• 0 Posts
  • 109 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle







  • Holy shit… When I got my wisdom teeth out, I literally broke down in tears after being awake for 20 minutes without Percocet

    Friend, it’s ok to take opiates sometimes…

    Kratom could be an option. You make it into tea, the first cup is a weak stimulant, the second (on an empty stomach) will start to work as a weak opiate. The third or fourth might give you stronger relief. The red strains are supposedly better for pain relief

    You can’t OD on it, it’s commonly available in head shops or online. The addiction potential is very low, you’ll make yourself nauseous before getting what you’d get out of normal opiates. It’s most closely related to the coffee plant - the toxicity concerns are all about contamination, the plant itself is pretty innocuous

    I can give brewing instructions if anyone wants to go down that path, I drink it for anxiety but others say it helps with pain management



  • I like watching stream highlights, occasionally I’ll watch one live. But they’re generally pretty boring, even as background noise - they’re on there for hours at a time

    I don’t think the relationship itself is bad, but it’s a relationship between you (massively plural) and an individual. It’s like being part of a crowd. I get that people like it, but I don’t get much out of it



  • So this isn’t a compelling argument because it sounds outlandish and the implications (while serious) are indirect

    Every major power, and some companies, have population simulations. It’s not that hard to build one - we’ve been using them for decades, and they start yielding useful results even when they’re pretty simple. Individuals are complex, but populations can be boiled down with statistics pretty easily

    Let’s say I want to increase stochastic violence in America. I rate the traits of as many people as I can across as many useful criteria as I can measure. I could then tweak an algorithm to show something I think would radicalize people to a test group, and measure again. I then take what I learned, and polish my approach until I’m ready to go live

    You can do this to whatever end you like - and browsing habits can only tell a human so much, but this is what big data does. It finds associations humans wouldn’t see through math

    This probably sounds like I’m wearing a tin foil hat, but this is a real thing. This is how foreign election interference works - astroturfing blindly only does so much, and modeling a population isn’t difficult (depending on what you’re trying to do)

    Now as for browsing habits - like location data or Facebook friends, with enough data points you can find out things about a person they don’t know themselves. It may or may not make sense to a human, but big data is all about finding associations through blind math.

    If you provide a set of data points, you contribute. It may or may not influence you, but either way it improves the ability to influence those around you.

    I don’t know how much opera collects, I don’t know how much of that data is exfiltrated to China. I know I don’t want anyone to have too much of that data, but I also have to live my life.

    It’s a matter of harm reduction - educate yourself on your choices, listen to people who dive deeper than you’re willing to, and do what you can to make the most ethical choice based on where you are right now. There’s no perfect choice



  • theneverfox@pawb.socialtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldTherapy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ah, I see what you were getting at now. Like “where are we going tonight?”, it’s a mirroring of the same concept, I think it’s fair to call that forced inclusion. Like you say, directly excluding someone is rude, so forcing that choice is pretty manipulative


  • theneverfox@pawb.socialtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldTherapy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think you’re looking at it wrong, it doesn’t forcibly include the other participant, the usage you’re talking about does the opposite

    We [our shared group] don’t do that. We [me and my group] don’t do that.

    You can interpret it both ways - the first means “you broke the rule of the group”, the second means “you’re not one of us because you’re not following our rules”

    It’s visceral because it gently tickles the “fear of exclusion” part of our brain


  • Yes, the fact you explained it, as well as formatting it in a spoiler for those who want to think it over a little longer (like me), made me feel slightly happier

    To be honest, I don’t remember the original post at the moment, but I remember that you explained a post in a way that made me feel appreciative that you’re on the platform. I want to be the kind of person to express that.

    That’s the person I want to be, and I’m glad that you are who you are