priorities, but you know how OnlyFans creators be posting to own the discourses https://archive.ph/337Kw #nowplaying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdGbXISimlk

  • 2 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • since you know by 2020 that modeling categorical logic and categorical truth tables tell you less about the “trumper” than the non-trumper do you [really] want to risk it, framing the trumper, at least, as a “moron” who can’t muster the “IQ” points (btw, was everybody jumping on that that new EQ+AQ+SQ wagon to own the Young-Girl’s war on war)?

    that paradoxical circumstance where trump acts the fool, because he knows you’ll take the bait, in front of his base, amplified by algorithmic blunders: socialism and barbarism/annihilation, have always lived side-by-side. your mythology of technology only cyclically prevents you from seeing that.



    1. metacognitive myopia explained why people didn’t/couldn’t update their beliefs about the existence of “weapons of mass destruction etc”.
    2. dogwhistling the threat of sexual revolution “comrade kamala” (i.e., he’s implying hypocrisy when he doesn’t understand what lenin’s use of the term “prostitute” meant).
    3. playing the fool until you can’t (i.e., making his base feel insightful and “seen” as playfully serious, homophilically/mimetically charismatic; e.g., his base feels like their inference-making is being promoted based on linguistic sympathy through the aura of charisma).
    4. from (3) somewhere in his administration they’re letting the would-be “fool” base do the grunt-work and creating cover; see “Optimal Team Formation Under Asymmetric Information”.










  • what i’m trying to understand is the bridge between the quite damning works like Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Myth by John Kelly, R. Scha elsewhere, G. Ryle at advent of the Cognitive Revolution, deriving many of the same points as L. Wittgenstein, and then there’s PMS Hacker, a daunting read, indeed, that bridge between these counter-“a.i.” authors, and the easy think substance that seems to re-emerge every other decade? how is it that there are so many resolutely powerful indictments, and they are all being lost to what seems like a digital dark age? is it that the kool-aid is too good, that the sauce is too powerful, that the propaganda is too well funded? or is this all merely par for the course in the development of a planet that becomes conscious of all its “hyperobjects”?




  • first comment,

    If the conventional wisdom is correct, Bayesianism is potentially wrong (it’s not part of the Standard Approach to Life), and [certainly useless] […]

    what was actually said:

    the abandonment of interpretation in favor of a naïve approach to statistical [analysis] certainly skews the game from the outset in favor of a belief that data is intrinsically quantitative—self-evident, value neutral, and observer-independent. This [belief excludes] the possibilities of conceiving data as qualitative, co-dependently constituted. (Drucker, Johanna. 2011. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.”)

    the latter isn’t even claiming that the bayesian (statistical analysis) is “useless” but that it “skews the game […] in favor of a belief”. the very framing is a misconstrual of the nature of the debate.