j4k3

Reading with text to speech. I have a script I wrote with the open weights Silero a couple of years ago. There are better now, but it helps with big blocks of text.

Qwen coder models are better than stack exchange for code snippets. They are also good at OCR, formatting structured data, and such.

I like messing around with alignment as a puzzle game using the vocabulary and a bunch of scripts.

Qwen can do basic FreeCAD macros. It is also good at lisp with emacs as one would expect given the history of lisp.

I have a setup for chatting in various modes like friend, mentor, philosophy, and lewd. I have a conversational diffusion setup where the dialog is in the images. I also have a setup that started as a writing partner but ended up as my science fiction universe. It does not write much ahead of me. It is like sentence completion and writes in my voice. I use segmentation stuff with images. I can use it to break up objects in image layers far better than I can brute force in gimp. I've only run open weights models on my own hardware.

How insane the dichotomous stupidity. I am not at all saying "do not moderate".

"All actions are harmful" is a statement of empathy and far more nuances than you understand. Your lack of fundamental logic skills are sad.

What the OP posted is extremely flawed logic. There is nothing partisan about the death of Alex Pretti. Wanting to talk about his death is something bipartisan and any halfwit should be able to discern as much if they take the time to think things through. This post is showing mob populism and a lack of morals and ethics that are super dangerous and idiotic. The actions taken against the post were deeply flawed, and the hate here is bigoted tribalistic nonsense. This is turning into a worthless echo chamber and it is driving out people with intellectual balance and half decent logic skills. How pathetic.

The name regicide has had millennia to develop, while I think it is likely that this novel method of obfuscating the succession crisis has not had similar time or cause for neologization.

I'm just trying not to argue and be toxic because this place is terrible about such things. It is a major down side and prejudice that is hard to deal with when a person like myself is physically disabled and stuck in long term social isolation where this is my only source of external real human social contact. Unlike with diversity, there is no way to push back against that prejudice. It is rooted in the culture of the internet where people lack the same social peer pressure that regulates their behavior in the real world.

What I said in all instances was done out of simple curiosity using simple abstractions. My purpose is only to have an interesting positive conversation with digital neighbors. I have not prepared rhetoric. I have no desire to engage in negativity. I am no expert. Nothing I say is fit for or intended as scientific publication. I have no agenda. I am simply looking to expand my own understanding of people that have a solid grasp on who and what they are because it increases my potential for kindness, empathy, and understanding. The moment I spot tribalism and dogma, I stop engaging as these are not capable of logic or philosophical abstraction. The first sign of these comes from those that steal my narrative voice. Anyone that speaks for another in their stead lacks fundamental logic. Placing me in some tribal camp is dogmatic. I said nothing to make such an association. If I had quoted or cited someone, sure, but I did no such thing. I have never even heard of the person I am now in some imaginary tribalistic association with purely for the sake of having a curious conversation.

In other words, I am being attacked for information, error, and skepticism. These are unalienable human rights. The right to all information, the right to error, the right to skepticism, and the right to protest in all nonviolent forms are fundamental human rights in all democratic systems. When these are attacked, it is tyranny of authoritarianism. That is nothing more than tribalism and leads to barbarism.

It is ultimately a bad faith response to a conversation. This place lacks the depth to engage in advanced topics at a casual conversational level. That is stifling to my personal growth. Further, the avalanching negativity and bad faith tribalism are a very harmful prejudice because most people seem to assume the internet is an exception and place to vent their true selves. Face to face, no one would respond like this, or rather I would never associate with people that respond in bad faith. I have no real alternative. Therein lies the real prejudice. Stealing any form of human interaction in the public commons infers a person experiencing involuntary social isolation is not human, it strips meaning from life, it withholds basal human needs, and it motivates self harm.

Both the authoritarian left and authoritarian right are murder tribes that kill people on the margins. The marginalized people are different, but always consist of the innocent. I am one of those marginalized people too. I disengage to protect myself as best I can from tribalistic monsters. Dichotomous logic is incapable of real understanding which requires abstract logic skills. This is social media, not academy. It was just a conversation. Depth and engagement met with murder tribe response noted. One more feather on the punch my own ticket tally added. Mission accomplished.

Hereditary wealth is a terminal cancer. Business acumen and intelligence are not hereditary in humans. Japan is the only Western country that has effectively addressed this issue.

You do not understand philosophy well, or its meaning. None of what you said is true. It just shows that you do not understand what I said at all. It is okay. My family is exactly the same. I still care about them the same as I care about you.

Not trying to say anything politically charged at all. I don't care about that at all. Everyone is engaged in some level of motivations. It is okay if people do not want to talk about it.

I've been reading a lot of philosophy stuff and am just curious for the sake of curiosity.

Take for example, sex. Maslow's Hierarchy is admissible in most courts of law in the west. In that assessment, sex is a fundamental human need. That fact is also a form of objectification. By extension, all sexual activity is objectively taking care of one's fundamental human needs. So if all sex is objectified, how one chooses to sate that need could fall into many outlets. There is certainly a lot of choice to be made in that space. For instance, self actuation is an option. What is not a choice is whatever you find arousing, or interesting. I am no judge there. I do not care at all. I know what niches I find arousing and no one has a right to question or try to change that either. That is not what I am talking about.

Further, in sexual relations with others, there are narcissists and there are altruists. The narcissist is self centered and focused on claiming another; they are motivated by self gratification and domination. The altruist is motivated by giving and curiosity. They want to explore and find their partner's optimal experience. Within these two paradigms, I skimmed over two other branches for each. The narcissist may only be out to sate their own needs while not caring about power dynamics; motivated by introverted greed. On the other hand, they could be motivated by extroverted domination and not care about their needs as much.

Likewise, the "altruist" may be more of an explorer of many different paths. It may be centered in self; how can I perform at my best to better my partner's experience. It may be mutual; let's adventure together. It may be external; what would you like to explore.

There are always layers upon layers in such subjects. My initial questions had no malice behind them at all.

I came across a story where a trans person wanted to cosplay as every girl in every instance. The motivation struck me as a super odd form of narcissism, but perhaps it has some kernel of truth, like some people out in the world feel a desire to do the same. It does not bother me in the slightest either way. I am simply curious about the spectrum of people and differences that exist. Nothing more, nothing less.

In what sense of motivation?
Introverted, or extroverted?
Your own I/E, or hers, or the attention from others?
For the power over others, or to be the objective others chase?
To exploit that dynamic, or to be validated by its potential and existence?

Never worn one. I'm on Fedora 43 if it makes you feel better.