Dirk Meulenbelt
@dirk-meulenbelt·Joined Aug 2024·Ideas
Factory-farmed pork and chicken are bad choices. Sufficiently so that it's worth stressing, rather than saying their well-fed counterparts are tastier or somewhat preferable.
Plenty of simple sugar from fruit, milk, honey, or juice, is good.
I have trouble with altitude and can barely breathe when I am in, e.g. Bogotá. But Mendoza was no problem for me and I went on morning runs without even noticing a difference.
#3249·Benjamin DaviesOP, 7 months agoArgentina is not a tax haven. Becoming a tax resident (living >12 months) triggers a Global Income Tax (Progressive up to 35%), and a Personal Assets Tax (Wealth Tax) on worldwide assets.
It's unlikely that an anarcho-capitalist president, if given enough time, will not lower these taxes.
#3249·Benjamin DaviesOP, 7 months agoArgentina is not a tax haven. Becoming a tax resident (living >12 months) triggers a Global Income Tax (Progressive up to 35%), and a Personal Assets Tax (Wealth Tax) on worldwide assets.
Currently Argentina is also very bad at collecting tax from you.
#4823·Tyler MillsOP, 3 months agoAgreed on both counts, but I think the bountied idea survives this...
Recognizing and criticizing ideas could be a requisite for tractably synthesizing any possible explanation (I suspect as much).
Tractability is a consequence of creativity. It's a little like saying the difference between you and a rock, is that you can move faster.
#4812·Tyler MillsOP, 3 months agoWe could say a person is a program that can synthesize any possible explanation in finite time, excluding memory limitations. But this would again grant personhood to RNGs. For that matter, a counting program could just enumerate all possible binary strings up to its memory limit, in finite time...
Creativity isn't defined by its outputs but by its process. RNGs do not recognise or criticise ideas.
#4807·Tyler MillsOP, 3 months agoDoesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
You're right and I revised my criticism.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
A random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
#4694·Tyler MillsOP revised 3 months agoBy this standard, a random number generator has universal creativity as well, and is therefore a person. So there must be a standard for personhood other than: able to generate any possible explanation. Such as: can do that tractably.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
#4405·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoIn that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
If finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
#4400·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months ago“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
So? How is that foundationalism?
#4393·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoBut this sounds like you’re saying justificationism is necessarily the same as foundationalism. Whereas in #4392 you agreed it’s only a kind of justifiationism.
Why does this sound like I am equating them?
#4383·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 months agoDirk writes:
Foundationalism, or justificationism, is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.
I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.
From BoI ch. 1 glossary:
[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Whereas foundationalism describes a prerequisite for knowledge to grow (properly). As in, needing a secure foundation or else the whole edifice falls apart.
I could see foundationalism being a flavor of justificationism, but not the same thing.
I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.
You are right. Foundationalism is a kind of justificationism. The secure foundation is a kind of justification.
I will have to rewrite this in my article.
#4386·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoJust because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.
Indeed. Justification without finality is fake.
"X is true because of Y, but we can discuss Y"
Is functionally the same as
"X is true and we can discuss why"
Explanatory knowledge consists of statements. Statements are at least in part explicit. Therefore inexplicit explanatory knowledge is not possible.
Entirely explicit explanatory knowledge is not possible either, as all knowledge refers to other knowledge implicitly.
#4359·Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoNot all cases of wanting more of something are cases of addiction.
I want to buy a second chair because I enjoy the first one, not because I cannot help but buy another.
Getting customers addicted means making it so they cannot exercise their free will (or have serious trouble doing so). They’re effectively unable to criticize ‘buy another’ as a course of action.
Getting customers addicted making it "so they cannot exercise their free will" denies human creativity, and opens the door for all sorts of draconic laws where people are "protected from themselves".
#4068·Benjamin DaviesOP, 5 months agoThose who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.
Making alcohol illegal has been tried and was disastrous. Drugs are already illegal, which is arguably also disastrous. Those who advocate MAKING most drugs illegal but not alcohol are, I think, people who want to outlaw weed.
Drugs are currently illegal, and though drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all time high. Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough, to off-set drug user's ability to use legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) society.
Drugs are too broad of a category. Is widespread cocaine use the same as occasional magic mushrooms? The latter is suggested to have neuro-protective benefits.
#4131·Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoGetting someone hooked on an addictive substance to get repeat business is predatory. It’s not an honest way to do business. Even if consuming drugs was legal, maybe the selling of drugs should still be illegal.
Subjectively applies to every good product that makes its purchasers want to buy more of it. Like good food, video games, comfortable chairs.
#4060·Benjamin DaviesOP, 5 months agoIf they violate rights they should be punished by the law, that applies regardless of if they take drugs or not.
If 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.