·Dirk Meulenbelt, 9 days agoProtein above 0.8 g/kg body weight is desirable, often up to around 2 g/kg.
Per kg of lean mass. Someone who weighs 150kgs does NOT need to eat 300g of protein.
#4990·Dirk Meulenbelt revised 9 days agoWhole grains, nuts, and legumes are health-promoting staples.
Nuts in moderation. Very calorically dense, easy to overeat.
#4974·Tyler Mills, 21 days agoI've been thinking about the principle that principles should not or do not admit of exceptions, else they are not principles. Yet, I've thought, we seem to not abide by this, even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech. We make exceptions for calls to violence, doxing, etc.
But I've (somehow only) just realized that those are not what we might call "standalone exceptions" -- they are overlaps with other principles, those of non-initiation of force and privacy, in this case.
So we can say: principles do not admit of exceptions, but if there is more than one principle in the system, one's exception can be another's enforcement. Which is not an inconsistency. Then the question is, which one is the higher priority? Maybe this is where the court system comes in. (I don't know much about politics).
One answer could be that the more fundamental principle wins.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 20 days agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.
There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.
For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.
Freedom of Association Maxxing:
https://libertythroughreason.com/freedom-of-association-maxxing/
Welcome to Veritula, Brad.
Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions
We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.
What brings you to V? What are your main interests?
Interesting insight from TheBentist on Instagram. He’s a dentist making a new toothpaste.
He says cavities are caused by a bacterium called strep mutans. A popular misconception says cavities are caused by sugar. That’s not exactly right: strep mutans feeds on sugar and then ‘poops’ out an acid that corrodes your teeth. But sugar itself does not cause cavities – it only feeds strep mutans that’s already there.
The thing is, people aren’t born with strep mutans in their mouths. And they don’t get it from food. They get it from other people who already have it. Like when parents kiss their kids or share food. I’m guessing things like ‘double dipping’, sharing utensils, or drinking from the same bottle are especially problematic.
TheBentist made a toothpase called ‘Zero Pro’ that supposedly kills strep mutans. Conventional toothpastes just scrub it off your teeth. Zero Pro is said to actually kill it. So my understanding is that you could never get cavities again as long as the strep mutans is dead.
That would also eliminate the need for mouthwash, which he calls a ‘scorched-earth approach’ that kills a lot of good bacteria.
Fact-check me on this stuff. I’m not a dentist myself. I’m not giving any medical advice. But this toothpaste sounds interesting and promising to me. Somebody is actually thinking about the root cause of oral disease, and trying to fix it rather than find ways to live with it.
How to tell you’re ahead, objectively:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-hwx-mUfjAg
I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:
… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.
So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.
I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:
… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.
So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.
In short, making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, not less.
#4967·Dennis Hackethal, 29 days agoThis is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.
Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)
Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.
No half measures.
#4338·Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 months agoIn today's society they only have this ability to a limited degree, and would still have to deal with the drug users in public.
This is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.
Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)
Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.
No half measures.
#4339·Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 months agoIf the drug + violation becomes a pattern, it's rational to outlaw it. (Assuming the outlawing works.)
E.g. alcohol is prohibited for drivers, even for drivers who are great drunk drivers.
In limited areas like driving it makes sense because people don’t drive 24/7. But outlawing something in general affects them 24/7. So it’s not the same thing.