I'm playing a skirmish at 0.1 resource production, pausing constantly, and it's STILL pretty overwhemling. But fun and slick!
WOW. I just had a vision of my potential life for the next several years.
http://crawl.akrasiac.org:8080/#lobby -- leading edge of rogue development
Decisions are made on the basis of the numbers in studies, not on the basis of "it sure feels like there 27% more homeless people this year." Accurate data are essential. It is very difficult to take a census of the homeless population. Recent efforts with new methodologies improved our view considerably, and though they still undercount, represent a meaningful step to improving the situation.
The truth is, this isn't an accident. This is both a necessary consequence of, and a necessary precondition for, the vast wealth disparity that has been engineered into our society. We don't change things not because we can't, but because we don't want to.
Regardless of whether or not we are addressing the root causes (which is not simply flipping a switch and might likely still not be successful) we still need to address the consequences, and we need more funding to do that. You have to live below the poverty line just to work in a career where you get to help people. I know many people with master's degrees who are themselves struggling with food and housing insecurity because they have chosen to spend their lives trying to help people. And it's not as though it's due to an over abundance of other people competing with them in that space... Like teachers buying their own teaching supplies, social workers have to pick up a lot of slack out of their own pockets. People who want to help and are trained to help simply cannot afford to help. It's a very bad situation.
I would really like to see the government taking on the responsibilities they shed to NGOs over the last three decades. How has this improved anything??
Sorry, where's the part where the means of production gets seized by labourers? What does THAT look like in Punxsutawney? What are we taking, from whom, how?
What would that look like in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania?
The grandfather of this device was called the Twiddler.
We can’t just keep throwing money at help groups
I mean, we could try. We certainly aren't providing adequate funding.
What protein problem?? We have a lot of problems as a species, but lack of protein isn't ANYONE'S problem!! Virtually any plant provides sufficient protein if consumed in enough quantity to also provide sufficient calories.
I don't know. I have hundreds of thousands of undeveloped photos.
I could say exactly the same thing to you! You clearly understand the distinction I am making. But you have nothing to say about that, you just need to express your OCD. You're being noise. Do it to someone else.
Exactly the opposite lesson to take. We need public social media, not corporate social media. We need rights and guarantees, not profit taking and psyops.
Here's some advice you can take to the bank. Don't fucking talk to me or you'll end up with a fucking R5II wondering what the fuck you did with your life.
Of course the meaning is horrifying to the observers and to those contemplating it.
TikTok isn't "Chinese social media." China has social media, and TikTok isn't it; TikTok is American social media that the Chinese control. It's an engineered product, and the function isn't showing you videos.
Both sides are correct. Or at least, half correct. They should both be banning both.
It is not unrealistic to think that someone in labour might become interested in hearing more about the only labour party in Canada when they are exposed to the actual ideas, regardless of who they voted for most recently. It happens all the time. There aren't opposites in politics, that is an illusion.
There's a chasm between being funny and being a comedy. Comedy is a genre, and I'd argue doesn't strictly even need to be very funny, if at all.
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/20016751
> Campaign by the US government to save rubber after the Japanese blocked supplies from Southeast Asia.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
Kitchener-based hacker Alexander “Connor” Moucka was unmasked after making threats against a woman on the messaging app Telegram. Moucka threatened Allison Nixon, the chief research officer at Unit221B, a U.S. cybersecurity firm.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
The display launched in 1967 as a zoo that went on to show bears, cougars and wolves before switching to domesticated animals
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
The Agenda: Is Monopoly Power Undermining the Canadian Food System?
19 Nov 2024
A new report from the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project argues Canada's food system is being undermined by monopoly. And while grocery stores have become an easy target for consumer anger over the cost of food, this report says consolidation has occurred at all levels of the supply chain. The Agenda looks at the implications of the report.
Staff at the City of Waterloo want to sort out the future of the two-acre space before moving on to the Waterloo Park Plan update.
Staff at the City of Waterloo want to sort out the future of the two-acre space before moving on to the Waterloo Park Plan update.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he plans to remove bike lanes from three Toronto streets, whatever the data submitted by city officials.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/31516170
> cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/31516123 > > > It's happening, the worst mayor Toronto has ever had is removing three major recently completed bike lanes at tax payer expense. That's right, Ontario tax payers are footing the bill for Ford to meddle in Toronto municipal infrastructure. This is of course to distract us from failing healthcare and education while appealing to his mostly car centric base. > > > > There is a protest happening Wed. 23rd of October, please come out if you can. https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/rally-ride-for-road-safety-tickets-1045417761667
The article asks the question, why does the perception exist that bike lanes cause congestion? I think it's absurd that it does not even mention the culture war and toxic masculinity, which cast cyclists as effete, virtue signalling, holier-than-thou, radical leftists, who culture warriors feel it is their duty as a Real Man to harass, discourage, and endanger.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
YouTube Video
Click to view this content.
Rethinking Sapience: The Case Against Speciesism in Animal Intelligence
The question of whether humans are uniquely sapient has long been debated by philosophers, scientists, and ethicists. Sapience—often defined as higher-order reasoning, self-awareness, problem-solving, and moral agency—has traditionally been considered a uniquely human trait. Yet, this view is increasingly being challenged. Research shows that many non-human animals possess remarkable cognitive abilities that rival, or even surpass, those of humans in certain domains. By maintaining the belief that animals “fall short” of sapience, we reinforce a speciesist worldview, one that arbitrarily privileges human intelligence and dismisses the extraordinary cognitive capacities of other species. In fact, when we examine animal cognition more closely, we find that many non-human animals demonstrate intelligence, emotional complexity, problem-solving skills, and memory that far exceed human abilities in their respective ecological contexts. Moreover, recent studies in animal cognition reveal that some animals display moral agency and metacognition—traits that challenge the exclusion of non-human species from the concept of sapience.
The Problem with Human-Centered Definitions of Sapience
Sapience has historically been defined in ways that reflect human-centric values, focusing on abilities such as abstract reasoning, language, and moral reflection—areas where humans appear to excel. However, this definition overlooks the specialized forms of intelligence found across the animal kingdom. By measuring animal cognition against human standards, we ignore the unique abilities that different species have developed to thrive in their environments. This bias is a form of speciesism, a discriminatory belief system that privileges one species (humans) over others without justification.
Superior Animal Cognition: Examples from the Natural World
Many animals possess cognitive abilities that rival or surpass those of humans, especially in areas crucial to their survival. Dolphins and bats, for instance, use echolocation to navigate and hunt, a sensory and cognitive ability that far exceeds human capacities. These animals rely on sound waves to "see" their environment, granting them spatial awareness that humans could not replicate without sophisticated technology.
Birds like Clark’s nutcrackers display extraordinary memory, capable of recalling the locations of thousands of food caches over long periods. This spatial memory ability vastly outperforms that of humans in similar tasks. Homing pigeons likewise demonstrate remarkable navigational skills, finding their way home over great distances, even when displaced to unfamiliar locations, a task most humans would find impossible without tools such as maps or GPS.
Octopuses, renowned for their intelligence, showcase problem-solving skills, tool use, and even escape artistry that rival human ingenuity in similar scenarios. Their ability to adapt to new environments, manipulate objects, and even exhibit playfulness underscores the rich cognitive life these animals possess.
Among the most compelling examples of superior cognitive abilities come from great apes, our closest relatives. Chimpanzees, for instance, excel in short-term memory and visual processing. In tasks where young chimpanzees are asked to recall numbers briefly flashed on a screen, they outperform adult humans. This memory capability is likely crucial for survival in the wild, where rapid decision-making and recall can mean the difference between life and death. Such examples show that non-human animals can outclass humans in cognitive areas relevant to their own survival and ecological niche.
Moral Agency in Animals: The Case of Monkeys and Fairness
Beyond cognitive intelligence, some animals exhibit what could be considered moral agency, challenging the assumption that only humans can act based on ethical principles. Capuchin monkeys have demonstrated a keen sense of fairness in laboratory settings, revealing that concepts of justice and equity are not exclusive to humans.
In a famous experiment, two monkeys were placed side by side and given different rewards for performing the same task. One monkey received a cucumber, a typical and acceptable treat, while the other received a more desirable grape. Upon seeing the other monkey receive a better reward for the same effort, the monkey who received the cucumber would often protest—sometimes throwing the cucumber away in frustration or refusing to continue the task. This reaction is remarkably similar to human responses to unfair treatment, showing that these monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness and justice. Even more striking is that when a monkey is unfairly given a larger share of food, they will sometimes share the excess with their peers, demonstrating an ethical behavior that values equity over self-interest.
This behavior suggests that moral agency in animals may be more common than previously believed. Monkeys are capable of understanding and reacting to unfairness, acting in ways that reflect ethical decision-making. This challenges the notion that only humans possess the ability to make moral choices based on justice or fairness.
Metacognition in Rats: A Forgotten Measure of Sapience
Rats, often used as models for human psychology in laboratory settings, provide another compelling example of advanced cognition in the animal kingdom. In psychological studies, rats have demonstrated metacognition—the ability to reflect on their own mental processes, a trait that has been considered a hallmark of sapient beings.
In a typical metacognition experiment, rats are given a task where they can choose to attempt a difficult test with the potential for a larger reward or opt-out for a smaller, guaranteed reward. When the rats are unsure of the correct answer, they are more likely to opt out, suggesting that they have some awareness of their own uncertainty. This ability to assess one's knowledge, or lack thereof, mirrors human metacognitive processes and indicates a higher level of cognitive self-awareness.
Despite this, rats are rarely granted the ethical consideration that comes with such intelligence. In psychological research, rats are often treated as human analogs when convenient but are dismissed as "lesser" when it comes to the ethical implications of using them in experiments. This contradiction reveals the inconsistency in how we recognize animal intelligence. Rats are granted cognitive status when it suits human purposes but are denied the ethical protections that should accompany that status.
The Bias of Human-Centric Tests of Intelligence
A significant issue in evaluating animal intelligence is that tests are often designed to measure human-like abilities, ignoring the diverse ways animals solve problems and navigate their world. Mirror self-recognition, for example, is commonly used as a test for self-awareness, where animals are evaluated on whether they can recognize themselves in a mirror. While great apes, dolphins, and elephants often pass this test, many animals do not. However, the reliance on visual recognition may not be relevant to species that use other senses, such as smell or sound, to identify themselves. This bias underscores the limitations of human-centric methods for assessing intelligence.
Similarly, linguistic ability is often seen as a benchmark for sapience, with humans using complex, symbolic language to convey abstract ideas. However, many animals communicate in sophisticated ways that convey critical information. Bees, for instance, use a "waggle dance" to communicate the location of food sources, while whales and dolphins employ intricate vocalizations that may contain elements of grammar. These forms of communication are highly evolved for the needs of their species, even if they do not resemble human language.
Acknowledging Animal Intelligence Without Speciesist Bias
By focusing on where animals "fall short" rather than on their unique strengths, we reinforce a speciesist worldview. This narrow definition of intelligence not only distorts our understanding of the animal world but also justifies harmful practices, such as the exploitation of animals for food, research, and entertainment.
To move beyond speciesism, we must recognize and respect the diverse forms of intelligence that exist across species. Rather than privileging human abilities, we should appreciate the remarkable cognitive skills animals possess, whether in memory, problem-solving, communication, or moral reasoning. A broader definition of sapience would encompass the rich variety of intelligence found in the animal kingdom, moving us toward a more ethical and compassionate relationship with non-human species.
Conclusion: The Case for Non-Human Sapience
As research into animal cognition deepens, it becomes increasingly clear that many non-human animals possess intelligence and problem-solving abilities that rival or exceed those of humans. From the memory skills of birds to the metacognition of rats, animals demonstrate cognitive capacities that challenge human superiority. Additionally, the moral agency shown by monkeys and the sophisticated communication systems of bees and dolphins further question the exclusion of non-human species from the concept of sapience. By acknowledging these abilities, we can challenge the arbitrary lines drawn around sapience and move toward a more inclusive understanding of intelligence—one that respects the cognitive capacities of all species. Breaking free from speciesism will lead us to a more ethical and empathetic relationship with the non-human world.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/29454890
> >The 32 countries that have formally recognized non-human animal sentience include the European Union, Switzerland, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
This number is getting pretty big. What is this, like, XP or something? Can I level up? Is it bad? Does anything happen if it gets too big?
My gender is my concern, but you may use any pronoun to refer to me