Technically I'd prefer to be living in a newbuild in Mariupol paying taxes to a different government rather than having the Israeli army drop bombs on my head and starving my entire family until we are all dead.
Small distinction to you perhaps, but to me it's a bit more than just "technical".
Pretty sure DOGE actually ended up costing the government more money than it saved. The entire venture was a disaster to highlight a meme. It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.
That is part of the problem your definition is not that snarky. I don't think supporting hierarchies is needed in the definition.
I would also say that honoring the status quo is a finer more nuanced definition.
The status quo is not that bad. Understanding one's actions might affect the status quo I think is a central conservative value.
The status quo sucks for a lot of people, and as far as I'm concerned conservatism's main defining goal is standing in the way of progress to make things better for everyone. Nothing else.
From my perspective the quote that we stand on the shoulders of giants is the positive side of conservatism. The negative side of conservatism may block some positive effects.
I'm not sure why you feel the notion of conservatism has a hierarchy of goals. I see it as a simple idea that can be applied to almost any effort. Like any tool it can be applied in detrimental ways.
I believe absolute opinions on conservatism probably miss a lot of nuance.
Finally I think that arguments that conservatism is dangerous are mostly based on the fact that many people are making bad decisions and they are paying lip service to conservatism.
What do you mean stand on the shoulders of giants?
I'll tell you what...you stand on the shoulders of people who literally instigated and fought for change, and certainly didn't fight or work to keep a status quo that still had so many problems.
> I'm not sure why you feel the notion of conservatism has a hierarchy of goals.
Where did you get that from?
> Finally I think that arguments that conservatism is dangerous are mostly based on the fact
Like it or lump it, in the US at least, it is linked to people that do have dangerous attitudes, not caring about climate change, arguing against socialized health care or welfare benefits, trying to take away rights from minorities...just a constant flood of immoral, uneducated hateful stuff that only ever hurts.
That the continuity that the human race has maintained is based on conservative values.
I think we disagree about some subtlety of how society builds on its efforts.
The hierarchy quote is actually about wredcoll comment.
I'm obviously a conservative person. That conservatism doesn't accept different variations for the same word. I don;'t accept the conservative has a special definition in the US.
All of the shmabolic things you mention as conservative failures are what I'm complaining about it. I don't see them as conservative values because they cost us all more money and waste resources. The examples you provide I don't accept as conservative.
> That the continuity that the human race has maintained is based on a conservative values.
Huh? The human race progresses because of the 10% that drag the other 90% out of the muck into a better future, screaming and resisting every step of the way.
> All of the shmabolic things you mention as conservative failures are what I'm complaining about it. I don't see them as conservative values because they cost us all more money and waste resources. The examples you provide I don't accept as conservative.
So defend conservatism. List some values you think you can defend. Not wishy washy abstract stuff, really practicable stuff you think should be implemented.
> Understanding proposed changes to a current working environment I consider a conservative value.
> Curiosity about long term costs and effects of decisions I consider a conservative value.
> Conservation of resources I consider conservative values
Those sound like good things to me.
They also don't sound like anything a republican politician has advocated for during my life time.
If you want to split the hair of republican vs conservative you are, of course, free to do so, but I doubt a whole lot of other people will really understand what you mean.
I think there's a lot to be said for asking why something should be changed and what will happen when you do, chesteron's fence style, but it's all too easy for that attitude to mask a position that's not actually willing to change.
Gay marriage is a pretty easy example. You certainly can, and probably should, ask why change it, but the vast, vast, vast majority of the people actually asking that type of question have no actual intention, or perhaps even ability, to change their opinion based on the answer they receive.
More the 'vaccines cause autism', 'evolution isn't real' and 'jewish space lasers' crowds, and for good reason. Not all conservatives believes those things, but the people that do are overwhelmingly conservatives. May as well add in all the "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats!" people as well.
[EDIT] Which is unsurprising since the whole flat earth deal requires some sort of vast lizard-person conspiracy or whatever, and that's the kind of thing Qanon is, too.
If only somebody would make motorcycles less noisy.. I dream of the day where there are neither mosquitos nor motorcycle noise. Two most annoying things during the summer.
There's an annoyingly persistent group of motorcycle enthusiasts that enjoys making as much noise as possible. They actively dislike electric motorcycles because they're not obnoxiously loud.
Then there are also the people that think they need to be loud to be noticed. That has been debunked, but that doesn't stop people from feeling a false sense of safety and sabotaging their vehicle's sound deadening regardless.
There are plenty of rules regarding the noise these things are allowed to make, but until law enforcement actually enforces those laws, nothing will change. That's with the unreasonably high legal noise limit.
I live next to a main road in London. As technology progresses, cars have gotten quieter, but for some reason motorcycles feel like they're becoming louder.
When I go read a book in the park, it's all very nice and quiet until a motorcycle arrives
When I want to sleep with the window open, if I hear any noise it's due to these motorbikes doing races at night.
If I was dictator for a year and didn't have policing resources to enforce noise control, I would just ban non-electric motorbikes
Current electric motorcycles can already be pretty silent, to the detriment of pedestrians. Some have added artificial noises because of this, like ones already used in cars.
I can totally understand that bikers like to hear the engine and exhaust of their bike but physics and the design of motorcycles is not very accommodating to that.
My bike has the manufacturers default 94db idle exhaust.
It is 94db because anything louder than that is not allowed on certain nice Austrian roads, so the manufacturer set it to 94.
While driving i hear the wind noise on the helmet, the airbox, the drive train and a bit of the engine. I usually wear ear protection.
To be clear 94db is a lot and it is way more if you pull on the gas and i don't have one of those stupid valve controlled exhausts.
I am always astonished how freaking loud that thing is, when i hear it's exhaust echoing over open fields or while going through a tunnel at full tilt.
It just comes down to physics, the exhaust points not at the biker, so the noise is directed into the environment.
There is no engine bay covering the engine and gearbox so that is comparatively loud, also chaindrives are rather noisy as well.
For the exhaust to compete it must be incredibly loud, which of course is obnoxious.
Some modern (sports) cars play engine sounds via the stereo system, maybe someone can build something similar for bikers.
Parent is not alone in that line of thinking. (Some rudiments of reasoning do show, but result is dominated by excellent compression of humongous amount of data)
>In this post, we are going to build a generalization of Transformer models that can operate on (almost) arbitrary structures such as functions, graphs, probability distributions, not just matrices and vectors.
We already know the keywords of the language and symbols from the standard library and othe major ones. As well as the rules of the grammar. So the weight can be biased against that. Not sure how that would work, though.
I don’t think that would help with natural language to programming language, but that can probably help with patterns, kinda like a powerful suggestion engine.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
reply