There's not really a way to put this nicely, but vore is a terrible name. If you don't know, it's a surprisingly popular fetish category and not something I would ever want to type into a search engine.
What's rude is highly regional though, I'm sure "git" could be considered very rude in some places while not at all in some. Just like "cunt" isn't as rude in some places as in others.
I bet most people who don't frequent tumblr/reddit et al don't have the slightest idea of what "vore" is. The internet is pretty large, and humans are pretty clueless on average.
That was the first thing I thought when I read the title, and is the reason I did not click the link. I had the misfortune of being exposed to images of this sort by someone back in school and I'm not exactly desirous of experiencing that again.
Being provocative gets eyeballs. In this situation am I the chewer and the rss feed is the chewed? Which one of us is feeling aroused by it? The feeds? I hope it’s the feeds.
Open source is increasingly a kink friendly space where people are encouraged to let their freak flag fly. See also, e.g., cargo-mommy: https://github.com/Gankra/cargo-mommy
I call bs -- that is weasel words. regarding the "truth" that statement, once someone said to me that tech content is like the surface of a balloon being blown up.. each area on the surface gets larger for sure, but also more distant to the others.
kink content is, was, and always will be a "bug light" attractor to certain people.. that is not at all the same as whatever this one-liner says
There is a difference between being kink friendly and exposing your kink to the public, including minors. There is a time and place for everything, and involving potentially unconsenting people in your kink by "letting your freak flag fly" is wrong and has nothing to do with being kink friendly.
If what you want is persistent k/v, then there are already tons databases that can do that. Redis has a different use case, so what are you trying to say? That you want to misuse tools?
> If what you want is persistent k/v, then there are already tons databases that can do that.
Are there? What's a good, mainstream, persistent k/v for cheap single-node instances? PostgreSQL's KV support isn't good enough, Cassandra and MongoDB expect to be set up as a cluster and have all the overhead of that, BikeshedDB is alpha and I won't touch their upstream for obvious reasons, CouchDB is pretty much unmaintained, ....
This thread is my first time hearing of it, it doesn't seem particularly established/mature (e.g. I can't find cloud services offering managed instances, whereas there are plenty of those for Redis)
Are you suggesting that there's no need for Redis to integrate persistent-storage support because every user should download some library and patch the Redis source themselves? And that would somehow be better?
I'm suggesting you haven't read enough before replying, just like I did on my first comment. See "Myrocks" as an example of what the first user meant with lmdb. Replace "mysql -> redis" and "rocksdb -> lmdb".
I'm looking for a standard, well-known, drop-in product - that's what Redis is, that's why persistent storage support in Redis is interesting. If I have to search up some combination thing then it's already a non-starter.
I'm not looking for embedded, we're talking about a Redis substitute. etcd/consul feel oriented towards running as a cluster and I'd expect overhead for that. FoundationDB is potentially a good shout, but it's not that established, e.g. it doesn't seem to be available in a managed way in cloud hosting environments.
KV Stores seem to be in a kind of split place, existing either as embedded, or full cluster mode. There isn’t really a “sqlite” or “postgres” of persistent KV stores. Cloud providers ship their own proprietary KV-stores: Dynamo in AWS, Bigtable in GCP. If you are ok with hosted, Scylla is also an option.
I’m always shocked that people use Redis for anything other than an ephemeral cache.
Your second paragraph follows from your first - people use Redis in this space because it's the closest thing there is to an "sqlite" or "postgres" for KV. Which is why I think Redis with persistence actually makes a lot of sense and fills a gap in the market.
Wow, this really looks fantastic from the examples, great work!
I am looking forward to machine-readable output getting implemented. I was using criterion recently and couldn't for the life of me get CSV output to work correctly (and according to their docs it's a feature they are looking to remove). Ended up writing a python script to scrape all the data out of the folders of JSON files it makes.
The wikipeida article you linked to points to many many pieces of evidence that are not "mythical gospels and other Christian sources". Occam's razor would dictate that the simplest explanation for an extremely fast rise in numbers of dispersed communities evangelizing the teachings of a person is that such person existed and espoused those teachings, right?
Also it's just incorrect to say "as an atheist I have no skin the game". If you are agnostic/atheist you range from questioning to non-beleif in god which necessitates that Christianity and other religions could be or are wrong. It seems ridiculous to me to hold a position that contradicts another and say you have no skin in deciding wheather the other one is right.
Being an atheist does not imply stakes on the existence of historical Jesus. Atheists do not deny the existence of religious figures and leaders, they deny their divinity or supernatural qualities.
Sure, atheists‘ beliefs are benefited by religions being wrong in general, but no smart atheist would choose the totally plausible existence of a person as a hill to die on, when there’s such a large surface area of unlikely claims to attack instead (miracles, etc).
Sure, but Jesus mythicism is a fringe belief who's popularity exists almost entirely within the more activist atheist crowd, while just about no serious historian finds any validity in the theory.
I agree that no atheist should have stakes in the theory, it's pretty clear that a lot of the more vocal types think they have some kind of stake in it (Bill Maher has been a big proponent of it, to give one prominent example).
I sometimes think there is "atheism" and then there is "atheism".
There is "atheism" in the sense of its literal definition, and then there is "atheism" as a contemporary cultural phenomena, which involves many beliefs (even if only commonly rather than universally) which do not necessarily follow from that literal definition. "Jesus mythicism" is one of those later beliefs, even if a lot less than universal one.
To give some other examples, I know someone who calls themselves an "atheist" – and indeed, they fit the literal definition, they think the existence of God is improbable – but they also believe in ghosts and a life after death, beliefs which are generally outside the bounds of "atheism" in that second sense. Similarly, the early 20th century British philosopher John McTaggart, was an atheist in the literal sense – he was convinced that the existence of God was impossible, and even believed that he had a proof of God's necessary non-existence – but he also believed that matter and time were mere illusions, and that all that really existed was timeless immortal souls and their eternal love for one another – beliefs radically incompatible with "atheism" in that second sense. Similarly, many Buddhists (especially Theravadins) are in some literal sense atheists, in that they deny the existence of any ultimate God (as is claimed to exist in the Abrahamic religions and in many Hindu sects), but they also have many beliefs (rebirth, past life memories, enlightened beings having psychic, even miraculous, powers) which are way outside "atheism" in that second sense.
(Even though orthodox Theravada does believe in gods, including those of Hinduism, as mortal non-ultimate deities, I think that belief is somewhat peripheral, in that a person could interpret that belief in an essentially non-literal way, and not be that far from Theravadan orthodoxy; however, rebirth is a much more central belief, and to interpret that in an equally non-literal way, would be straying much further from that orthodoxy.)
Fair enough. In my head atheism includes lack of belief in anything supernatural, including also entities that aren't exactly god-like and abstract powers (karma, tao, fate, etc). I realise that's not the strict, literal definition though, but I can find a better word for that term (skeptic seems to be too broad).
How about "naturalism", "materialism", "physicalism"?
I think the most fundamental belief behind that worldview, is that the most fundamental theoretical entities of physics (whatever they may turn out to be–particles, waves, strings, branes, forces, fields, etc) are the only ultimate reality, and everything else which exists somehow grounds its existence on them. The non-existence of God is merely a consequence of that fundamental belief, not a fundamental belief in itself. "Naturalism", "materialism", "physicalism" all do a better job of naming that fundamental belief than "atheism" does, which is a word which refers to a non-fundamental consequence of it.
"Antisupernaturalism" is another option, albeit it has the disadvantage of being purely negative, whereas I think this worldview actually makes positive claims about the nature of reality and what can be known of it.
> Occam's razor would dictate that the simplest explanation for an extremely fast rise in numbers of dispersed communities evangelizing the teachings of a person is that such person existed and espoused those teachings, right?
No? A large number of dispersed communities cannot have all been exposed to the hypothetical founder directly espousing their own teachings; the phenomenon you seek to explain actually precludes the explanation you're trying to give.
A rapid rise in dispersed groups following a set of teachings has to be explained by a large number of people espousing those teachings in parallel. It makes no difference whether those people got their knowledge as disciples of an individual person, as members of a committee devoted to a supernatural force, by reading the same book at the same time in different places, through the grapevine, or by independently adapting their teachings to what their audiences want.
You are being overly defensive of vaccines. They are a great and effective treatment for many diseases and I get the sense you are trying to make zuckerburg's comments seem more demonstrable then they really are. Considering Facebook's diligence in cutting off speech on their platform that is racisst, climate change denying, etc. I find it hard to believe that they will refuse to crack down on antivax advertisers and dedicated facebook pages.
Tbh I have not done the research but I have no doubt there have been faulty or problematic vaccines at one time or another. Just like any other medical treatment there is a chance rhat they have defects, cause side effects, followed bad quality control protocol. Elevating vaccines to this status of being not allowed to be critisized for fear of our society being damaged seems like an almost equally dangerous alternative to what we have now. If people are legitimately hurt by a vaccine, they have a right to have a voice, and we have a responsibility as a society to hold those at fault accountable. That can't happen if we treat every person on facebook with even the slightest grievance about a vaccine like they are insane.
And to address your point on practicality; the fact of the matter is, anti-vax movements have never been normalized. There is enough pressure from employers, schools, government, and scientists that most people will get vaccinated if it is found to be of personal or public benefit. Hardcore antivaxers are generally looked down upon by the public.
Your solution assumes that logic and reasoning is somthing that can be ingrained in a person's thinking and lifestyle through education. Maybe you can train those skills to a certain extent but it also seems entierly possible that there will always be a portion of the human population (maybe even most of the population) that simply doesn't possess the cognitive trait or ability required to seriously interrogate various viewpoints or even their own ideas.
> a portion of the human population (maybe even most of the population) that simply doesn't possess the cognitive trait or ability required to seriously interrogate various viewpoints or even their own ideas
Funny how everyone who's saying something like this is always sure they belong with the smart ones
For me the biggest problem is discovering/finding (often accidentally) where I need to introspect and/or drill-down.
It doesn't occur to me to examine unexamined assumptions - at all. It's like a blind-spot until one-day: Bam! "You need to go verify this assumption!" (Or conclusion or chain-of-reasoning or theory or whatever)
I believe it is not even relevant, there are very smart people who support completely different policies. Nobody is smart enough to process all the data points about a certain subject, especially when it is something that is not hard science. Political and policy decision are based more on gut feeling than on logical critical thinking. Do you think Karl Marx or Milton Freedman lack the cognitive ability to do some critical thinking? And what would the green haired 21 yo "fact checker" decide is "fake news" if both of them were tweeting at the time?
Beyond "tribal ideology" idea clustering - there are tribal collections of shared assumptions, but personally there are also hierarchies of values.
Out of (say) 5~12 "values" that might matter to most persons - they are in different order, and change the way we process data. To provide a simple example, some people value freedom (autonomy) over safety, and others value safety over autonomy.
So even if people share the same assumptions about how the world works - and they have the same ideology as their tribe - disagreements will still arise.
It doesn't seem clear to me at all that this guy was JUST interested in supporting science.
Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented. I don't think it's a stretch to think his special interest in funding an evolution research team at Harvard was directly related to his abhorrent views. Sure his funding probably has had some higher order positive effects but it seems incredibly silly to suggest that such a monsterous person was donating all this money becuase of his passion for science. His constant oversight suggests that he probably had an agenda and use in mind for the research and I find it incredibly hard to believe it was anything good/humanitarian. You also have to keep in mind this is not just a guy with bad views, this is a person who has wielded money and power to directly cause evil for a very long time.
There is no doubt that 'any' patron to science expect to see certain results, whether that someone or some organization's expectations matches ours is another matter. The difference should be drawn with fabricating results, not donation to science
This is a dangerously wrong and even ignorant opinion. There is everything wrong with eugenics, and it’s all contained in the core idea that you have some notion of what is “good” for your children (and correspondingly, further parts of the human race). Other people have already pointed out the “eugenics will be used for political gain” component, which is absolutely true and kills it there. Another issue which I don’t think you appreciate though is the need for genetic diversity and genetic drift. The act of going about systematically pushing everyone’s genes in a certain direction is not only impractical, since we really don’t know enough about genetics to do that reasonably well, it’s also incredibly stupid because we’re getting a temporary “positive” payoff now by potentially screwing up our ability to adapt later. Mistakes are the spice of life, literally; don’t try to get rid of them, you’ll only hurt yourself.
1) even if we were all-knowing about what we’ll need in the future, we still don’t know enough about genetics to reliably “push” towards a set goal. Yes we know genetics plays a huge role in things like your body condition, your age, etc., but the degree to which those genes affect - and are affected by - your environment and at what stages they begin working, and where we should alter them, is so far almost completely unknown. Eugenics is grounded in the old idea that much of “you” is just genetics, but we know that idea now to be not just old-fashioned but outright wrong, in that there is a combinatorial number of possibilities enabled by your environment. It’s like calling the codebase of google search the same as the discord codebase because they’re both made of underlying C code (or whatever); technically true but also not true at all.
2)we really don’t have any idea what we should be pushing towards. Maybe right now we think that pushing towards greater strength, for example, would be a good idea, but maybe down the road we discover that one of the genes we made dominant actually makes us very susceptible to some virus strain, overall making the population die at a much higher rate compared to how things would have gone if we had not tried to play god. There are many, many variables you can’t even begin to account for; I find the words “Life finds a way” remarkably suitable to this discussion.
>If we provide the ability for people to select partners with some precision about what genes they carry and what might be passed to their offspring,
this is what's potentially wrong with eugenics, in the abstract there is nothing wrong with being able to choose genetic traits, but it will be left to the prejudices and ill-informed opinions of people not to mention fashion. Many traits that do not have anything to do with smarter, healthier and stronger humans would be selected for or selected against skewing the population unnaturally.
Would this have any deleterious effect - not sure. After all if it doesn't directly effect having smarter, healthier, or stronger humans what is the harm in - let's have an example - having red hair and freckles suddenly cut from the gene pool by 3/4ths? Probably no harm, maybe the redheads out there will be upset that there is sort of genetic vote to eliminate them, but they'll get over it or just get old and die so what's the harm?
on edit: to clarify - verged into sarcasm with my ending example as obviously I do think it would be harmful, although I can't really show with any certainty that I am correct, and just as obviously don't know that my scenario would happen - if it did I expect it would not be because most people chose against having redheaded children but rather for having other types of characteristics.
Eugenics is tricky. It is a complex field with legitimate and valuable data that can be used to help people, but can also be used for harm.
Nobody would wish cystic fibrosis, huntington's disease, or downs syndrome on their children, but that doesn't mean carriers don't deserve respect and dignity. The tricky part is how to promote healthier, happier, and smarter children without denigrating others.
> The tricky part is how to promote healthier, happier, and smarter children without denigrating others.
That's not tricky. It can't be done. If you want to admit that smarter children are desirable, you have to also admit that dumber children are undesirable. You can hope nobody notices, but they will notice.
Well, there's all this is intelligence equivalent to doing well on IQ tests and different kinds of intelligence debate going on in the culture for the last decade or two, and then there does seem to be a history in the U.S at least of undervaluing some sorts of intelligence in some regions and so on and so forth so I'm thinking - yeah, there kind of are a lot of taboos around this subject!
Ask yourself this - is there anyone you have ever met that would be willing to let their kids be a little bit dumber if that meant they would have the genes to be a little bit better at being a quarterback? Because I have met a lot of those people.
There is a question of how Intelligence is measured and what the tests optimize, but certainly no prospective parent would want dumber children when speaking of intelligence in general. The parent post seemed hold that even this position is amoral.
You raise a good point of potential tradeoffs, and intelligence is not the only factor to optimize for. I imagine most parents would optimize for health and happiness above it.
That said, it is unclear to what degree tradeoffs are required. For example, smart quarterbacks certainly exist. To me, this is an argument for further research into the genetic basis of health, happiness, and intelligence.
I find it interesting that the subject sparks such visceral reactions in people, and how these reactions differ across countries and cultures. I think the subject of Steve HSU is a great an example of this which will be interesting to watch play out.[1] US critics were very quick to assume his research had racial motivations, while in China the subject research receives a $1.5B grant.
>The parent post seemed hold that even this position is amoral.
I supposed because our ways of measuring intelligence are faulty, if someone tells you they will gene optimize your kids for high intelligence they must be using some measurement for what that is.
on edit: as I believe most human qualities have at least some environmental component it could well be that you have a gene that increases the chance of getting a quarterback, decreases the chance of intelligence and still end up with
1. a dumb quarterback
2. a smart quarterback
3. an dumb non-quarterback
4. a smart non-quarterback
only with different percentile chances going in to the process. Although if someone is a parent increasing chances for a dumb quarterback I am betting smart result is unlikely (unless the kid hates parental authority and becomes smart to spite them, which is basically what I did)
Thanks for continuing to engage, but I'm not sure we are seeing eye to eye on the fundamental question.
Putting aside the challenges of defining and measuring general intelligence, is it amoral to desire or take action to bring about a smarter child?
It seems that some people hold that yes, it is, because this ranks and devalues dumb people.
What do you think about this?
I think that it is perfectly reasonable, and in fact standard practice. Parents Intentionally optimize for smart children over dumb ones all the time using non-genetic means.
If you agree here, do you think using genetics to increase intelligence is conceptually amoral for other reasons? Alternatively, is your point that the technology isn’t mature enough to be ethical. Or is it that it IS ethical, just not practical?
For what it is worth, at least one commercial service is already available in the USA to screen embryos for non-disease genes which are probabilisticlly linked to lower IQ, by whatever metric the companies use to measure and define IQ. I think they started testing embryos in 2018.
>Putting aside the challenges of defining and measuring general intelligence, is it amoral to desire or take action to bring about a smarter child?
Putting it aside - no. Having it in the equation, I don't necessarily think so but I can see how someone might because , as said, the way to define intelligence is not sure and someone is making the decision as to how it is being defined.
>For what it is worth, at least one commercial service is already available in the USA to screen embryos for non-disease genes which are probabilisticlly linked to lower IQ, by whatever metric the companies use to measure and define IQ
So, it might be bad this because obviously the parents are unlikely to have the resources to determine what measure to use, they just have to assume the company's measure is a good one. Just like the police have no way of determining if the face recognition algorithm in their new machine learning toolkit is a good one so they trust the company that tells them it will help catch criminals.
>s your point that the technology isn’t mature enough to be ethical. Or is it that it IS ethical, just not practical?
I think that it might have unethical results as a side effect - a la the machine learning facial recognition example, or less likely even unethical motivations (because who knows if a company doing this stuff can also have ulterior motives)
But returning to >is it amoral to desire or take action to bring about a smarter child?
As a general principle no - but no general principle ever exists, the principle needs an actual implementation. Many of the processes that have been done by parents over generations to attempt to bring about smarter children can be pointed to and decried, even considered immoral.
>Parents Intentionally optimize for smart children over dumb ones all the time using non-genetic means
Sure, and lots of the things that are done people point at and say that is awful! I'm not saying that maximizing genes for intelligence IS awful, only it might be, especially given we don't really know or agree overall what it is we're measuring.
It seems like we have a pretty similar assessment.
I was aware of the challenges around definition and implementation, but you raise a really good points about trust and transparency that I had not considered.
While parents can reasonably see and understand the cognitive impacts that health, nutrition, and environmental enrichment have on their kids, this is not the case for genetic modifications, and this could be a meaningful distinction.
I'm pale. I think it's neat that paleness exist in the world. Would I run of the risk of people not liking some phenotypic trait that I identify with like paleness and choose to remove it, in order to greatly reduce the amount of anxiety, depression, cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, schizophrenia, parkinsons, and alzheimers in the world?
> Epstein's intrest in eugenics is pretty well documented.
i don't think of myself as much of an epstein apologist, but as far as i can tell this traces back to him talking about wanting to have a bunch of children, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me
I think the comment your referring to was a little less innocent than him wanting to just have a few kids. I did a fair bit of reading on this guy a while back and I seem to recall there being quite a bit of public documents and testimony that pointed out Epsteins weird interest in eugenetics.
