We shouldn't equate it with "no more ad blocking" because it didn't ship with an attempt to make ad blockers less effective or because that's not all it shipped with?

I agree. It's easier to change your morals than your behavior, or contort your thinking around your own behavior until you can imagine it fits into the shape that you've decided your morals are, reality notwithstanding. I think that explains a lot of it, for unabashed meat-eaters. The other thing I see is casting every human as sacred and every non-human living thing as without value, or, at least less value than a single meal. Most acknowledge that animals lead internal lives while a small minority don't, but in both cases humans are the center of the universe around which the earth and the sun orbits, and we and our convenience and comfort is all that really matters.

I have no doubt whatsoever that half the people I know and love would have owned slaves or at least defended slavery if they were born into a time where it was commonplace. They easily would have bought into nonsense science or religious arguments about the intelligence or moral value of this race over that, like they do for animals.

First off, I believe veganism is, probably, morally correct.

However, I lead a morally imperfect lifestyle. I get around by driving or being driven in a car, even when it would only be moderately less convenient to walk or bike or take transit. A few dollars could feed children in poverty for weeks, and I spend on lot more than "a few" dollars on luxuries like travel. By my measure, knowingly choosing not to prevent human suffering on such a scale is massively worse than eating meat, but at the end of the day, I don't consider myself or others in my position to be monsters.

> The other thing I see is casting every human as sacred and every non-human living thing as without value, or, at least less value than a single meal.

While I believe non-human animals generally have greater moral value than a single meal - the most widely consumed animals are clearly capable of suffering and IMO intelligent enough for most to instinctively empathize with - I don't think it's particularly strange for humans to view humans as sacred.

Many if not most people view morality as rooted in the golden rule, and non-human animals are incapable of making moral considerations the way humans are.

Even just considering gut feelings - let's say we presented a trolley problem, on one side one's close friends and family members, on the other side some number of chickens. I would be very surprised at genuine responses opting to save the chickens. Personally, I would sacrifice literally any number of chickens.

I didn't say it any of it was unusual. Your observation that humans place themselves at the center of the moral universe and have the agency to enforce it is in line with my thoughts.

> Many if not most people view morality as rooted in the golden rule, and non-human animals are incapable of making moral considerations the way humans are.

Ironically making us the only animals capable of moral evil.

> Even just considering gut feelings - let's say we presented a trolley problem, on one side one's close friends and family members, on the other side some number of chickens. I would be very surprised at genuine responses opting to save the chickens. Personally, I would sacrifice literally any number of chickens.

Is this due to a internally consistent moral value system apart from a view of humans as sacred? If on the other side of the trolley were some of a race of aliens, smarter, better, faster, younger, and more emblematic of the human ideals by way of virtue than the humans on the other side, would you save the aliens? Probably not. Your preference to preserve other people is very natural and probably hard-wired into your brain. That doesn't mean it isn't human chauvinism.

I don't find might is right to be a convincing moral argument. The only reason I was born a human instead of one of the 300 billion animals humanity consumes each year is the outcome of a lottery system, simple as that. Consider whether you'd feel the same way when applying a "veil of ignorance" test.

He’s not making a might is right argument.

Yes he is. "Nothing more natural than one animal eating another" is might makes right. It's also an appeal to nature, but in this case it's both.

Weaker animals can eat stronger animals. Pack animals, carrion feeders, bugs, animals feeding their offspring, etc. So almost entirely an appeal to nature argument.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Many individuals independently making the choice has made a difference, both in harm reduction on the demand side and choice on the supply side. It's never been easier or more accessible to be vegetarian/vegan.

In my state they decided to tax EVs punitively through our annual registration fee. I already pay an additional $200 for my EV registration, which is $50 more than the average ICE driver pays is gas taxes. I drive considerably less than the average TN driver. Next year it will be $274.

Fuel taxes don't seem to take into account the quartic scaling of damage by vehicle weight on pavement.

At least in the US, EVs are not heavier than the average driver's vehicle, though they are heavier than other vehicles in their class. And practically all consumer vehicles are nothing compared to semi trucks.

Like for like, about 10% heavier. For now, at least. Few more years and they will be lighter on average.

Bollocks - all generalizations are false.

My Model 3 (RWD SR+ 2023) is 1847kg unloaded weight, including driver.

Actually it's either because less versus fewer is not an actual rule

It's not a grammar issue; only "less" matches TFA's meaning.

(Aside: it's better not to be pedantic, but if you must be pedantic you should remember to be correct as well.)

True. People often incorrectly believe that less and fewer have distinct cases where only one word is correct. They are mistaken.

(The aside was for you - TFA's title is not a case where either word works.)

Oh I understood the aside was for me. Again, not a thing. This one in particular really bugs the shit out of me because it's brought up as utterly useless pedantry in 100% of cases.

> But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it's not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule. . . . A definitive rule covering all possibilities is maybe impossible. If you're a native speaker your best bet is to be guided by your ear, choosing the word that sounds more natural in a particular context. If you're not a native speaker, the simple rule is a good place to start, but be sure to consider the exceptions to it as well.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less

I'm fond of linguistic bugbears, and have actually sent that same article to people before :D But what you're missing is that the less/fewer debate is over their use as adjectives, and TFA's title uses "less" as an adverb. It's asking for AI agents to be less human, not for them to be fewer in number. Swapping it to "fewer" would make the title's meaning no longer match the article.

Now please sit a moment and reflect on what you've done. :P

It's how literally everyone thinks. Your thoughts come unbidden via a process you do not understand and cannot observe and your consciousness follows them along. Your brain is not as special as you imagine.

Actually that this happens through our subconscious is incredibly special. Our brains are a marvel.

It's like we have little thinking sub-agents auto-completing cognition tokens in the background that then surface findings to the main agent which then auto-completes some more cognition tokens in the foreground.

Hah thats cute actually

It gets me past the non-productive barriers and allows me to explore problems and scenarios I could never have done before due to impossible to justify time cost for myself and expense for my clients.