Nibodhika

Nope, he finds it important no one uses what to him is a fictional character to push laws and regulations. You would also care if people prohibited you from doing something you like to do or think is important because Superman said it was wrong.

That's a big difference, in general atheist don't care about God(s), they care about people trying to use God(s) to push an agenda, but the people who're trying to use God(s) to push that agenda rarely see the difference.

Now there are clowns everywhere throwing pies at each other

Until there's an AGI that won't happen in any meaningful way. Why? Because here's something that matches your criteria of:

a mystery detective RPG in the style of Sherlock Holmes but set on a cyberpunk styled city on a space station like the Citadel from Mass Effect

You get a text based game where everything you try to do ends up with you dead because a corporation kills you unless you discover that if you look at the ground where you start there's a penny from the year the murderer is from, and then you need to discover who's the murder (changes every time) based solely on this, because that's the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes would do. No, it's not fun, it's frustrating, it's essentially luck, if that's fun to you I have an infinitely replay able game, flip a coin and see how many times you can get heads in a row, if you get to 16 you win.

The thing is LLMs don't understand "fun", they're just auto-completes, so they will just do boring or unfair stuff. And you would need to go very deep into the specifics of your game, to the point where you're essentially programming the game, so at the end of the day it's not something an end user would use.

That's not to say there aren't interesting uses for it inside games, but the moment you can prompt an entire game that's actually fun to play on an AI, that same AI would be able to replace almost every job in the world.

I don't live there anymore, and it's not the oldest building, but there is a pub in Dublin that's been running since 1198, they claim to be Ireland's oldest pub but IIRC the claim is a bit bogus.

I didn't say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can't tolerate intolerance can't be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.

Not reasonable because you're making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I'm in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I'm an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.

For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of "all Muslim immigrants are intolerant" you're the one being intolerant, if you say "People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate" then I'm okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it's unlikely they'll use this argument.

Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you're interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they're forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I've never seen that happen. In fact I've even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she's okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.

Yes, I agree, it's not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don't care the language someone says that, "The Jews should be eliminated" is an intolerant statement, just as much as "The Muslims should be eliminated", regardless of who says it, it's intolerant and should not be excused by someone's skin color.

Also we must clarify if we're talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you're okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.

With what level of force are you going to attack them?

With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can't shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating "X should be prevented from voting" should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.

Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.

Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone's, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming "all X should be exterminated" can morally be killed.

Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.

Yes, that's why it's a paradox, it wouldn't be a paradox if it didn't have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but "people who wish (non-X) dead" are not, e.g. "people who wish Muslims dead" are a valid X.

Thanks for the correction, I've edited the comment, indeed that could be missinterpreted.

I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.

It's paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they'll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.

Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn't tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they're inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.

Would I personally punch a person because they're spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don't think it's morally wrong to do so, it's just not the optimal way of dealing with it.

Nope, never bought any of the NFTs that were sold to idiot speculators because I understand the technology and see no value in owning a token representing a digital image. I feel that the rage of downvoting comes from people who got scammed because they didn't understood the technology and now see it mentioned and think it's all a scam, similar to how old people used to think emails were a scam because they sent money to a prince in Nigeria.

Cool, I've been out of the loop on crypto for years, just checked and you are correct, now the full Ethereum network, capable of beating visa in TpS runs at 0.0026 TWh/yr, i.e. 1/100x of the energy consumption of PayPal, therefore proving my point above.

Did you read the link you sent? It clearly states that only the amount of miners matter like I said before, the amount of transactions has nothing to do with it, you're mixing the two.

The more people mine, the more decentralized it is

Wrong, decentralization is hard to measure, one person with a mining farm is centralized, while hundreds of people with their personal computer are decentralized but both produce the same amount of hash power. So you can have one person investing more and more in mining rigs increasing the total amount of mining power in the pool but decreasing it's decentralization.

the more energy is necessary because difficulty is increased.

Yes, this is correct, if you have more computers mining you will have a higher energy spending.

The more transactions happen, the more blocks are required,

Wrong, there's one blonc every 10 minutes, regardless of the amount of transactions that happen. Did you even read the link you sent?

the more energy needs to be spent to confirm all the transactions.

Wrong, the energy needed to confirm 1 or 1000 transactions is the same, and it's related to the hashing difficulty established by the total amount of hash power, again, did you even read the link you sent?

The more it's used, the higher the value, the more people mine.

Wrong, the value of an asset does not necessarily correlate with it's use, for example gold is more valuable than dollar, even though dollar is a lot more used.

There's a limit to the number of transactions per block as well, so no, your can't just say "1 or 1000 it's the same".

Yes there is, but until that limit is hit the amount of transactions doesn't matter. Also that limit is artificial and can be easily raised if needed, as it was done on Bitcoin Cash which can do hundreds of transactions per second more than Bitcoin, but because it has less miners uses less energy, thus proving you are wrong and the two are not correlated.

Visa is already able to handle 24000 transactions per second as is, no need for more infrastructure.

And ETH2 is theoretically capable of 100k, and that's just one coin which BTW is PoS so nothing of what we talked about miners applies to it. No miners means less power consumption by the network as a whole.

Crypto uses 1% of the world's energy production for a couple trillions in assets, the financial system uses 2.5% for quadrillions in assets, multiple thousands more than crypto, no, crypto can't scale to that without a huge environmental impact.

Do you have a source for that? But also you're measuring environmental impact as just energy consumption, and that's very wrong, by that same standard I could say crypto is green because it produces no plastic, whereas Visa has huge factories to produce plastic for their cards, their card machines, etc. If you only focus on one environmental impact it's easy to make anyone to be the bad guy, and for some reason people only see the Bitcoin energy usage and completely ignore that the energy consumption there is the whole story, whereas for other things there's hundreds of factors pilling on top to generate the environmental impact.

Yes you are trying to greenwash crypto, just stop.

Again, I'm not, I recognize that PoW is an energy hungry method of confirmation, however it's not the environmental catastrophe that the original comment said and if you take into consideration ALL of the environmental impact of alternatives (not just energy consumption) you will see that it's not as bad as people make it out to be. Which doesn't mean it's good, but it's far from an environmental catastrophe.

Also when you take into consideration that we were originally talking NFTs, and that's mostly an Ethereum thing, and Ethereum is migrating to PoS, it's even less of an environmental catastrophe.