I follow tech pretty avidly, my wife has a steam deck on her christmas+birthday list (they’re close so it’s a combo). I’ve intentionally not told her about the refresh and all the goodness it brings, so that I can surprise her with a 1TB Steam Deck that surpasses everything she expected! I’ve got the whole family pitching in to get it, Valve’s timing couldn’t have been better!
For what it’s worth, I’m 100% a nihilist, it’s absurd to me that there is some inherent meaning in life. Who tf am I to say I know the meaning to life??? BUT I also recognize that I’m alive, as is everyone able to think that thought, and we might as well do something with it despite this. I think everyone contrives meaning in their own lives, and THAT. IS. OK. That itch for meaning needs to be scratched, I live as a rule utilitarian primarily, even though I accept this worldview as one I’ve contrived for myself rather than something inherently right. If you’ve got a kitchen full of ingredients, and there’s not outright purpose to the “right” thing to cook, it still seems to make more sense to scramble an egg or two, than to demolish the kitchen over the notion of a lack of inherent meaning.
I achievement hunt in video games, sure as heck not because it’s the most enjoyable way to play a game (some are annoying and hard) but because I also struggle with feelings like yours, and when I get that little ding, it feels like I’ve done something (I know I haven’t!) but it feels like I did, and that’s nice to scratch that little “I did a thing” itch. It’s okay that it feels nice, even if deep down I know it means nothing. Crap, so what? Same thing when I finish a book, finish a puzzle, watch a new movie, etc. Everything else means nothing too! But it doesn’t do me much good to dwell on that, and so I plod along for my next little ding. Sometimes that ding is the thought that “damn, this subway sandwich, is fucking bangin”. Sometimes that ding is getting a chuckle out of how stupid life is (I recently won a costume contest at my work I joined over Zoom. I planned to just watch, and as a dry stupid joke I pulled the lampshade of my lamp, plunked it on my head, and said I was a lamp. I promptly won a vote, and a gift basket to the chagrin of everyone who actually tried on their costume. If that’s not some stupid good shit to live for I don’t know what is.)
Sometimes that ding (and get this) ISNT EVEN FUN. That’s also okay. I often say satisfaction, is more important to my mental health than actual happiness or fun. THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR EVERYONE, GIANT DISCLAIMER but this is the case for my particular brain. When it’s hard to be happy, or smile, the feeling of “hey, well at least I beat that hard level today” sometimes is enough to feel satisfied that I did something today even if I was banging my head against a wall a bit to do it.
My hobbies aren’t important, there isn’t an inherent meaning in my life, and perhaps I’m not important (who tf decides anyways though?). But I’m here, and I’m going to at least scramble a god damn egg, because someone built the kitchen so I might as well get cooking and see what happens.
I hope you open that fridge and scramble some wicked fucking eggs man.
What a goofy list.
I’m in the fairly niche group preferring digital ownership (although I also strongly feel we need legal revisions and consumer protections over things we digitally own, instead of the “well if this digital shop goes bankrupt, your stuff is just gone”, DRM, HDCP hellscape, wild west we’re in now) primarily because I’m against the huge amount of plastic and physical materials physical media creates. I am most heavily against the “subscribe to everything, give all the companies your money, and own NOTHING” extra super duper hellscape we’re going towards now.
“The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment”
I’m not 100% sure, that’s a good point, I’ll look into this. I agree in this case is does seem that way, but be careful for falling prey to making conclusions on a sample size of 1, there are outliers in any data sample. To be sure there are without doubt cases where the insanity plea yield shorter sentences, but from my education on the topic it’s always been my understanding that this is the case on average (to be clear, this isn’t through internet articles or word of mouth on Facebook, this was from multiple sociology and criminal psychology courses taught by PHd educated individuals. As a disclaimer while I have a Masters in Psychology and have done original research in political psychology, my main field is not criminal psychology specifically).
I looked for a solid while and couldn’t verify the claim of my past professors, I found one study in New Zealand contradicting this claim specifically saying that on average NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity cases) served shorter sentences (note the wording of “served” referring to how much time they actually served, rather than just the sentence as you were asking about initially) on average in murder cases compared to other individuals with serious mental illness that did not receive NGRI sentences. However they take this as evidence (since it’s based on actual time served, rather than the initial sentence), that murder cases treated as NGRI are a positive vs. putting these same individuals in prison given the taxpayer pays for them to be incarcerated for a shorter period of time, AND alongside this results in a lower likelihood of future reoffending upon release. Some things I found across studies was 1) there is heavy racial and gender bias present in when NGRI pleas are granted, 2) recidivism rates are generally lower in NGRI cases upon release.
Thanks for raising this point, I learned some things!
Links below:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/cbm.2120
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100033
This is true to an extent, I think the focus there (if done correctly) isn’t on being retributive so much as ensuring a very safe “err on the side of caution” buffer that often means longer times spent imprisoned than the exact point that they are rehabilitated.
All my data points relied on actually data and trends rather than needing a highly unlikely hypothetical. Furthermore, the only issue with your hypothetical is the continuing view of the killers being a retributive one as well, they, and anyone with a retributive view on crime is the problem. The goal of our justice system is not (at least in most of the developed world), the US excepted and should not be to make another human suffer until, paraphrasing your own words, the original victim is satisfied.
The American punitive view vs. a rehabilitative one is terrifyingly real in these comments. It was an awful awful thing that happened, and he should be monitored the rest of his life, but if it is determined by medical professionals (a.k.a. not you) then he deserves to lead a full life, and have the opportunity to contribute to a society that he caused harm too instead of being a cost to taxpayers everywhere for the rest of his life, while he is medicated and able to rejoin society, that harms everyone even more in the long run.
This man should have had the health supports he needed before this ever happened, likely something exacerbated by the US medical system.
Also to dispel some common myths:
To all my American friends, not shitting on you, you’re a wonderful country, of largely wonderful people, but with some bad bad bad policies that I hope will improve in coming years.
Love,
Your hat.
Wow really across the automotive spectrum there. Imagining Ford, Honda, and BMW teaming up brings to mind a mental image of a a boisterous jocular bro, a kind warm hearted engineering student, and a sociopath who spits in your face and wanks off in front of you in the middle of a conversation, chatting in a room making a business deal. I’m not quite sure what to make of this.
I know I’m not answering this question persay, but I do certainly touch on some benefits of not owning a car, and why this isn’t true for everyone.
I don’t want anyone dismissing this as some “pro-car” post. It’s not.
I live in the northern most city in North America with over 1 million people (Edmonton, I technically live in an outlying community, but still). Edmonton is unique in a few ways.
So simply what are the advantages? I would die in the winter first of all. That’s not an exaggeration, if you don’t live in a climate like this in the winter, you just don’t understand. Being outside for upwards of 15 minutes is dangerous.
Moreover, families in my line of work would suffer. Even with amazing public transit, the weather here is bad enough, and the city is spread out enough, that it would not be doable to safely visit everyone in a day or make it on time since they’re often across the city. Notably since Edmonton is so spread out (unlike say, a Toronto), traffic and getting around quickly on roads is pretty good and we don’t see the same level of slow moving traffic as most major cities.
Now with that said, for the naysayers out there, who think I’m biased: first of all, we all are in one direction or another. Secondly, if you suggested reducing how spread out my city is, and massively increasing public transit and train funding (which again, remember is tricky here, because just hanging out in a train or bus shelter, if not heated here is genuinely dangerous to your life), I would be all for it! I think the biggest thing is city planning, zoning rules that make living places so far away from your purchasing needs like grocery stores is the real bane here and in many areas in North America. But the fact is that, again in my (admittedly unique) situation, even if the city suddenly didn’t become dangerously cold in the winter, magically more dense, and amazingly more transit friendly, I need a car for my daily employment, and many do (you can’t haul construction equipment, bring large medical devices, etc.) on a bike or bring it onto a train or bus with you.
I think the “fuckcars” argument is simplistic and WILDLY privileged. This attitude towards places in difficult climates, with limited funding for public transit in poorer countries, where taking any job, even one that needs a vehicle to drive around is a necessity, when coming from a European metropolitan perspective if wildly biased. Should all cities be as bikeable and transit centric as it is in Europe, again, YES, I agree with this wholeheartedly. But such an aggressive stance as being angry at car owners, making arguments that it indicates some political leaning (I’ve literally seen in the subreddit that cars are inherently right wing, like get over yourself and politicizing EVERYTHING), and literally naming a subreddit “fuckcars” is not exactly solution focused, and doesn’t take the complexity of the living situation many are born in, into account. While I am priveleged in my own country and city, my whole life is here and I would challenge anyone saying “just bike” to make the 50km bike ride across sheet ice in -40 (-40 F) here and not also argue for necessity of a car here.
For the record for anyone who might otherwise dismiss my view on some erronious basis, I am a left wing environmentalist, vegetarian for environmental reasons, have owned a Smart Car and other “eco” vehicles, detest the giant truck and SUV culture that is awful to basically everything here (while understanding that a fairly small minority actually do need a truck), I own an E-bike and love in my small outlying town (population 4000) that I can bike to everything I need here, and would also use this when I lived in Edmonton at times.
People far too often argue “Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/etc. is the best economic system, because blah blah blah”. Anyone that has played Civilization and has half a brain cell can tell you that there is no single best economic system, as it’s so heavily dependent on the structure of a country, current levels of development, and many other factors.
I have always said, that capitalism is very probably the best economic system for rapidly developing countries in a state of industrialization (there was obvious horrific cons to this, but the complexity of discussing the use of slavery, child labour, land repossession, genocide, etc., is a conversation beyond the scope of this simple remark on economics. Consider the dominance of France, Britain, and Spain in 1800 and compare it to the juggernaut that the US became in the next 100 years by 1900, and the benefits of relatively unfettered capitalism during industrializing periods, should be readily apparent given that colossal level of growth from a sparsely populated and undeveloped country in it’s infancy in the late 1700s-early 1800s) and is probably the best economic system for this, BUUUUUUT commensurate with the level of automation, and computerized work roles within a society, a more and more heavily socialized economic system makes sense to stymie the accumulation and sole ownership of the automated systems by the wealthy few who profit off of it, while job opportunities dwindle for the rest.
The world needs to socialize more heavily, and fast, the US is in a particularly precarious spot. The number 1 job in nearly every state is truck driver, and there are already autonomous trucks on the road today. Between AI, and autonomous vehicles, we will see what happened to jobs in the automotive sector from 1950-2000, in industries like taxis, truck driving, coding, graphic design, journalism, and much much MUCH more in the next 50 years, and the US is not ready for it’s job market to do country wide, what happened in Detroit. The wealthy owners of these automated machines, and AI systems filling these job roles will become richer off of them, while the rest of the country struggles. Heavy socialization, alongside reduced work weeks and either subsequent massive increases in minimum wages, or guaranteed basic income will be a necessity for coming generations to not exist in poverty.