We have gone from cruise control to cars being able to drive themselves quite well in about a decade. The last percentage points of reliability are of course the hardest, but that’s a tremendously pessimistic take.

Just pattern recognition it is not the neural net everyone assumes it is.

Tesla’s current iteration of self-driving is based on neural networks. Certainly the computer vision is; there’s no other way we have of doing computer vision that works at all well and, according to this article from last year it’s true for the decision-making too.

Of course, the whole task of self-driving is “pattern recognition”; neural networks are just one way of achieving that.

Thanks yourself, I have a similar view of your position :)

I am undecided on collectivism versus individualism, and have been conflicted since a young age. As I get older I suspect both can produce good societies and bad societies and that, while I actually tend towards collectivism being the ultimate ideal, I don’t see inconsistent approaches as being particularly viable, which is where current western collectivist politics tends to sit - there’s no point, for example, in introducing rent controls. Either collectivise housing completely or work within the system to improve housing provision. Ultimately I think there are small advantages of (well-regulated) privatised housing (better choice), and small advantages in (well-managed) nationalised housing that are more significant, and that since the differences are fairly small, it’s not worth trying to push through a poorly managed middle-zone in the hope of achieving the ideal when that looks unlikely.

This was a digression but it was easy to explain and is similar to my thinking on other things…

It leads to fascist takeover of democracy.

But you need evidence, or a strong argument, to determine cause and effect here. Sure, there’s a scenario you can imagine in which intolerant views are shared, proliferated, spread among the population, gain support, gain votes, gain power. But there are many liberal democracies in the world, and most are still holding onto their liberal democratic principles. The USA is heading for fascism, which is certainly terrifying, but what about the UK? What about France? All the other countries? Even the far right in these countries is forced to be circumspect in their intolerance due to public opinion, and their probes in the direction of fascist rhetoric and policy are weak at worst.

And if you want to couch this as a “paradox” then you end up with the “paradox of democracy” (it’s possible for people to vote for the removal of democracy). What you’re saying is not that we need to resist fascism because fascists are violent and a risk to people’s lives, but that we should resist fascism because they might be too convincing and get people to vote for them - and hence arguing that we should be less democratic in order to prevent their gaining power. So maybe you do think that’s a paradox. But in practice the way democracies solve this is by banning parties which are a threat to democracy and by having a high bar to do so because otherwise that will be wielded against all sorts. It would certainly be wielded against people who “oppose capitalism” (this we know from history).

Once again, we find that there’s a route through the “paradox” which neither capitulates entirely to fascists, nor capitulates entirely to the anti-democratic, illiberal tendencies of their most extreme opponents.

There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.

And so we get to what I said originally: the “solution” to the so-called paradox is to have strong laws, for example a hard-to-modify constitution, which guarantee people’s rights. The formulation doesn’t have to be explicitly legal in nature to have a legal solution.

It’s considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.

If your principles of tolerance are, “everyone should be allowed to express their identity, religion and opinions peacefully and calmly, as long as their views do not call for violence” then that allows people to express their view that a certain race is inferior. But it does not result in the end of tolerance (as this popular but wrong summary express).

It’s only a paradox if you can only think of tolerance as being absolute, where any level of restriction on what people are allowed to do or express is “intolerant”.

Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example “freedom” to oppress or “freedom” to deny hiring certain races.

But these “freedoms” are not freedoms any liberal or advocate of tolerance means by “freedoms.”

I’d go further than saying this is “the nuance”; this is the whole thing. Mentioning the paradox doesn’t give any guidance in what to do; just directly saying “we shouldn’t allow people to display swastikas” or " we should allow people to call for the assassination of presidential candidates" will result in a useful discussion.

There’s a debate to be had about the extent to which society should pre-emptively resist fascism, be that extra-judicially or within the law. But there is simply no paradox.

Calling it a paradox implies that there’s some contradiction between being tolerant in the sense of freedom of religion and expression - allowing people to peacefully exist whatever their background or identity - and the necessity (in order to main those freedoms) of resisting fascism. There isn’t; there is no fundamental reason why you need to restrict individual freedoms in order to prevent fascism.

It would be much more productive if, instead of using the “paradox of tolerance” as a bit of a thought-terminating cliche, people declared what kind of actions they thought were justified and why. Is violent rhetoric which, for example, calls for the death of Trump justified? I have no idea if you think it is because you switched from the specific to the general so quickly. There’s such a vast breadth of actions which people allude to when talking about the so-called paradox that some are bound to find broad appeal while some are bound to be extremist fringe stuff.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss.

Comparing huge multinational countries which serve every country to the half of countries with the smallest energy usage is not terribly illustrative.

The paradox of tolerance says that if you tolerate everything, you will tolerate the intolerant when they take over, which will lead to intolerance.

The solution to the paradox of tolerance is simply to not tolerate the intolerant taking over and instituting an intolerant society. There are many examples of un-punched Nazis who have not managed to manifest their intolerance (because the law protects people), as well as punched Nazis who remain unrepentant and go on to commit intolerant crimes. Famously, the actual Nazi party was engaged in street battles with the Communists in inter-war Germany, and this didn’t prevent their rise to power. Their rise was enabled by a complicit populace voting for them, as well as a weak constitution which allowed dictatorial rule (and of course other factors).

You brought up the paradox of tolerance in response to someone denouncing violent rhetoric. But you have never explained - and can’t explain because it’s not true - how violent rhetoric is necessary to prevent the erosion of tolerance in society.

Why engage someone on a discussion board if you’re not actually willing to discuss the subject…

At least you understand now that I wasn’t saying the paradox of tolerance is “about laws.”

The immorality that it seeks to avoid is the elimination of tolerance. You can achieve that through strong laws without stooping to the level of fascists themselves. I’m not saying it’s a legal point, but that it has a legal solution.

And my comment only used social media as an example. The point is, big websites have more draw than small websites, leading to a self-amplifying effect.

The paradox of tolerance is almost universally misunderstood. It means that we need to have strong legal guarantees of human rights and punish those who violate those rights. It does not mean that we should try to violently or extra-legally suppress the right when it tries to gain power legally.

From the user’s perspective it’s not about “reach”; it’s about simply having people to interact with. If you go to a thread on reddit there’ll be hundreds or thousands of people to talk about it with, and there’ll be active communities for all kinds of niches. If you want to avoid reddit - whether because of privacy issues or site policy or mods or whatever - you have to deal with the fact that everyone else is sticking with reddit.

Anyone, because even the (temporary) right to remain somewhere doesn’t automatically mean you can leave and come back. In the UK if you are granted temporary leave to stay in the country for less than 6 months, leaving for any length of time will mean you’re not allowed back in.

The detail here is that she applied for settled status, which would have granted her leave to remain in (and hence to enter) the country, but it was refused. Pending her appeal she was temporarily granted the right to work in the UK, but she was not temporarily granted the right to remain, it seems - or at least that’s what the Home Office position implies.

It seems like an oversight to me: the application for settled status allows you to leave for up to 6 months at a time and come back and still qualify; if you can still work while you’re appealing a decision, it would make sense to temporarily allow the person into the country.

OK, looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. Fair enough.

I agree that the PATRIOT act has harmed American citizens, but I think that’s a completely Western-centric way of thinking that likely wouldn’t even cross the mind of a radical Islamist. I don’t think it can be said to have harmed the USA in the way that would further any of bin Laden’s goals that we can infer from his words or otherwise. If anything, bin Laden was an authoritarian himself and so would be more likely to believe that state surveillance is beneficial to the wellbeing of the state.

One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes?

Seems to me you’re still saying 9/11 couldn’t have achieved it.

You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism?

I want you to lay out why you think the PATRIOT act or something like it was likely foreseen by bin Laden and why he thought it would likely further his goals. You’re hinting at a discussion from the perspective of “privacy-oriented types” rather than from bin Laden’s perspective. There’s to be done here than just argue, “bin Laden wanted to harm America, and eroding privacy harms America, therefore bin Laden did 9/11 to erode privacy.” Many consequences of 9/11 might further or hinder bin Laden’s goals, but IMO we’re talking about more than that.

Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed?

Because it’s the one that I see repeated most often by others and the one find most doubtful.

Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

Because we started with a disagreement over what his goals were and you seem to have maintained your side of that disagreement? If you say “it was X, Y and Z” and I say, “no, it was A and B” and you then say “how on earth could what he did have achieved A” you’re not actually arguing about “how” you’re expressing your skepticism that it was A by casting doubt on how realistic it was.

I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings.

You haven’t expressed a reason to believe that bin Laden wanted the USA to pass a law like the PATRIOT Act. You’ve made implications that you maybe don’t actually believe it that strongly, but not gone so far as to say that you don’t believe it, and you’ve talked about the other things you believe, but you’re quite reticent to talk about that one.

I don’t mind leaving aside the other stuff because this one, I think, is more egregious.

Just because you couch it in terms of opinion doesn’t mean it’s not a claim about truth; you’re just not saying you’re certain of it. I wouldn’t expect certainty - I would just expect that whatever you do believe you believe for a reason, and that you would be able to articulate that reason, which you aren’t doing.

With your successive replies it sounds like you’re more comfortable defending the position that “bin Laden’s stated goals are unbelievable” than “bin Laden’s goal was to make the USA pass liberty-reducing legislation.” It’s OK if, on reflection, you think the latter isn’t really supported by the facts and that’s why you’re not defending it or giving a reason for it.

Unlikely - it’s too cheap to get rid of. It will degrade its effectiveness as it’ll need to deploy, fire very few rounds, then leave, unlike traditionally where a battery might fire loads of rounds before moving off.