clara

n = 40, this is junk. they couldn’t even get 100 people for this?

these were all sampled from 1 company in amsterdam. the differences could be explained by company culture, or local culture, or whatever. more work needed.

why would future humans bother bringing all these people back

i think it’s worth reminding why doctors treat people now, in this time and space. they do it mostly because they want to save people. maybe a few do it for money, but past a certain point, the money isn’t why you do it. i think it’s a safe bet that doctors of a future would see these corpses as patients, and act accordingly. an analogy - think how we see heart attack victims as patients, and not how our medieval ancestors would have seen them (as corpses)

…literally nothing positive to contribute to the utopian future…

true, but, a good chunk of patients in hopsital today have nothing to contribute to society, and cannot contribute any more, whatsoever. we treat them anyway, because that’s what we do. humans have consistently cared for others that are sick and have “nothing to contribute” throughout history, and that shows no sign of going away anytime soon

nice video, i’m glad i watched through the whole thing. it’s good to understand the perspective

i have a lot of major hangups with the concept, and i don’t see myself aligning anywhere close to these ideas anytime soon, but i think it’s positive to be shown the principles of anarchy from someone who believes them, rather than a strawman version of anarchy by someone who does not

thank you for posting :)

it’s the same type of non-performative speech you see when any company says “we value our customer’s complaints”, or “we work hard to have a diverse and inclusive team”, as if by merely saying these things that it magically becomes true

ah but meta has cracked it this time; if they just say “we never sell your info” that means they don’t, right?

yeah it’s pretty messy

there was an original condition called “autism” which referred to the stereotypical, ““low functioning”” case where someone has intellectual disabilities and the rest

then a ““high functioning”” variant was labelled, where the intellectual disability was missing, called “asperger’s syndrome”

then more and more inbetween cases started being labelled like rett syndrome, CDD, PDD-NOS, and so they had to say “fuck it, it’s all “autism spectrum disorder” now”

over time, “autism” has become shorthand for ASD. to avoid confusion, the OG autism sometimes gets described as “classic autism”

honestly it’s all a big mess

you’re entirely right. allistic is silly. i think it’s slightly worse than silly though. i have two takes on this.

my first take is that you shouldn’t slur people.

my second is that if you’re gonna slur someone anyway, don’t be a chicken; just slur them. hiding behind “allistic” is a little bit like hiding behind “youths”, or “fruity”, or “welfare scroungers”, or “special”, or when people do that thing where they go “…she… oh sorry i mean he” (and vice-versa). it’s either a dogwhistle, or dogwhislte-adjacent. we all know what the speaker is implying when they uses these terms. you’re just slurring someone without the confidence necessary to do so.

this is why i unironically use normie (on the internet). sometimes i want to be rude about it, y’know? am in the wrong to slur like this? yes, absolutely. whilst i might use normie in the context of venting, it still doesn’t make it right. but at least i’m not being a coward about my position by hiding behind “allistic”

sometimes, especially when i’m chatting amongst autistics, it’s easier to casually write “when normies do x it upsets me, how about you?” instead of writing formal prose like “Oh I must say! These dastardly Neurotypicals have a particular behaviour pattern that troubles my mind… Do tell me how you bear the burden of such travesties.”.

doing the formal thing is tiring, and sometimes i don’t want to be the better person. 😎👍

opinion time:

the truth is players don’t lose all the time. companies setup the matches to deliver a 50/50 win loss ratio, because if they didn’t do this, then some players would be losing all the time, these players would uninstall, and then they lose money because they can’t sell boxes or whatever they push these days.

however, humans also experience losses worse than wins. the magnitude of a loss emotion is typically greater than an equivalent win emotion. we evolved like this to make sure you didn’t lose your stash of food in the tree somewhere, or perhaps at the back of the cave - if you did, you died, and so those humans who preserved a sense of dread when experiencing loss were more likely to pass on their genetics. this is why playerbases constantly whinge and moan about being on the losing team - you are actually getting 50/50 win/loss, but your brain only pays attention to the losses, it doesn’t remember the wins as well, and so your perception is distorted.

only in some rare brains is this emotion spread dampened - these rare humans are able to tank losses easily. it still feels bad for them, but they can take the hit way easier. these individuals are typically also the professionals in competitive ventures of all strokes. since society sees them as “elite”, this is now seen as a good thing, even though in rougher times, you can’t expect these people to give more than a cursory fuck about the food supply being lost to bears. it’s one of the reasons why you see elite athletes constantly developing drug problems, catching rape charges, and going bankrupt. the loss just isn’t as emotionally bad for them. they can tank it. it’s not psychopathic, it’s just… they have less aversion to losses.

anyway, if a game is equal, balanced and fair, then an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is experiencing more loss emotion than win emotion, on average. this undercurrent of loss emotion is the true cause of the “violent” part of “violent video games”. it’s not the shooting itself, it’s the competition between players that festers these loss emotions, that then causes the aggression.

boomer legislators get this part mixed up and confused all the time, and so they speak reductively of the problem when they demand less bloodsplatter and gun imagery. what they don’t get, is FIFA, Super Smash Bros, Rocket League etc, can also cause this horrible feeling, because they are competitive games. it’s the competition that does it, not the violence. this is the true origin of toxicity in playerbases. no wonder DotA2 players always have 4000+ hours and say “i hate it, but lets go again”. “just 1 more round” it sounds like drugs, doesn’t it? “just 1 more bump brooo”. “cmonnn, just 1 more”.

solution: stop playing competitive matchmaking. it’s not good for you, it’s not healthy. you are feeding your brain a virtual drug. you are chasing the win, just like a gambler. stop feeding your ego, you don’t need to be good at a game to feel valid. overwhelming chances are you don’t have a “winner-style” competitive brain that will help you cope with loss emotions and truly let you enjoy comp/ranked games, so please stop trying. you’re hurting yourself. “top” rank will never be worth your mental health. you have to let it go.❤️

sources: (loss emotion magnitude in dota2, pdf)[https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7348&context=etd].

(elite athletes found to be arrested far more frequently for DV and SA than non-athletes)[https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=honors]

(competitive games, not the “cosmetically violent” games, lead to aggression)[https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/video-games]

and lastly, my own personal experience dealing with this in 2018. most of this post is anecdotal, it’s an opinion piece, and i don’t care to back this up further.

yep i found this one out the hard way when applying for a job in the uk at currys (similar to best buy like in the op)

didn’t get the job of course, that’s fine, whatever, move on and go to next application

what i learnt afterwards though was that, they don’t hire for currys/best buy based on your actual understanding of tech. they hire on your ability to sell the items, and help customers engage in excess consumerism.

the main point being, i obviously wouldn’t sell anyone a $99 gold plated hdmi cable. because firstly, that’s unethical profiteering, and secondly, i know that a $5 would do the same job. i would point a customer to the $5 cable, it’s the correct choice. but this is why i am unhireable for this job.

currys, best buy, euronics, mediamarkt etc need to hire people that can sell the $99 cable. to do that, they counterintuitively have to hire people who don’t know enough about tech. reason being, if you don’t actually know about tech yourself, you will think that the gold cable is better, and you can then do a more convincing job of selling it. plausible deniability. apply this to every item in the store. you want someone who can push 8k tvs, beats headphones and smart fridges. not someone who will guide the consumer to what they actually need for their use case.

it’s the reason why you go into these stores and the staff don’t have a fucking clue about actual tech questions. they were hired precisely because they don’t have a clue.

ahh you must watch out for the “[fruit] juice” vs “[fruit] juice drink” meme

on the packet somewhere, it will specify, for the example of your case, “apple juice”, or “apple juice drink”

anything that is a “juice drink” is just not the good stuff. a “juice drink” can have basically anything they want in there, with some 0.0001% real fruit to cover themselves legally. always look out for “juice” on it’s own, that’s the 100% real stuff

i say this because i got bitten by buying the cheapest apple “juice” once, to find out it was a “juice drink”, i.e not apple juice.

oh god it’s not just “some people” are influenced, it’s “most people” are influenced?? 💀

it’s no wonder that “influencer” is a job title, yikes!

also, this line made me laugh:

Instead, the autistic shopper focuses on what really matters: ingredients, price, and the necessity of even owning the product. Time and again they select the best product for their needs regardless of how it is displayed.

when they spell out the reasons like this, it’s very funny because it’s written like we’re specimens in a zoo (imagine the david attenborough voice), and that we’re all acting strangely. no, we’re the ones acting rational, you’re the strange ones!

that’s a nice article. glad to see my reasoning validated. thank you for sharing ❤️

get this right, it genuinely shocked me too. some people just… look at the product, and then go “i’ll buy that!” and then they buy it. they are not even making a conscious choice when doing this. their brain intuitively tells them “yes, this one” and they don’t have to think it out.

more often than not, the product that wins is the product with the better or “flashy” packaging and style. that’s one reason why they spend all that money on advertising and branding. to me, it’s sooo strange. why would you not read up on your choice beforehand, or at least investigate each packet to check for food aversions, find out which one is the best $/unit value, etc? why should the packet the food is in, have any substantial bearing on your choice of purchase? (there are edge cases where the packet matters, i know)

to answer your question, yeah there is a lot of risk-takers out there!😱