Ludvig Mikelson

YouTube video by Ludvig Mikelson Danger far Greater than Nuclear Weapons! Will we Make the Right Choice?

youtu.be/_89QuC75RzE

Our systems of immaterial beasts threaten to evolve into a disaster!

Billion of what? There are maybe 5 people in US who have income of over 1 billion a year.

When I say institution I don't mean the private insurance company, I mean the government institutions.

A person who has faith in those institutions will never condone assassination, but instead work within system to prevent that which people deem bad from happening.

Bitcoin is not in any practical sense a currency, but an asset. If you could analyze it as a currency it would be long gone by now.

The amount of people who celebrate or are impartial about the assassination of the United CEO is a really good indication of how little faith people have in institutions, and ultimately that Trump is only a symptom of the larger problem that exists not only on the right but also the left

CRT TV

I learned 3 very important things from that google search. Buy your own ball, hire a coach, and learn how to spin the ball.

I managed none of those.

Me winning 200 people bowling tournament 3 hours after I googled how to play bowling

I will read about set point theory, and maybe it will change my mind, but I will be honest and say that I doubt that it will.

You don't have to be at caloric deficit to maintain healthy weight, but to lose weight. And no I don't think that caloric deficit is unreasonable.

Every person is different, but I know how it feels to starve and I know how it feels to be on a significant caloric deficit, it's not unbearable.

I have no way to perceive persons natural weight, nor am I certain that it exists as you seem to imply. I can however see how obese someone is. A person who is a healthy weight might or might not be disciplined, a person who is obese will not be disciplined.

How do you define the difference between lucky and fortunate?

But also while I don't have a principled stance against insulting people based on their weight, I still think that such insults are generally worthless and won't employ them.

I don't disagree that it is harder for some than others to maintain healthy weight.
What I am saying is that obesity will always indicate lack of discipline, which is a negative trait, even if I would argue that it is ultimately not the persons fault.

Every person who is obese can find a reason that's out of their control for why it's harder for them, but that can be said about every flaw and every strength, so unless you want to say that no one is to be held accountable, and devolve into absurdity, it is not a stance you can embrace.

There is more nuance to how I look at this, but obesity is caused by consuming more calories than a person expends, so it's a choice and it can be reasonably controlled.

A short person technically has a choice to become taller, by getting surgeries, but that is beyond reasonably controllable.

I would say that the superposition exists because when consciousness understands that which "probably" gives rise to it, we get to weird contradictions. I am ultimately still a determinist and think that it's all luck, but my brain can't function if I don't act like I have an agency.

Again it depends how we define success, but let's say that they both are somehow exactly the same in their wealth, character and everything else, I wouldn't say that the person who built it on their own is more successful than the person who inherited it.

I don't think I have a right to say that I am any less lucky than the person who started above me, if I end up just as high or higher than them.

I during my teens was on a path to prison or worse, I got out and I keep growing while others didn't because I have certain qualities which allowed it. But I didn't do anything to have those qualities, I just got lucky that I had them and that the environment nurtured them.

Would you say that a person is lucky if they grew up impoverished and abused, but ended up very wealthy and of really good character, because of relentless determination and hard work?

Not necessarily, we would have to do allot of defining before we can have this conversation. I used character as an ambiguous positive property that separates two otherwise equivalent people.
Point being that level of luck depends on the outcome, which is not how we normally see luck.

Utility, assigning people moral value based on character tends to lead to bad outcomes. f we could fully agree on what constitutes a good character and then also determine if the person truly posses such character I think would say, yes only the character matters, but that's not the world we live in

Yes, entirety of who the person becomes is luck, but I would say that there is a kind of a superposition, where a person is simultaneously lucky and fully responsible.

It depends on how we define moral worth, but if I discount the value of character it's not going to be because of luck.

The inherited wealth millionaire would be luckier. I am essentially saying that no matter the road, the destination is all luck and the person who got the furthest is the luckiest.

What's the point of dgg chat if you can't argue something stupid?

A self made millionaire is just as lucky as the millionaire who inherited their wealth.
A self made millionaire who in process has built a greater character is luckier than the millionaire of lesser character who inherited their wealth.

Could you explain your reasoning behind it? And do you use the same approach for other similar cases? For example if a person is friends with let's say Putin, is that friendship endorsement of Putin's character, or no?

Yes, I would say that same as height baldness is something you cannot reasonably control.
Where I don't have such principle is weight, as it is something that can be reasonably controlled.

Ngl if that person actually sent me the 5 I would probably give them the 100, at that point they need it more than me