Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Tom Nicholas" channel.

  1. If it can be "free" then it would already exist everywhere to a maximal degree. It's not "free" to build or fuel busses or to feed bus drivers. What you're saying is essentially that you want to force people to take public transport by taking money from everyone, regardless of whether they want to use public transport. That's the exact opposite of thinking that public transport is useful for people. In that case, they would pay for it and it would naturally expand. The same thing is true for roads. The government takes money from everyone to build roads for the few. And then the usage of those roads is the justification for taking more money and building more roads.
    8
  2. Young people take global warming seriously, because old people told them to. That's the same reason first generation Muslim immigrants often end up more pious than their parents. The old people say things without really taking them to heart, but the children brought up with those things, really believe them.
    6
  3.  @Spiritfba  Bullshit. There is no such assurance. Grandpa was already worried about recycling 40 years ago. You are not a revolutionary. You react exactly to the problems your parents made sure to include in your education. Since Al Gore made his movie, teachers have taught children about climate change.
    6
  4.  @Effective_tool_of_Satan  >limits con in the form of infrastructure, energy, raw materials, worker availability >But not money The latter is shorthand for the former. If someone buys a sandwhich for 4$ do you correct them by screetching "you actually bought this sandwhich with changes of your behavior from what you would otherwise do for pleasure!"
    5
  5.  @TheSpeep  But why do you take it serious? It's not like "Boomers" or "Millenials" have taught climate change in an apathetic manner. No they stress that it's an imminent danger. The greatest danger. And the people they taught that to, took it to heart in a way in which the teachers didn't.
    5
  6.  @The_Bird_Bird_Harder  Public transit already exists.
    4
  7.  @tonymabiour3529  Something being "free" literally just means the state penalizing certain behaviors or situations. When university education is free, that means not going to university is penalized. When streets are built and don't charge toll, you're being penalized for not using that street.
    4
  8.  @Effective_tool_of_Satan  >We can have both combined. We already do. >we are not going to have an enormous fleet of electric cars How about you let people decide that for themselves?
    3
  9. I'm for investing in neither. People will buy cars with higher levels of autonomy if they're practical and people will uses busses when they're practical.
    3
  10.  @thatonedudebutwho9919  That's straight up denial of reality. Nothing has collapsed. In fact we are doing much better than I would have thought we'd do in such a situation. No concerts, parties, etc, yet most of the economy keeps going.
    2
  11. Self driving is such a hard problem precisely because humans are way, way better drivers than we initially thought. Even having shitty reaction times compared to a machine, a human driver is still safer by an order of magnitude.
    2
  12.  @Soleilune1995  They say that for exactly the same reasons the left does. A disregard for individual liberty itself.
    2
  13.  @nerdwisdomyo9563  Bikes, busses and trains already exist! And yet people still use cars. I find it quite amazing that you guys don't see the problem in your thinking.
    2
  14.  @hydrohasspoken6227  Yeah, it's quite paradoxical how the hedonics of belief change works.
    2
  15. >Machine learning is just a fancy term for function fitting. That literally doesn't explain anything at all. And it's only correct if you interpret "function fitting" in the most general way possible while at the same time only concentrating on problems that can make use of a lot of computational resources. Is it "machine learning" when you're fitting a line to three points? No. Machine learning is about doing things efficiently with a computer, it's about very specific functions and often the function is completely implicit. A function is a very general term and can be discrete, so your expression really doesn't add anything to the understanding. Moreover when people hear "function fitting" they will think of it as a deterministic procedure, when the central aspect of "learning" is that the function you're fitting is very much underdetermined by the data and you have to contrain it via epistemic biases. >You cannot make sensible predictions in regions of the input space where there is no data. Yet that is literally all that "machine learning" is: inference on the unknown. And the predictions are just as sensible as any predictions you are making. You can only make predictions because you have inductive biases.
    2
  16. No, software development is not the problem. The problem is computer vision and that pretty much anything can appear on a street.
    2
  17. There was never an "ideology of neoliberal capitalism". There is people who are for more or less intervention.
    2
  18.  @mikkykyluc5804  What kind of retarded nonsense is that? Far left opinions were very popular among our parents. There were masses of people openly supporting Mao and Pol Pot of the Red Khmer.
    2
  19.  tyler t  During the last financial crisis governments spend a whole lot of money to save the economy. That's not classical or neo liberalism. That's Keynsian and it has prevented much suffering.
    2
  20. So literally Millennialism. Jesus Christ will come any minute now! Aaaany minute now!
    2
  21.  @spinyslasher6586  That the arbiters have no strong opinion on the topic is an advantage, not a bug.
    1
  22. My legs aren't as strong as I'd like them to be. So obviously I should saw them off.
    1
  23.  @TheConstitutionFirst  This video lists Chiang-Kai-shek as socialist...
    1
  24.  @MuantanamoMobile  Statistics is literally what tells you that the above is uninformative.
    1
  25. ??? Do you actually think a map has to be absolutely perfect in order to be useful? A map can be 49% wrong and still be useful.
    1
  26. It's not an alternative for cars at all, self driving or otherwise. Also public transport already exists, so what is your point?
    1
  27.  @Capybarrrraaaa  >Why would it be terrible is sparsely-populated areas? Surely, that just means less frequent arrivals? It's funny how flippantly you commies shit on the lives of others. "You live in a sparsely populated area? Well fuck you, you're not going anywhere!"
    1
  28.  @SilverionX  >How would a self driving car be any better than a person driven car for driving in sparsely populated areas? >I can do other things while I get to my destination Lol. Answered your own question.
    1
  29. Public transport already exists.
    1
  30. Perhaps he does know better, because he was in precisely your position fourty years ago.
    1
  31. If there is no such thing as intellectual property that immediately makes expensive computer games and movies impossible and collapses the development of medicine. Artists will either have to be affluent themselves or sucker up to patrons as they had to in the past.
    1
  32. You only had to make the tiny assumption that everyone wants to go to the same place at the same time. Trains have already existed for a very long time, yet people still walk, use bicycles, motorcycles, cars, inline skates, skateboards, etc.
    1
  33. >veered away from the more controversial subjects >has produced videos such as “The Absurd Search For Dark Matter” or “How Electricity Actually Works,” Those are WAY, WAY more controversial than his car video. It's just that you're stuck in a bubble of car-haters on youtube. To actually make sense of electricity you need quantum field theory and different experts disagree on how to best interpret it on the scale of a practical circuit.
    1
  34. Yeah just build rails between every two points on earth.
    1
  35. Funny how you think you know people's situations better than them. You want to decide for everyone else what modes of transport they ought to use. Guess what? Trains already exist, busses already exist. People are free to use them. And when more people use them, more buslines are opened.
    1
  36. >the fact that it favours those in the cars themselves, as opposed to pedestrians and such Why?
    1
  37.  @regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk  If it's "better" then why do alphalt roads exist to begin with?
    1
  38.  @daanwindt1633  That doesn't really mean anything. Students can fail to do what is already a solved problem in the industry. The problem is that our BEST computer vision systems still leave humans safer by an order of magnitude or so even with their slow reaction time.
    1
  39.  @marcioo00oo  >who are going to be hold responsible for the death of the remaining 10%? That's not a philosophical problem. That's a legal problem. And it applies to any kind of appliance. It depends on what kind of contract you have made with the sellers of the system and what contract the sellers have made with the programmers, etc.
    1
  40.  @jeffc5974  The political dissidents were not all socialists or communists. There were also democrats or other opponents of the Nazi party.
    1
  41. I don't see how that makes sense. Your "critical eye" is a prerequisite for you to actually understand what someone is saying. The understanding is a consequence of you continuously asking yourself "does this follow from that?" , "could this be otherwise?" etc
    1
  42. Having everyone's DNA is a trivial infraction compared to what the state is de-facto already doing.
    1
  43.  @Cybermaul  Railways, bicycle paths and walking already exist.
    1
  44.  @blackest3314  What's magical is your belief that taking a 4000t train somewhere saves energy compared to taking a 2t car somewhere. I think your mistake might be that you assume that everyone wants to go from the same place to the same place all at once. If that was the case, only a single train would exist in the world. The mere existence of people wanting to buy and pay for cars sort of debunks your worldview.
    1
  45. "Centrist" doesn't mean that you want to "find balance". It means that on a perceived spectrum of political parties, you lie in the center.
    1
  46. @Jesus I'm for the legalization of all drugs, for making all animal products illegal, against international law and nationalism in general, for drastically lowering the voting age, for beastiality and those are some of my less controversial opinions. Yet on the spectrum of political parties I would be a "centrist".
    1
  47. I'm pretty sure not even most communists are that extreme. In such a world you'd be forced to work. And you'd be forced to work at something specific.
    1
  48.  @julianocamargo6674  Marxism is a prophecy that failed. But you can manufacture a revolution as communists all over the world did.
    1
  49. Did Catholics already want to eat wafers on Sundays only?
    1
  50. That's completely wrong. Predictions have fluctuated between being more and less optimistic. And recently we have seen advances that many people have called impossible just shortly before. And we've seen advances that we've only expected much, much later. Systems such as Alpha Zero and ChatGPT are absolutely mindblowing in their abilities.
    1
  51. Sounds like you project motives while ignoring the arguments of your father.
    1
  52.  tyler t  That's how we always have to judge history. Besides there were financial crises before.
    1
  53.  @Tom_Nicholas  >however, en masse, they foster a discourse on YouTube around climate change as a problem which needs to be solved by technical ingenuity rather than a political one that needs to be solved by thinking about social/political/economic structures I must be in a weird place then, because 90% of what I see is socialists axiomatically assuming technological stagnation.
    1
  54.  @AnxiousEducator  >Just because you can't imagine a world where it's feasible to abandon capitalism Well I can, because I don't have to imagine it. I just have to look at the last century and it fucking sucked without "capitalism". Because what you smeer as capitalism is literally just the individual freedom of people to make agreements amongs each other. Every government limits that to some degree, but being against "capitalism" means to limit it to a ridiculous degree.
    1
  55.  @hollandscottthomas  He didn't kill "all of the socialists". He considered himself a socialist. You are confusing socialist with Marxist. The term has existed long before Marx.
    1
  56.  @hollandscottthomas  What am I wrong about?
    1
  57.  @hollandscottthomas  I've seen that video a year ago and it doesn't contradict anything I stated above.
    1
  58.  @hollandscottthomas  He did. Your problem is still that you conflate socialism with left wing / Marxism, etc. The word existed before that.
    1