Let's start off with social interactions: everything is recorded, broadcast to the world, and voted on. People have forgotten how to speak face-to-face. Social interactions have become currency.

Next, let's consider shrinkflation; you pay more for less for just about every transaction: cans of tuna? 6 oz instead of 8. Pasta? 12 oz instead of 16. etc. etc.

Then, let's talk about AI. Spent your life as a graphic artist, writer, or musician? Well, hey! Here's a tool that does it worse but everyone slurps it up because the lowest common denominator has no discernable taste. Kiss your career goodbye.

Last, let's look at simple shit like food delivery. Want to pay cash and tip your driver with cash? Nope! You pay fees and extra fees and a couple more fees because Big Delivery needs its cut.

I'm tired.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Eventually A.I. will get close enough to human writing to fool the A.I.-detectors and most humans. At that point, the only way to prove that you wrote something without using A.I., will be to sit in a room in front of a computer, with a camera trained on you, as you write it yourself.

So, assume there will continue to be people who hate the idea of consuming A.I.-generated or even A.I.-assisted writing. Even if they like some posts by a writer or social media creator, they still can't be sure that the writing isn't A.I.-generated, and they loathe the idea of getting emotionally invested in someone's writing that could be fake. So they will only consume writing if it is "certified not A.I.". And then anyone who wants to publish writing in order that demand, can use this service to certify that their writing is real when they publish it.

Now, a lot of people who just post casually on X or Substack might think, fuck that, I'm not driving to some room with a camera pointed at me just to prove I'm not A.I. And that's fine. But as long as there is an audience for certified-non-A.I. content, then the fewer people sign up to create certified-non-A.I. content, the more attention (and possibly more money) people can gain by being one of the creators. So some creators will be willing to do it, and they'll keep joining the system until an equilibrium is reached.

(Ironically, the camera monitoring system itself, which just watches you to make sure you are typing your own words, could be powered by A.I. That's a simple task that will probably be trivial to automate in the future.)

Now some people's reaction to this will be "Ugh, just log off and go talk to people." For one-on-one and small group chats, this makes sense. But when it comes to writing and thinking, there really are some people who are a lot better at it than others, and in an efficient, merit-based marketplace, those people's writing should be going out to more than just the small number of people they could reach by talking in a group. There should still be a way for some humans to write for a mass audience. But we should also have a way for consumers of writing to be 100% sure they're not reading something A.I.-generated.

(I suppose a person with a photographic memory but poor writing skills could still use A.I. to write something, memorize it, then show up at the writing center and type it out. That might just be a loophole we have to live with.)

Clarification

I always hear people claim that making people immortal would make life meaningless. I genuinely think this is a ridiculous viewpoint.

This post is long, and I've tried to format it to be as digestible as possible, as I feel it's all important to my viewpoint. Feel free to skim, or skip sections I use for comparison if it's too long for you, or you get my point already.

Let me clarify that I do not want to touch True Immortality (As in, you cannot die, and do not age) with a ten-foot pole. That is it's own special brand of Hell to me that would only be bearable under unique circumstances, and most, including myself, would not be able to bear it.

I am talking only about Biological Immortality, you do not age and COULD live forever, until you are killed, or even just until you choose to press the 'die' button. There needs to still be an option for an end, but it is not in order to grant meaning. It's only to give a way to end suffering if you want to cease, or a peaceful route to nonexistence if you're completely satisfied.

Because this is more of a philosophical view about the value in an endless life, I'm structuring it as an ideal scenario where people can just live until they choose to die. I'm still keeping the title as 'infinite' because some people could just choose to never die.

Useful Comparisons

I think the best description of my ideal world would be (Spoilers for the Good Place) Exactly how the Good Place ends. You could potentially live forever and do anything you could ever want, but eventually most people will be satisfied, so an option for nonexistence is a good thing. Yet others might find meaning in taking on an endless task, like Tahani seeking to master every skill and eventually becoming a Bad Place Architect, if memory serves. Obviously, this is an Afterlife scenario. But I see no theoretical reason an ideal futuristic world couldn't end up in a similar state, perhaps on a digital substrate if we crack true mind uploading without having any more doubt about the issues involved.

This is a more philosophical discussion than a practical one, anyway.

Sort of spoilers for Dark Souls, but it's nothing that's a 'reveal' or anything, they just kind of show up. This is pretty similar in my mind to how to avoid going Hollow in Dark Souls. DS3 has Undead like Andre and Patches who've stubbornly persisted since the beginning of the Undead Curse, because they never lose sight of the meaning in what they do and who they are (obviously being a blacksmith is a lot more productive and helpful than a backstabbing thief, but I digress.) Obviously, this world is far from ideal, and it's showing the strongest wills to persist through eons of suffering. But I still find it relevant.

I don't see why this wouldn't apply to real people, but I'm open to changing my mind, hence posting here.

Some Real World Context for Myself

I personally am someone who feels they wasted much of the start of their life scraping my way through school, and rotting away in the back room of my uncle's home for the entire 2010's, and that infuriates me. It doesn't add meaning to the remaining 40-80 years of my life. It only depresses me more and makes me feel like I'm more likely to waste more of it, losing even more time if I don't take care of myself properly.

I'm still in my first relationship, and I have been for nearly five years now, despite it being long distance and us only meeting up for the first time a few months ago. I'll finally be moving to her town in a year or so.

She has Multiple Sclerosis, and while it's something that is driving me to pursue my pre-existing interest in Regenerative Medicine, that does not make up for the sadness it causes me. Sadness that my time with her might be even more limited than it would be if we were both in perfect health.

It does not make that time with her mean more, the meaning is already there in every moment I spend with her, it was there in every moment before I learned of her diagnosis. It only tinges it with an extra looming dread that it's going to end, and if she lives a full and happy life typical of a healthy person, it only means that additional dread itself was a dampener on our happiness.

If I knew that my time with her would never end, that wouldn't cause me to squander it. The thought that I would just say 'Oh I can just talk to her next week, eh.' is utterly ridiculous. Every moment we spend together could be in complete relief that things are okay, that any small issues that come up are totally temporary. That there's no risk of anything important ever going unsaid, any meaningful discussions left unshared, even if it's temporarily put off.

If I was able to spend forever just developing the skills I want, just for the sake of doing it and for the sake of aiding others, then still having as much time as we want for our relationship; When both of us have explored everything that interests us, done everything that we want to contribute to the world, then finally, peacefully, choosing to die and see if anything comes next, I can't imagine any downsides to that.

Would some people waste their time if it was unlimited?

Yeah. Some people would, maybe a lot of people would, by my standards. But it's their right to find meaning wherever they find it. In this world where people have all the time they want, likely without a need to consume resources to have it, I see no reason they couldn't find real value in simple hedonism.

If they aren't hurting other people, does it matter? Who am I to judge them? Who am I to say that the value they find is false?

I'm a positive Nihilist, or an Absurdist, if that fits better. Life doesn't have any meaning to find, nothing is granted to us. We make it, and I don't believe there's any less meaning to make even if Life doesn't end. Allowing even those with an iron will who wish to persist endlessly and never stop contributing to find true meaning in that task.

Maybe someone just wants to be there to see the Universe experience Heat Death.

I don't get it, but they do.

Quantity has no baring on Quality, not on this, not in my mind.

Final Note

I've had people question my willingness to actually change my beliefs on my occasional posts to this subreddit before, because I go out of my way to provide a strong argument for my view.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't hold this view strongly. I do, but I recognize that there may be points where it fails. I do want to be right. But I love being proven wrong, having my views changed, because that then means I'm more right than I was before.

I hope the context in the previous section shows that my mindset towards life would only improve if my view was changed, that I could then cherish the limited time I have even more in face of the dread, so please do change it.

I'd also like to clearly state that AI was not used for any part of this post, every word and piece of formatting was typed by my hand, on the fly, in the past few hours.

I don't want those accusations poisoning discussion even if someone spots some random small similarity, and I know it's against the rules to make those accusations, but it still happens.

I was talking to someone about jobs AI could never do, and I gave a shepherd as an example. But then we stopped and thought: why couldn't you mount a camera and an automatic weapon on a drone? After all, I have cameras in my yard that can recognize animals. The counterargument, however, was: "What happens if it shoots your dog instead of the bear, or worse, a person?"

That really got me thinking. What actually happens? Killing a person is terrible. But then I started analyzing the problem objectively. How many people haven't accidentally killed other people? It happens all the time, out hunting, or at home (you keep a gun in the house, someone is on your property, they are drunk and do not respond, so you fire).

Here is the point: AI does not need to be an absolute genius. It does not need to be AGI capable of doing anything and answering every question. It does not need to perform miracles. It does not need to never make a mistake. On average, it just needs to do these things better than 50% of the population. And to be completely honest with you, doing things better than 50% of the population is extremely easy.

Think about the average person and how much nonsense they do, think, believe, and practice. AI is already better than the bottom 50% of people. It certainly makes mistakes far less often than 50% of people. Just think about the sheer amount of nonsense the average person talks every single hour, and compare that to the nonsense AI spews. It does not even compare! Not even close, a human will talk absolute, outrageous nonsense across every field imaginable. AI has its moments where it derails too, but, and this is a massive but, it is infinitely better than the median person.

We're holding AI to the standard of a flawless god, while the people it's replacing are barely functioning above baseline incompetence. Change my view.

This is a terminally online post as no one in the real world cares about this stuff but Im making this post anyway.

Ive seen some discourse online that its wrong to refer to people from the United States of America as Americans, with people proposing other silly names like Usonian and United Statieans.

The main reason for this ive seen is people don't like that the US "claimed the name American when it refers to two entire continents."

This argument falls apart when you realize the names they're suggesting has the exact same issues. The USA isn't the only "united states" in the world, why refer to the people with an even broader term like United Statians?

The people of the United States of America should be called Americans, just like the people of the United Mexican States are Mexicans.

Id be surprised if someone posted a good argument but im all ears if anyone has a good reason.

Maybe I've just been watching too much Love Is Blind, but it drives me crazy how often people — especially older couples who've been together for a while — insist that relationships are this constant battle that require incredible compromise on both folks' parts.

I get it to a degree. There's no such thing as the perfect partner, and some amount of compromise is almost always going to be necessary in even the best relationship. My wife and I have both had to compromise certain things in order to maintain our marriage. And I definitely understand why special circumstances — sudden illness, death of a loved one, having to move across the country to care for a family member etc — can force someone to compromise.

But if one or both of you are having to constantly make big compromises for each other, that tells me that you're not all that compatible in the first place. If it's making sure you can cohabitate and sustain a healthy relationship is this grueling daily battle, why are you with this person? I get that relationships require work, but they shouldn't require constant, difficult work. There are plenty of potential partners out there who you naturally get along well with, and don't have to make constant compromises to please.

My prompt is clearly related to the most recent botch but it’s clearly a more systematic issue.

They restrict the chemicals that can be used. It continuously fails causing un due pain to not only the prisoner but to the family of the victims having to watch the failed attempt and then maybe a repeat.

By the alternative a firing squad is 100% effective. No one has survived taking multiple large rounds to the heart. Cost would be around a dollar a round, death via gunshot to the heart is instant, there is no pain, there is no watching someone suffer.

We ended the electric chair due to cruelty, lethal injection seems worse in about every way.

I would also consider CO2 as an alternative that is less messy or violent if that’s an option. Place them in a chamber, they fall asleep and never wake up. You could hook them up to monitors. Doesn’t seem cruel at all.

Just to be blunt I don’t know how anyone could argue for Lethal injection not being a cruel or ineffective method compared to other options.

Edit: specifically for the process I am thinking firing line, 7 people masked, 3 live rounds, 4 blanks, 30-06, all aim at the heart, fire at once. Give the prisoner the option for the head instead.

I think 60fps, and high frame rates in movies generally, get dismissed far too quickly. I think that film culture is too overly conservative about 60fps. 24fps is treated as sacred, and anything that departs from it gets rejected before it's given a real chance. There's been the same pattern with sound, color, and digital cinematography, where each was met with claims that it looked cheap or ruined the magic, and each was eventually accepted once people got used to it. When the main pushback to a format is "that's not how movies are supposed to look," that's a preference for the familiar, not an argument about quality. Being cautious about change isn't a flaw in itself, but a lot of people seem unwilling to give 60fps a fair shot at all, and I think that holds the medium back.

I'm not saying that 60fps should be the new standard, it should be a creative choice that both audiences and filmmakers should be more open to.

The usual counterexamples are Gemini Man, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, The Hobbit, and people treat their failure of their usage of a higher frame rate as proof the format doesn't work. The movies had plenty of other problems, like weak scripts and uneven pacing, and a couple flops are a tiny sample, a movie being bad and also being 60fps doesn't mean it was bad because of 60fps, so correlation, not causation. And we've also seen the Avatar movies use 48fps selectively in action scenes and the usage of that was pretty well received as far as I've seen. The sample size is simply too small and inconsistent to declare the whole format a dead end.

A very common thing I see people say is that 60fps "looks unnatural" or like a soap opera. In my opinion that is a subjective feeling, not a measurable flaw. 24fps became the standard in the earlier eras of film mostly as a cost and technology compromise, not because it was the ideal frame rate for storytelling. We've spent a century associating it with "cinema," so anything else feels off. And I tend to agree, that it does feel "off", mainly due to the fact its so uncommon to see. Not inherently bad though in my opinion. Familiarity isn't the same as being better.

One argument against 60fps that I do understand is that the extra motion clarity can make sets, costumes, lighting, makeup, and CGI look more obviously fake, which can hurt suspension of disbelief. But I don't think that proves 60fps is inherently bad for movies. Filmmaking techniques have been developed around 24fps for decades, so if higher frame rates became more common, production design, VFX, lighting, and cinematography would likely adapt to the extra detail they reveal. We didn't reject 4k after 1080p being the standard for so long, since that also exposed flaws that lower resolutions could hide, but instead filmmakers adapted. I think the same could happen with frame rate.

If an amazing, critically acclaimed blockbuster were released in 60fps, say if The Odyssey or Interstellar hypothetically was also in 60fps, I'm quite confident it wouldn't take anything away from the movie or its success. If anything, it would enhance it. Action scenes, sweeping camera movements, and anything with fast motion would look clearer and more immersive, with less smearing and blur. And if that did happen, it would show other filmmakers the format can work at the highest level, and inspire more people to create in it instead of defaulting to 24fps.

I see so many women just adore her, I don't get it. I would like to know what's about her music that garners so much adoration. I've tried getting into it so many times, but to me her lyrics/vocals/tunes just sound terrible.

Maybe there are examples of actual good writing and strong vocals that I haven't come across. Generally whatever evidence of good writing has come up just sounds like overly worded mumbo jumbo.

I also don't like her activism, looks very self serving. Her inviting/allowing an invite to a person who's made a business out of an ICE deportation centre rubbed me the wrong way really. The fact that she never spoke about Palestine also doesn't help my image of her.

I couldn't care less who she dated, how many she dated or who she married, which I know have been points of immense scrutiny over the course of her career.

I have no problem with others like her music. Tastes are subjective, but Taylor Swift fans at times are a little...too much? I think that's one of the reasons why I haven't been able to find a reason to like her, her fans make it a little too difficult.

Change my view?

Most countries in the world today have a vanilla implementation of democracy in which the idea is that the fear of losing elections should be sufficient for a government to push beyond its limits when it comes to development and other forms of progress. Beyond this vanilla democracy, no further measures are implemented to score the performance of governments the way you would score the performance of a corporate employee.

**My view is that the fear of losing elections alone only produces a very weak correlation between the output of the government and the good of the country.** Governments are incentivised to do the bare minimum. In most cases, the bare minimum is that governments should just aim to be a bit "better" than the opposition.

Let's get into what "better" even means in this instance, because it's not the conventional "better". The lack of standardised performance metrics implies that peoples' judgement of how different governments compare comes down to subjective debates on news channels. At this point, the real aim of a government in a "vanilla" democracy is not even to perform a bit better than the opposition, but instead to manipulate news channels and deflect from the measurable problems of the country to unimportant problems.

As long as a government can manipulate peoples minds and talk nonsense better than the opposition in these subjective debates, they are performing "better" in every relevant sense that a vanilla democracy demands.

**A few last comments**-

Is there nothing better than vanilla democracies? I think a lot of governance should be based on performance metrics, like number of jobs, infrastructure, inflation, combined with ideas of vanilla democracies. If a government doesn't perform well, it should be disqualified from even fighting the next election. It would create a better system in which new parties can rise from the ground up once an older one is disqualified for an election. This will produce a more competitive environment.

(Talking about football, not American football).

I don't understand why some people jump out of their sit when this is said because it seems pretty factual. It's pretty well established that men are faster, and stronger physically so I won't insist on that.

In terms of actual skill, watching women football, even at the highest level, I see a lot of gag goals and the general level of play is very low. The goalkeepers in particular are very very bad.

And if you look at the results against not even men team, but even boy teams...

• Newcastle Jets U15 - Australia (Women) 7:0
• Teltower FC (7th tier Germany) - Turbine Potsdam (Women, Bundesliga Champion) 10:3
• VfB Stuttgart U16 - Germany (Women) - 3:0 (45 Minutes match)

And of course let's not forget the time where the world champions USWNT got beaten by a pack of 14 year old boys from Dallas (not even la masia or something).

What could change my view: I think if someone could point to a massive blind spot I have in how I see women football that would change my view.

The Universe is a big place, to put it mildly, so one would expect that it could be likely, if not certain, that we humans would encounter another intelligent civilization.

But there’s a lot of major factors standing in the way of this ever happening. Consider all that must take place for intelligent alien life to develop.

1. A star that is capable of providing the energy needed to sustain life in a stable, consistent, manner. This is the easiest part.

2. A planet that orbits within the habitable zone of such star. This is also common enough considering the size of the galaxy.

3. Life to arise on such planet. Considering that life on Earth took root as soon as conditions were stable, this could just be an extension of 2. In other words, life could be inevitable. So far, it’s not looking too bad.

4. Intelligent life to develop. Here is where the trouble begins. Of the millions of species to have existed on Earth, one has progressed to a civilization-building level of intelligence. We only have one planet to look at, but still, one million is a pretty big sample size.

5. That intelligent life to chronologically overlap with ours. Out of the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth, there have only been 5500 years (and that’s putting it generously) of advanced civilization, 150 years of a relatively-strong understanding of the universe, and zero years of interstellar travel.

6. A way to interact with such intelligent life, despite the vast distances between each star system. Even if we get extremely lucky, and there’s intelligent life in the Alpha Centauri system (the closest to Earth), we’re still looking at major logistical issues. Voyager 2, the farthest man-made object in space, will need c. 80,000 years to reach it. And again, this is the closest star.

Long story short, it’s reasonable to expect that alien civilizations will never be encountered. Somewhere out there in the distant reaches of space, this same conclusion is probably being reached.

An avid basketball fan, I spent years swearing MJ was the goat. I've considered LeBron heavily, and I've considered Kareem.

But I find myself now believing Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest ever. If he were born in 1990, he would probably be the unanimous GOAT.

Let me walk you through my POV:

The Timeline

In high school, he was already an incredible T&F athlete and among the best basketball players on earth. Before he even touched a college court, an article was published entitled, 'Can basketball survive Chamberlain?'

In 1960, rookie Wilt Chamberlain won MVP. He's the first of two players to ever do so.

In 1962, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged 50 points, 26 rebounds, 2 assists shooting 51 percent from the field and scoring 100 points in a game.

In 1967, Wilt Chamberlain had possibly the best season in history. He averaged a near triple double: 24/24/8. He shot 68% from the field and won his second of 3 straight MVPs.

What the stats don't show us

Wilt Chamberlain played before the NBA recorded blocks.

His final 1973 season, after analysts went back and documented all of his film, saw him blocking an insane 5.4 blocks per game - Only Mark Eaton in 1985 had a higher confirmed single-season average. It's estimated he averaged up to 9 blocks per game in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain was also an incredible rim deterrent - the same things said about Gobert and Wemby today? Also true for Chamberlain - players wanted nothing to do with him at the rim.

Physically, Wilt Chamberlain was a specimen. Possibly the most athletic person ever, period. At 7'1", playing at 300 pounds, he had enormous hands, a 7'7" wingspan, could run a 4.6 40, jump 48 inches, bench 500 pounds with a 50 foot triple jump. His blend of speed, strength, and size are unheard of. He tore his patellar tendon in 1969, a usually career-ending injury, and recovered in mere months.

Wilt Chamberlain was skilled. Watch the game tape. A physically dominant player like Shaq simply backs into people to move them.

Wilt Chamberlain used drop steps, hook shots, floaters, finger rolls, and a mid-range fadeaway, A shot that wouldn't be mainstream until the 80s, and still managed to shoot 66-68% across several seasons. Shaquille O'Neal played with his back to the basket. In the 1960s, backing down, a defender in the post would be called an offensive foul immediately. Post scoring was extremely skill-based.

What the stats do show us

Wilt Chamberlain was really good. He holds the record for points, rebounds, and blocks in a game. He has 100+ triple doubles and that's only those that are documented, he likely has hundreds with his block numbers, and several quadruple doubles, which only three players have ever done. He recorded the NBA's first, last, and only quintuple double - 53/32/14/24/11, documented by Harvey Pollack.

Wilt Chamberlain is the all-time leader in minutes per game, and averaged 48.5 out of 48 minutes in his prime.

Wilt Chamberlain has the most rebounds ever, he has 1.5% of every rebound in NBA history.

My conclusion

There is no other player who can do what Wilt can do. He has a case for the best scorer ever, best rebounder ever, best defender ever, second-best passing center ever, most athletic player ever, most dominant player ever, and definitely for the best player of all time.

You've all heard the story before. Big corporation/wealthy individual comes after person with civil lawsuits with the intent of bankrupting them. After a long, drawn out battle in court, there's only one winner: the lawyers. Even if the case is dismissed fairly quickly, the defendant can get saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of attorney's fees.

This solves the issue of frivolous lawsuits by attaching economic incentive to file cases that will actually win, and levels the playing field when two financially mismatched parties are in court together.

In cases where the purpose of the lawsuit is to pursue a non-financial objective (such as specific performance), the amount can be agreed upon beforehand based on a specific outcome, rather than a % of the payout.

Extending the same concept even further, you could have the losing party always liable for attorney's fees on the other side of the lawsuit.

I’ve been wildly unsuccessful in my life in dating. Being someone who’s very short (5’2) and bald, and sadly without a handsome face, it’s very difficult for me to attract women’s attention to a point where they’re interested in me beyond friends.

While I do have a lot of women friends, I’ve never been able to date anyone or even experience basic things like a kiss or anything intimate. I’m 36 years old and still don’t know what these things feel like because I’ve only experienced mockery and rejection my entire life whenever I tried.

I’ve gotten to the point where I’ve become numb to the envy and jealousy of not experiencing these things and always been rejected for another guy. I think long-term I’ll be happier if I accept it won’t happen and just focus on myself and ignore the outside world.

Here’s my thought process, anything I’m wrong on here?

1. Gambling can be extremely addictive and destructive, it is the throwing away of money in exchange for an adrenaline high, it is inherently degenerate
2. Degenerate desires are not going anywhere, and will always be sated by legal or illegal means
3. It is better to legalize degenerate behavior so as not to create a criminal revenue stream, but to create a legal “friction” for degenerate activities, to dissuade the activity, and the most effective friction (aside from potential danger) is geographic restriction
4. Casinos and the associated services are incredibly lucrative and (aside from one extremely notable exception) are basically impossible run into the ground
5. A near guaranteed cash flow from outside communities, on a basis that creates jobs and entrepreneurship, aided by a government monopoly, is the most realistic form of reparations our current society could actually achieve for American Indians

* The casinos should be owned by, and its profits distributed to, the recognized tribal governments rather individuals or private groups. There is still the risk of avarice and corruption, but it is more likely that the funds will actually go towards developing the community rather than benefitting a few well connected members and diluted by outside investors, banks, etc.

We live is a suburban area. We recently purchased a Nissan EV. It is fun to drive, very low cost to operate with little maintenance, and 95% of our driving can be covered with the EV. We have a Chargepoint charger in the garage and top it off every couple days. I don't think I have filled up the Subaru with gas more than a couple times since February when we got the EV. Our cabin is 175 miles away and even at that distance the EV covers it just fine as I put a charger up at the cabin as well for the return trip. Before getting the EV, I had anxiety that I would be stranded after running out of battery but it has never been even close to an issue now that we have it.

So I think most multi vehicle households would benefit greatly from having one of them be an EV.

CMV: The main Israeli criticism of NAZA seems pretty hollow

For anyone who hasn't seen it: NAZA is an Israeli documentary based on testimony about IDF targeting in Gaza, including AI generated targets and how many civilian deaths could be accepted for individual targets.

The movie has 24 anonymous IDF/intelligence sources on screen, but the investigation apparently involved more than 100 sources, including senior officers and people involved at different stages of targeting/approval.

The Guardian reports that claims were cross-checked against other sources, specific strikes and classified material.

And the overall picture isn't exactly coming out of nowhere. UN investigations, Amnesty and other organisations have separately documented huge civilian harm, destruction of civilian infrastructure and extremely permissive Israeli conduct in Gaza.

Yet I keep seeing basically the same arguments against the movie:

"The witnesses are anonymous."

Anonymous to us.

The journalists know who they are and checked their stories against other sources/evidence.

Do people seriously expect serving IDF personnel accusing their own military of war crimes to appear with name, rank and address?

"They are just junior soldiers who don't understand the targeting process."

Except the investigation included more than the 24 people shown and reportedly included senior officers and people directly involved in targeting and authorization.

So this seems to be arguing against something the movie isn't actually claiming.

"There is no evidence. Just testimony."

Again, no.

The investigation reportedly used 100+ sources, classified documents and checked specific attacks.

You can argue that they should release more of the underlying evidence. That is reasonable.

But that isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist.

"No Israeli strike killed 500 civilians, therefore the claim that 500 civilians could be accepted is false."

This one makes no sense to me.

The allegation is about the estimated civilian deaths BEFORE the strike.

If you authorize a strike expected to potentially kill 500 civilians and it ends up killing 80, that doesn't magically mean the original authorization didn't happen.

"Those numbers weren't allowed civilian deaths. They were authorization thresholds."

Ok... but what happens when it reaches the person with authority to approve it? That is the relevant question.

If 20 deaths needs approval from person A and 100 from person B, saying "100 wasn't automatically allowed" doesn't answer whether person B then approved it. Nor does it provide statistics on how many times humans approved or disapproved the targets or what the process was.

It does not help when sources claim:

B. said that the reason for this automation was a constant push to generate more targets for assassination. “In a day without targets [whose feature rating was sufficient to authorize a strike], we attacked at a lower threshold. We were constantly being pressured: ‘Bring us more targets.’ They really shouted at us. We finished [killing] our targets very quickly.”

"Lavender isn't an AI kill list because a human approves the target."

Again this seems mostly semantic. The allegation is that algorithms generated enormous numbers of targets and human review became extremely limited.

If a person looks at an AI generated target for 20 seconds and clicks approve, technically a human made the decision.

That doesn't answer the criticism. Especially not when it is a heuristics where the score needed to be deemed "likely hamas operative" can be changed if they do not get enough targets.

"Israel calculated civilian casualties, therefore they were trying to protect civilians."

Calculating civilian casualties obviously can be part of protecting civilians.

But surely the interesting part is what number you then ACCEPT?

A system saying "this strike will probably kill 80 civilians" doesn't become humanitarian because someone calculated the 80 first.

"Hamas operates among civilians."

Yes. That makes targeting harder.

How does it answer whether Israel massively loosened its acceptable civilian casualty limits or whether targets received meaningful review?

Additionally the claim is that the identification of "hamas"-people is 85% precise, though that number is a claim, not a fact. But 15 innocents + families out of a 100 targets is very "non-precise targeting" for precise strikes.

The logic seems to be that all people targeted are Hamas despite of this.

"They ignore October 7."

October 7 explains why Israel went to war. It doesn't give Israel unlimited freedom in how it conducts that war. (and time did not start on October 7)

"The filmmakers are anti-Israel."

Maybe. Who cares? Are they Anti-"the right wing government" (= 75% of elected)

Show that their evidence is wrong.
The thing I find interesting is that most of these arguments don't really address the central claims.

The relevant questions are:

1. Did Israel substantially increase how many civilian deaths it would accept for targets?
2. Were huge numbers of targets generated algorithmically?
3. Did those targets get meaningful human review?
4. Were strikes approved while knowing large numbers of civilians would probably die?

If NAZA is wrong, those are the claims I would expect the rebuttal to disprove.

Instead most of what I see is "anonymous sources", arguments about terminology, attacks on the filmmakers and distinctions that don't actually contradict what is being alleged.

CMV: What is the strongest actual evidence that the central claims in NAZA are false?

Black holes are enormously popular with children who love space (and adults who are still children at heart).

But I think neutron stars are underrated.

Neutron stars are the most fascinating objects in the universe.

For the sake of explanation, I’m going to borrow one neutron star from space.

It is only about 24 km in diameter, yet it contains more mass than the Sun. As far as we know, it contains some of the hardest material in the universe.

The matter itself also takes a step beyond ordinary matter as we know it. Neutron drip. The boundaries of atomic nuclei begin to dissolve.

If it is a magnetar, it could destroy electronic devices on Earth from an enormous distance.

Its gravity bends light so strongly that, even though it is a sphere, you can see part of its far side.

To be honest, I had a hard time deciding between neutron stars and black holes. But black holes are already far too popular.

I think neutron stars have a more niche kind of appeal.

What could change my view:

Earth is excluded. This is to avoid the extremely powerful and predictable counterargument that Earth has life.

You are welcome to make the classic case for why black holes are so fascinating.

A poetic description of a supernova might also sway me.

Or you can introduce me to some other fascinating astronomical object that I may not know about, and explain why it deserves the title. If possible, please make your case in a way that an ordinary person can understand, without relying heavily on technical terminology or equations.

Representatives from the “White Dwarf Sales Department,” “Black Hole Fundamentalists,” “Supernova Poets,” and similar factions are all welcome.

Disclaimer:
I am not a native English speaker, so I will use AI translation to read all replies. I may also use AI assistance when I need to make sure that my scientific explanations are accurate.

I wrote this post myself, and ChatGPT translated it.

Edit:

Thank you very much for all the replies. I’ve enjoyed reading them, and you’ve also given me several things to look into over the next few days.

However, it’s time for me to go to sleep. I’ll come back tomorrow and properly consider the comments I haven’t been able to respond to yet.

Good night.

Edit 2:

Good morning.

I counted the deltas I’ve given out so far.

Four went to Black Hole Fundamentalists.
One went to the brute force of multiple galaxies.
One went to an off-field brawl involving the universe shortly after the Big Bang.

It seems the world is full of Black Hole Fundamentalists.

But I still maintain that, among astronomical objects, neutron stars should never be taken lightly.

Serena Won 23 Grand Slams which he did playing against the likes of Henin, Venus, Sharapova or Azarenka. And these players while good aren't anywhere near the level of Serena, basically she never truly had someone on her level that could take slams away from her which to me affects how I see her slam tally compared to the likes of Novak, Roger or Rafa

Roger, Rafa and Novak won 20/22/24 Slams despite competing with each other which means that without themselves they would've won way more than they did very likely win 25 to 35 Grand Slams

Just to put you an example of how much much the big 3 stopped each other

-Nadal stopped Federer from Winning Roland Garros 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011, Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009/2014. He also stopped Djokovic in Roland Garros 2012, 2013,2014, 2020, 2022 and US Open 2010/2011

-Djokovic stopped Federer from winning Australian Open 2008, 2011, Wimbledon 2014, 2015, 2019 and US Open 2015. And he stopped Nadal from winning Roland Garros 2021, Wimbledon 2011/2018 and Us Open 2011

-Federer stopped Nadal from winning Wimbledon 2006, 2007 and Australian Open 2017. And he stopped Djokovic from winning US Open 2007, US Open 2008, Wimbledon 2012 and Roland Garros 2011.

Take 2 of the Big 3 members from Tennis and the likes of Nadal/Djokovic/Federer would have won 28/35 Slams while Serena finished with 23 while playing against the likes of Henin, Venus or Sharapova

Hi, I’m guessing this could be a hot take based on his popularity, but I’ve recently started trying to get into rap, looking at a variety of artists and styles, however everytime I’ve listened to drakes stuff he is coming across as a generic artists with samey beats and way too much autotune.

Again I am just starting my rap journey so perhaps I’m not aware of his style, impact etc, however to me he seems bland with the same beats I’ve heard many a time.

Bare in my mind I do think he’s a good rapper who can flow well but apart form that the other aspects of his music have failed to impress so far.

As a starting point, let's take the passport bros. Many have a notion that "western women" are degraded and untraditional. They aren't attracted to men physically or as a human companion, but they still, from time to time, pursue men as protectors or providers (which the manosphere hates them to want, even though they long to become it).

So, I'm right that those guys are misogynists, right? They don't have a point. Women aren't really degenerate whores. I think I'm right about that, but I'd be willing to hear the steel man for it. I can believe that women are taking more advantage of sexual freedom to have some sexual adventures more than in times past. I wouldn't hold that against them, but I can see how some men might.

But I actually think most women are looking for a stable relationship, but their "body count" is not under two because they had to kiss more than two frogs. Men made themselves appear to be a good match, but those men valued their own sexual freedom more than they claim to value loyal partnership.

What could change my view, in possible order from least to most likely

- Female celebrities who promote narratives that exploit men using their sexuality and have an extremely widespread female fandom

- Men with stories of "a guy I know"

- Men with stories of their own heterosexual encounters where they felt exploited

- Women who admit to using a man who wasn't their first choice but offered them security

I mean, I can see the possibility that as society degrades, more people will be willing to turn to relationships of convenience. It was that way at many times in history. Are we there yet, or we have not yet sunk that low?

As many here probably know, AIPAC is one of several major PACs that influences primary elections in a way that is arguably questionable in a democratic society. As such, some people advocate for making it have to register as a foreign agent. To me, that’s the wrong way of going about it, and let me explain why.

First of all, AIPAC is American. Our current laws basically only require that American entities register if they get money from a foreign government otherwise shown to be acting under the command of a foreign government.

Secondly, if even if we changed our laws regarding foreign registry so that AIPAC would have to register, that would still be the wrong way of going about it, as that would clash with freedom of speech/association. Generally-speaking, laws can’t treat an American entity differently on the basis that it advocates for a foreign country, unless we are currently at war with that country. Also, do we really want to set a precedent for giving citizens less freedom of on the basis that they want our country better relations with a foreign country? For instance, I want our country to maintain great relations with Canada and Mexico, and am willing to donate to candidates who agree with me about that, but I don’t feel that that should be enough to treat me differently under our laws.

So what’s the solution? We should not have any major PACs influencing our primaries, but I don’t want to do anything that risks putting free speech in jeopardy. Therefore, my preference would be to instead get rid of Citizens United and put more limits on major PAC spending more generally.

To change my mind, I will need to be convinced that my proposed solution is bad and/or somehow impossible, or that making AIPAC register would not run afoul of freedom of speech/association.

I look forward to your responses:)

To me it just seems like the utility of dating apps for men just seems to be singnificantly lower for men. Let us say the utility of any swipe depends on the value of the match and the probability of actually getting a match plus a cost function. Let us say c(x) denotes the value of any swipe then

c(x) = P(x is match)*v(x) + co(x)

where v(x) is the value function of a given match and co(x) is the cost function. Cost in this model denotes anything that is costly about a match including bad interactions or risks, but also financial costs and other cost.

Now I think it is generally agreed that P(x is match) is generally way lower for men than women.

v(x) as the value of any given match also doesn't seem vastly dissimilar between genders. At least I can't find any good study that would actually back this up. Certainly not to the extent that it would offset P(x) being so much lower.

That leaves only the cost function as a driver for a potential equality and here I would argue that the cost function works very differently for both sexes and both face hardships. It seems hard to argue to me that the cost function alone should ofset the reduced probability of matches. Here you can also model the cost of filtering for women. On the other hand men are expected the cost of repeated rejection, iniative and also the financial cost for dating, even if things like security concerns may not play as big of a role.

Overall this would mean that the utility of any given swipe for men would be lower so the total utility would also be lower. That would be my argument for why it is generally worse for men.

To me this also seems evidenced by women generally churning dating apps more quickly (which may be the result of them finding a desirable match more quickly) and also by men being the main revenue generators for dating apps.

I should be clear, that I am referring to a standard breakup, not an actual divorce that involves legal paperwork and finances that often gets extremely messy. I should also be clear that I am referring specifically to chronic singleness, so not rejections. One of my friends once told me "You will never convince me that a rejection is worse than a breakup." I get that. The loss of what could have been vs the loss of what was. So, I also want to be clear that I am not here to argue that a rejection is worse than or even AS BAD as a breakup. Obviously, some rejections hurt worse than others (a random stranger you meet at the bar rejecting you is definitely not as bad as a friend who you have developed genuine feelings for over time but they just don't feel the same way), but that's another topic. However, I told my friend that when you've spent your entire post-puberty life (I'm 28M for reference) being single, while most of your friends are either engaged, married, have been in their current relationship for three or more years, or are just very good at serially dating, you begin to wonder if maybe there is something wrong with you. I told him that that was a type of pain that he will never understand.

I can imagine that breakups are hard, and even though I have never experienced one, I can strongly sympathize with people who have gone through them. Losing a routine and a best friend is always hard. I actually literally lost my best friend to a drug overdose back in January, but again, that's another topic. But losing anybody who you have already developed a strong bond with is hard. You don't have to have experienced it to know it. After all, we humans are social creatures, and it is hard-wired in our biology to crave companionship. And obviously, some breakups are worse than others. A breakup from a relationship that has lasted for a year or longer is going to be much more painful than a breakup from one that only lasted for a few weeks/months.

But as I mentioned before, being chronically single is a completely different type of pain. If you're at a point in your life where you feel like half of your friends are either married, engaged, or have been in a relationship for over three or more years, when you've never even gotten a second date, you begin to internalize it. For me, personally, I have always struggled, not only romantically, but socially as well. Physically, I was a late bloomer, and am neurodivergent which has made navigating social situations feel extra difficult. I have (and still am) done everything I can to try improve myself (work on my tech startup, applying for law school, going to the gym, etc.). And while being single has it's perks, it would be nice to have someone whom you can go home to who will ask you about your day, but more importantly, someone who you can ask about their day. Somebody who you can share your hopes and dreams with and just feel like your partner-in-crime, and will give you a hug if you ever have a bad day. After a certain point, it feels like I am "defective" and I just wish I knew what I could do to fix it.

It's true that I have never experienced the pain of a breakup. But to me, it's like that scene in The Wizard of Oz, where the wizard tells the tin man, "You my galvanized friend wanted a heart. But you have no idea how incredibly lucky you are not to have one! Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable!" The tin man sadly replies, "But I still want one..." That's exactly how I feel sometimes. I feel like I am ready to take on the hardships that come with being in a relationship. I want to find somebody who I can navigate life's journey with, and somebody who I can grow old with, and share my hopes and dreams with. But more importantly, I wish I could do that for somebody else, too! Some nights, I even lie awake with panic and anxiety attacks wondering if I will ever find somebody. In my mind, at least with a breakup, you know that you were attractive to somebody at least at one point, and things just didn't work out for one or another reason. But nothing says that you will never find that again. With being chronically single, you wonder if you may ever even get to experience that, and the fact that you've never experienced it, serves as further proof of that.

Back in college, one of my friends was in a toxic relationship, and she said to me, "Trust me. Being in love sucks, sometimes!" I said, and confidently meant it, "Well, I can assure you, that NOT being in love sucks even more." Of course, what do I know? Again, this is not a question of "Which is worse: a rejection or breakup?" which is a matter of what could have been vs what was. This question (chronically single vs breakup) is a matter of what was vs what may never happen. The debate of chronic singleness vs a breakup is a similar level of pain but distributed in different ways. I saw one person on Reddit describe a breakup as a sharp pain from a bad cut which leaves a scar. The actual pain may fade away eventually, but it still hurts for a while. And even when it stops hurting, you are still left with the scar forever. On the other hand, they described chronic singleness as a more dull pain which never really goes away, and while it may go away some day, for now, nobody knows how to stop it.

Think of it like this: a pregnant woman having a miscarriage vs a woman being told by her gynaecologist that she may never be able to have children. The pregnant woman having a miscarriage is extremely devastating. She lost a child, and it is heartbreaking beyond belief. For all we know, she and her partner have been trying forever to conceive a child. Of course, usually nothing says that she will never be able to get pregnant again, but that sure does not take away from the pain of losing her unborn child. But a woman being told that she can probably never have children is also painful but in a different way. Sure, she may have never experienced motherhood or pregnancy, but she may have desired that so much, and she can equally mourn the fact that she may never get to experience it. But while those two types of pain may be different, they still are equally deserving of empathy and compassion.

Perhaps, a less extreme example would be losing your dream job vs being chronically unemployed. You may have worked really hard to get that job, and it may have been a great job. You may have also lost that job through no fault of your own (the economy tanked, replaced by AI, the boss got in legal trouble, corporate buyout, etc.). But of course, losing your job is still painful. However, people underestimate the impact of being chronically unemployed for such a long period despite being highly qualified and perfectly capable within your field. After being unemployed for so long, you begin to question your self worth. Especially considering that like being in love, our society has attached a lot of one's self-worth to our "usefulness" in this economy.

Another thing that makes chronic singleness painful is the fact that many people often don't even acknowledge how much it hurts. Often, when people talk about their struggles with chronic singleness, people are quick to comment things such as, "Enough with your pity party", or "Gee, I wonder why you are single..." or "Go touch some grass", and many other hurtful statements. Most single people actually have nothing wrong with them. Some people are just in unfortunate circumstances or have to jump through more hoops, and just haven't had the means to get into a relationship. Especially in today's world, people are just less social, there are fewer third spaces, and don't even get me started on dating apps, which have made people extremely superficial! Unfortunately, our society ties a lot of one's self-worth to our ability to get into relationships or even just have sex. This is why I have a problem with terms like "incel" and the stereotype that lonely men are dangerous and want to cause harm to others. Most "involuntary celibate" men (and some women) actually suffer in silence, and it's only a very loud vocal minority that makes chronically single people (mostly men) look bad. If anything, those people are more likely to cause harm to themselves than to others.

Long story short: Breakups are hard, no doubt. But chronic singleness is a different type of pain that deserves just as much attention.