She didn't actually do it, or at least she didn't do it to the degree that you think she did. Instead, you had an intense enough experience that your memories of the tone, cadence, and choice of words of your voice, were altered after the fact.
> It’s not memory, it happened at the time, within around 30 seconds, between me hearing the voice and her imitating it.
People can mix up exact details and whether two things feel the same in that amount of time, especially if they recently took drugs.
> Good way to disqualify the opinion or experience of anyone.
Look, you specifically asked for a skeptical explanation. You're right that it's not a disproof, but it does mean your experience isn't particularly convincing as an anecdote.
Parent poster is being unnecessarily smug and dismissive, but the point is that however close in time the events were, they are now entrenched in fallible memory.
I mean people have deja vu which is literally your brain misinterpreting a currently-happening experience as a memory. Medical literature is filled with tons of quirks of human perception and memory, and we frequently find new ones and new twists on existing ones.
It is not remotely a stretch to attribute "I recognized this woman's voice as someone else's voice" as just a run-of-the-mill fault of perception and memory. Especially when the alternative at hand is apparently something supernatural (or, at least, new physics).
I think your point is going to be lost on people who view art as a commodity to be consumed. From that point of view, replacing the artist with a machine can only result in a loss, if the person consuming the art could tell the difference in the first place. If not, then who cares if a machine or a person tuned the piano, etc?
Why is it that "creative destruction" is so celebrated here right up until you propose eliminating jobs that murder people (either in the direct manner, or indirectly by needlessly denying them care etc) and replacing them with jobs that don't do that. Suddenly all that "people will adapt, people will need to retrain" shit goes right out the window in place of "won't somebody please think of number?"
I don't personally care, though unlike you I believe that the median United States citizen does benefit from our global military supremacy and that it's probably worth what we're spending to maintain that position. But the point I'm making is more banal than that: people do not like "creative destruction". We have a lot of stupid weapons programs that aren't doing anything meaningful to preserve our ability to project force; we keep spending money on them because voters in the districts they're built would freak out at the prospect of their towns being gutted. That's not a normative claim!
As is so often the case, the real, useful answer to all of this stuff is that it simply isn't up to message board nerds like us to make these calls, and our axiomatically-derived top-down economic plans are worth all the paper they're not printed on. My point is simply that there's more to military spending than a values statement about military force.
> unlike you I believe that the median United States citizen does benefit from our global military supremacy
Oh no I agree with this. I think the cost/benefit ratio is going up, but it's still less than one. I just happen to think that exporting 2x misery abroad to alleviate x misery here is not a viable long-term strategy. Moreover, I think it's hideous to celebrate it as though you're getting some great deal, even if you do get material benefits from the arrangement.
> That's not a normative claim!
You should try making some. Or at least think about them.
I get more normative the more I think I understand issues. On stuff like this, I'm really just trying to figure out what's actually happening, and noting that the standard-issue rhetoric is concealing a lot of verifiable positive claims.
To kind of piggyback on here since you described your experience very well, I'll give my own as a contrast to yours:
Mine seems similar. Instead of piloting a body I just am my body, and I don't perceive any screen. Instead of an "area between me and the screen" I just have a completely separate workspace of sorts where I can visualize things. But - and this is where I differ from you the most I think - in my mind that workspace is quite separate from my field of real vision. If I concentrate I can kind of overlay them, but it feels very artificial.
Likewise, this mirrors my experiences near exactly. In a very real sense, I am/embody the contours of my senses.
On a possibly related note, when I was very young there was a moment I distinctly remember 'pulling away' from this sense-surface-of-self, and a bone deep certainty that if I did so I would be lost and/or have done something unrecoverable. Spooked me thoroughly at the time, but now I wonder if doing so would have formed that intermediary-type viewpoint.
I describe it as two separate screens because I can't really overlay them (imagine putting one monitor in front of the other and trying to see through the first one; not going to happen), but otherwise don't have much issue imagining things.
Another good comparison might be that my eyes are 4k but my imagination is like 480p.
He is, sometimes. Also sometimes, the moon passes exactly between the sun and Earth, a new star appears in the sky, the magnetic field of our planet reverses, a proton decays (jury is still out on that one, actually). Etc.
Tools like Copilot are plagiarism machines. We know the data they're being trained on, and a conclusion of "that's plagiarism" is not - or anyway should not be - controversial. I'm not terribly against the notion of a plagiarism machine but I am against the owners of such machines reaping profits from them to the exclusion of the people who provide the source material. This is theft.
More importantly, getting back to big guys and little guys: big guys gang up on little guys all the time. It's usually how they get to be big. They tend to be the ones who realize that working together against the rest of us is to their benefit. So, in the interest of pushing back on that a little, and recognizing that I am after all a fellow "little guy" (figuratively speaking anyway), I tend to support the "little guy" unless I have overwhelming evidence confirming that they are, in fact, both wrong and that supporting them anyway would be against my best interest. Neither is the case, here.
At any rate, the subtitle here references a pretty ubiquitous and, I'm happy to report, increasingly well-known and understood facet of our economic and social institutions, which is that they absolutely positively do not work for us or further our interests in any sense.
Those poor corporations, however will they survive? I say we let them dump chemicals straight into our oceans, after all we don't want to gum them up from earning infinite profit!
> EDIT: And by "win" I mean not who the judge will side with, but who will end up chugging along fine financially and who will end up broke.
I can certainly agree with that sentence, but that is definitely not how the Register was referring to "win" (they clearly just meant the judicial outcome), so it's obnoxious to imply the legal ruling went Microsoft's way solely due to their greater resources.
One would think if these were "plagiarism machines", that one of the plaintiffs would have been able to produce even a single instance of the copying they alleged.
no, nothing like this has ever happened before in recorded history. probably that's fortunate
i mean people have elected all kinds of madmen as heads of state, so that's not the unprecedented part. but i don't think any country has ever elected a minarchist as a head of state. two weeks ago he gave a speech at a cato forum here describing the state he now heads as by nature a violent and criminal organization. he may be right about that, but generally believing such things makes you unelectable
we are in uncharted waters. this is going to be exciting!
You're closer to the action than me and very probably much better informed, but the opinion I've formed from across the Southern Pacific is that Millei's 'minarchist' rhetoric is mostly theatre and that he's in fact very similar to the many leaders that have been put in place or helped into power in South America before by the (mostly external) financial interests who want to keep plundering and extracting its resources.
he gives every sign of sincerely believing it except for donating his salary (as he did when he was just a legislator)
certainly external financial interests are helping him a great deal, and there's been significant plundering historically, but it remains to be seen what happens with that. since perón, investing in non-portable assets in argentina has historically been a 'heads i win, tails you lose' deal with the government; your losses will be privatized, but your profits will be nationalized. so generally it's the argentine politicians doing the plundering, not barrick gold or the ypf investors
No, it's not, because this isn't a court of law. You're allowed to read between the lines here and use common sense. You don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Given the history of the US on matters such as this, it would be unusual if we weren't involved. That's really all that needs to be said.
> unapologetic right-winger Jeanine Anez, promised prompt new elections and then delivered them less than a year later
She had no choice as the alternative by that point was a total overthrow of most major institutions of government, in which chaos she and her allies would have fared even worse than they did.
> The new MAS government immediately had Jeanine Anez arrested for the "coup" in 2019, and has imprisoned her ever since
As they should have. She was responsible for many deaths.
"Unprecedented" is easy to explain: since the military junta was overthrown in 1982 and democracy established, no president prior to Morales had ever served two consecutive terms, following a policy set by the country's constitution.
Not only was Morales final term unprecedented and unconstitutional, but it followed an attempt by Morales to amend the constitution via referendum, which failed.
Bolivia has notoriously pliant judiciary; that judiciary was used not just by MAS but also by Anez and by Morales predecessors to suppress dissent. Human Rights Watch is one place to go for analysis of the problems of the Bolivian judiciary, which does not function like that of the US or European states.
I understand you you might not care what OAS thinks, but Morales did: he ordered the OAS audit and conceded its results.
Anez assumed power after 3 layers of the Morales constitutional line of succession, all MAS party members, resigned in protest, thus assuring that the MAS opposition would assume power. It was a spectacular own-goal for MAS, and despite it, Anez' Democratic Socialist party immediately handed power back to MAS after the election that they timely called.
I would be interested in sources from western countries that have defended the imprisonment of Anez. There must be some. Thanks in advance!
I have no expertise in Bolivian politics. I read things, just like everyone else does. My opinions about US involvement in South America was set by the Jesuits in high school, who made us watch Romero and read Eduardo Galeano.
But when I read things here referring to the 2019 coup, I'm going to point out that unlike most of the US-backed coups of the Cold War, there is another side to this story. You might read the European Parliament resolution condemning Anez' imprisonment for another formulation of the same point. That Anez handed power off, almost immediately, to MAS, which then imprisoned her, is pretty dispositive for me. But we don't have to agree.
> each coup "masterminded" by the USA has found more than willing accomplices in each country
Really? You mean every time we've tried to overthrow a foreign government we've been able to find locals who were willing to give us a hand if they could personally benefit from the arrangement? That's amazing! What are the odds?
If in a country, one can easily find enough people in positions of authority ready to backstab the whole country, then "foreign interference" is only half the problem...
She didn't actually do it, or at least she didn't do it to the degree that you think she did. Instead, you had an intense enough experience that your memories of the tone, cadence, and choice of words of your voice, were altered after the fact.
(Human) memory is extremely unreliable.