almost every smart person I talk to in tech is in favor of mandatory eugenic polygynous marriages in order to deal with the fertility crisis. people are absolutely fed up with the lefty approach of using generational insolvency as a pretextual cudgel to install socialism.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1374 readers
69 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Every person I talk to — well, every smart person I talk to — no, wait, every smart person in tech — okay, almost every smart person I talk to in tech is a eugenicist. Ha, see, everybody agrees with me! Well, almost everybody…
Man, I didn't even know how to react to this nonsense. The obvious sneer is to point out that if the alternative is to interact with people like ER here we really shouldn't be surprised to see a declining birth rate. But I think the more important takeaway that this hints at is that these people are dumb and fundamentally incurious.
Like, there's plenty of surveys and research into why people are having fewer kids than they used to, and it's not because toddlers are little hellions more so than in the past. And "generational insolvency" is a pretty big fucking part of the explanation actually, as is empowering families to choose whether or not to have children rather than leaving it entirely up to the vicissitudes of biological processes and horniness. The latter part cuts both ways, in that people who want families are (theoretically; see above re: financial factors) able to take advantage of fertility treatments or IVF or whatever and have kids where they historically would have been unable to do so.
But no, rather than actually engage with any of that or otherwise treat the world like other people have agency they have identified what they believe to be the problem and have decided that the brute application of state power is the solution, so long as that power is being applied to other people. For all that we acknowledge the horrors of fascism, I think the stupidity of these people is also worth acknowledging, if for no other reason than to reinforce why this shit shouldn't be taken seriously.
Saying they're dumb and incurious offers almost too much respect. They believe in racial eugenics based on IQ - look at the kind of shit Elon Musk retweets. Scaremongering about fertility is just the way they get to the racial eugenics, while pretending it's a necessity not a choice.
Edit: and now I see froztbyte said almost the same thing first. Oops
Man, I didn’t even know how to react to this nonsense
same way as other nazis - boop 'em on the nose
I'd be willing to wager a guess that this fragile little flower has never had a "physical altercation" in their life and would walk away with fucking ~ptsd from a single "hey that shit is not okay" boop
this hints at is that these people are dumb and fundamentally incurious
if you're talking about eigenrowboat, I don't think I agree. they're quite curious, but they "just" go in with a particular viewpoint and a desire to "prove their point" in the most prevaricating way possible. it's no accident that the entire sphere of "how do we make scientific racism and nazism more socially palatable" gravitates around these fuckers. if you're instead talking about them making these comments in a "see the poor are dumb and useless and thus deserve what they get", well, see aforementioned shitty opinions
Nah, it's the Nazis who are dumbasses, not that that makes them less dangerous. They certainly think they're smart and the want to present themselves as curious, but in reality they reduce knowledge to another political tool. There is no true spirit of inquiry or asking questions, only trying to marshal arguments in favor of their pre-established answer. Intellectual discourse becomes both a source of power to give their preexisting ideology a veneer of legitimacy and also an arena of conflict where they can prove that they're the biggest bestest boys.
These people possess neither a desire nor a willingness to engage with the world as it actually is. Instead they want the power to impose their vision of what the world should look like (a strict hierarchy with them at the ostensible top) onto reality, and when it inevitably fails because that's not how any of this works they end up uselessly doubling down and retreating into conspiracies. Next time they'll have more power and it'll work, even though it's the basic underlying shape of Creation that they're ultimately at war with.
Cue the scene where Buck Turgidson finds out that Dr. Strangelove proposes humanity survive deep inside mineshafts, with multiple women for every man.
Anyway I like how the options presented are "socialism" - vaguely defined so as to be something anyone can project their fears on - on the one hand, and state-ordered sexual slavery on the other. True freedom, amirite?
I had to doublecheck what "polygynous" means, and I "love" this Google-generated Wiki excerpt. It's technichally correct in some parts of the world.
"socialism or barbarism you say? well maybe barbarism has its upsides"
aww, is the poor baby missing that maybe there's people who don't want to talk to them because of how much of a piece of shit they are? how sad
lefty approach of using generational insolvency as a pretextual cudgel to install socialism
this dipshit continues to make the most astounding not-even-wrong posts. guess they're angling for a job as the next Noahpinion or Yglesias
Oh but you see it's not regressive because it's polygynous not polygamous. Those women totally want to be forced to have the ubermensch's children
Weird way to say he doesn't talk to many women
eigen "Breeding Stock for Me, Unwilling Abortions for Thee" robot
why do we want people who can't deliver viable technology raising more kids?
why should we assume that they would be any better at the kid-raising than the technology?
Status. Also just a bit of kink and ‘proving’ heterosexuality (I wish I was joking).
I've gotten too offline to sniff out ironic posts. This nearly sent me to my grave
eigen "I'll call it ironic if people call me on my shit" robot
load more comments
(2 replies)
Was browsing ebay, looking for some piece of older used consumer electronics. Found a listing where the description text was written like crappy ad copy. Cheap over-the-top praising the thing. But zero words about the condition of the used item, i.e. the actually important part was completely missing. And then at the end of the description it said... this description text was generated by AI.
AI slop is like mold, it really gets everywhere and ruins everything.
Amazon has a similar cult-y thing going on with its ✨leadership principles✨, but this seems worse.
Didn’t corporations used to use landmark and shit like that?
load more comments
(1 replies)
So apparently the US government has been compromised by rustheads
https://thenewstack.io/feds-critical-software-must-drop-c-c-by-2026-or-face-risk/
https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/product-security-bad-practices
I don't think it's exclusively due to rust but it's a very cool change
can only imagine how much wailing and consternation it must be causing in some areas
the C reactionaries[*] I know definitely aren’t ok, but that’s not a new condition. the cognitive load of never, ever writing bugs takes its toll, you know?
[*] and I feel like I have to specify here: your average C dev probably isn’t a C reactionary, but the type of fuckhead who uses C to gatekeep systems development definitely is
You (group A) think C is simple, that it can be thought of as portable assembly, that it teaches you how computers actually work, and that it's easy to avoid memory safety errors with good programming discipline, and is therefore fine.
You (group B) think C is deceptively complex, is far removed from current-day real world hardware semantics, abstracts memory in an outdated and overly simplified manner, and that it's very hard for even professionals to write programs that are correct to the extent of equivalent programs in memory safe languages, therefore C shouldn't be use for new software development.
I think C is deceptively complex, is far removed from current-day real world hardware semantics, abstracts memory in an outdated and overly simplified manner, and that it's very hard for even professionals to write programs that are correct to the extent of equivalent programs in memory safe languages, which are some of the features that make C so fun and exciting. Like rawdogging a one night stand!
We are not the same.
Yeah that's the property of C that ensures it will never go away. If you keep telling young men (which most programmers starting out are) that this language is so dangerous, so scary, of course they'll start using it. There's all sorts of rationalizations going on - it's portable, it's performant, it's what the computer is really like - to justify basically driving a fast car without a seatbelt for the sheer thrill of it.
Past a certain point it's a little bit like learning to type on a typewriter. On one hand it forces you to think about certain types of mistakes and forces you to avoid making errors. On the other hand it gives you a whole bunch of trained habits that are either useless or actively harmful once you're working with better tools.
Now to be fair, C really is quite close to what the machine is really like, if by C you mean B and by machine you mean PDP-7.
It's also highly portable in the sense that all twenty or thirty well-formed, standard-compliant and nontrivial C programs ever written can be compiled to a mind-bogglingly huge variety of hardware and OS targets and even work correctly on some of them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
[*] and I feel like I have to specify here
and like all C things, the specificities of pointer mechanics might mean any one of a number of things and they're all correct
The original statement was clearly meant to dereference a pointer to an object of type "reactionary," but I expected it to return maybe a Yarvin or at least a Catturd
the thrill of UB: you try to dereference a C reactionary but get a lambda calculus neoreactionary instead
I don’t think it’s exclusively due to rust
to be fair, I don’t know any other languages concerned with safety other than rust, so it was my only option for joke construction.
the US DoD used to push for Ada adoption, with mixed success outside of where its use was mandated, due to Ada’s… well, look at it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Got linked to this UFO sightings timeline in Popbitch today. Thought it looked quite interesting and quite fun. Then I realized the information about individual UFO sightings was being supplied by bloody Co-pilot, and therefore was probably even less accurate than the average UFOlogy treatise.
PS: Does anyone know anything about using Arc-GIS to make maps? I have an assignment due tomorrow and I'm bricking it.
load more comments
(3 replies)