Comments on: OT22: Flow My Tears, The Policeman Thread

By: jaimeastorga2000

jaimeastorga2000 — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:02:39 +0000

In conclusion, keep the same diet, but turn the thermostat down to 60 F and engage in self-harm.

Let us hope that this new cold cuts diet proves more effective than the timeless decision theory diet.

Report comment

By: Alraune

Alraune — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:25:00 +0000

In conclusion, keep the same diet, but turn the thermostat down to 60 F and engage in self-harm.

Report comment

By: jaimeastorga2000

jaimeastorga2000 — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:20:15 +0000

your earlier statement (which I took to mean, “eating less will never lead to weight loss”

Oh, no; that interpretation would be an exaggeration in the opposite direction. There are indeed people and circumstances in which eating less functions more or less like the thermodynamic theory of dieting predicts it should.

Conversely, if you are at the point where your body is (e.g.) already converting the extra calories into heat, reducing the amount of calories you eat won’t result in weight loss.

There are more scenarios, I think, where reducing the amount of calories you eat will not result in weight loss. By analogy with the weight gain scenario, the two obvious ones are that your body, if feed less calories while already at its set point, will endeavor to absorb more calories from the food that you do eat, and/or will lower your body temperature in order to conserve energy. In the semi-starvation experiments which Mr. Taubes recounts in Good Calories, Bad Calories, the test subjects persistently complained of being cold and unable to warm themselves even when wrapped in numerous layers of clothing.

Another possibility is that your body simply reduces bodily functions in an effort to save calories. Even if this does not stop you from exercising at the previous rate, you might find out that the only effects of your increased caloric deficit are that your brain is suddenly performing as if it had an IQ one standard deviation lower than the one you started with, or else that your rate of healing from sickness and injury has slowed down considerably, all while the fat deposits in your body stubbornly refuse to transform themselves into usable energy.

Report comment

By: Shenpen

Shenpen — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:01:51 +0000

Here is something for fun: Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes says he will be the last pope, who will fuck up the church and world and all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

The fun part is that for religious conservatives, he really does sound like a disaster.

Report comment

By: Doctor Mist

Doctor Mist — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:24:14 +0000

Yeah, that’s why so many countries have emerged from war wealthier than when they went into it.

Sorry, I should have known better than try irony in print. Modern war is usually ruinous even for the victor. That’s not to say some weren’t started with the motive of profit, but nobody ever had to show a P&L accounting for it. If they’d had an actual board of directors, and stockholders, looking over their shoulders…

Report comment

By: JohannesD

JohannesD — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:14:46 +0000

There’s also the “Hide post (see fewer posts like this)” option which sounds like it’s used to teach the news feed algorithm. Whether it’s smart enough to learn the concept of “clickbait sites” I don’t know.

Report comment

By: Vamair

Vamair — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:47:15 +0000

All these objections are to the different versions of utilitarianism and at least one of them – the utility monster one – is only bad because of connotations of the word “monster”. If the monster is a galactic supercivilisation, and the other is a nonhuman animal, we’re all too happy to sacrifice all its utility to the monster. Well, even if it’s a human animal, actually.

Report comment

By: creative username #1138

creative username #1138 — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:02:32 +0000

I wouldn’t say that conservatives in general hated Laudato Si. Rod Dreher was a big fan.

Report comment

By: vV_Vv

vV_Vv — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:03:17 +0000

Before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger was a theology professor and then the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka the Inquisition).
He was accustomed to elaborating a coherent doctrine (as far as a doctrine that includes stuff like the Trinity can be) from first principles and explaining it to his theology students or other bishops.
Of course, as a Pope whose words reached billion people in the world, including many who have all the incentives to interpret them as uncharitably as possible, this method of communication worked very poorly.
He said many things that people didn’t want to hear, even if they logically followed from the Catholic doctrine. This made him quite unpopular, especially since the difference with his predecessor Pope John Paul II was striking.

Pope Francis is in many ways similar to John Paul II: a “rockstar” Pope who will say every time what people want to hear with a big heartening smile on his face.

Report comment

By: cypher

cypher — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:06:21 +0000

I’ve never been fond of their distaste for Transhumanism – but if you allow it, then you end up with something more like Eclipse Phase or Ghost in the Shell than Star Trek.

You wouldn’t really be able to do the whole humanist themes thing if they’re all even half as awesome as Lt. Data.

Report comment