rationalskepticism.org

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

The "trolls" (actual trolling requiring adopting an insincere attitude just to piss others off, whereas "this is dogshit" is actually heartfelt) should be utterly beneath notice. If the "trolls" are just random loser hambones on /pol/ there's really no need to talk about them at all. I honestly don't think that's the case.

And as we all know, human beings are all hyperrational robots.

Seriously, are you unaware of how stupid this sounds?

I'm familiar with a huge amount of evidence that neither humans nor robots nor some kind of cyborg middle ground will ever attain perfect rationality:

• Behavioral economics and behavioral game theory!
• Addiction—I will never be addicted to anything like gambling or meth but I've struggled with alcohol
• Substantial hands-on experience with machine learning, knowing full well that computers make mistakes all the time and statistically good performance is the best we can currently expect
• Indeed, P is probably not NP in the world of algorithms, whether they are implemented in flesh and/or semiconductors, so that is probably the most we can ever expect

But I'm really not expecting perfection, am I? I'm just expecting that super successful stars of highly successful fictional media series treat apparent inconsequential piss-ants like the apparent inconsequential piss-ants that they allegedly are. Yet this is not happening.