When you disagree with something, or don’t understand something, or feel uncomfortable/hesitant/doubtful, stop reading and post to the Fallible Ideas Discussion Forum. Don’t gloss over problems; bring them up. Don’t pretend you’ll go back and discuss when you get to the end of the book; discuss now. You need to get issues addressed now so that you can take those answers into account while reading the rest. Mistakes will spiral out of control, and destroy the value of reading the rest, if unaddressed.
So wouldn’t my early mistakes destroy my understanding of Popper books? Or was this directed towards people who wouldn’t do a rereading with more analysis? Personally I do think I would benefit a lot from reading your Popper recommendations right now.
I’m writing like this now. I’m spending time thinking, but not much editing. I haven’t been rewriting stuff though. I do often write on the same topic consecutive days in my journal though.
You can go to privacy settings and disable microphone and camera and other stuff for specific apps. I don’t think they would lie like that, they would get sued, right? But maybe it’s an open secret like in Curiosity – Conspiracies Are Often Unnecessary.
So, that is a common problem I’ve seen. I was writing from experience. For example, seemingly intelligent, educated people who are better writers than most have read a book like The Fabric of Reality then later posted opinions on the book’s discussion group like:
FoR doesn’t discuss solipsism. (This belief was entrenched and the guy persisted in the face of evidence such as the lengthy index entry for that topic.)
Popper never said induction is a myth that doesn’t work at all. Obviously he wouldn’t have done that since Popper was smart but that position is stupid. I believe this person had the same opinion about Deutsch. (Again this belief was entrenched. It was highly resistant to arguments and evidence.)
I remember someone on my forum who wasn’t an Objectivist and then read multiple Rand books without discussing them while forming their beliefs about Objectivism. Then they had wild, extensive, entrenched misconceptions about Objectivism. If the result was they dismissed Objectivism it wouldn’t be so bad, but they liked it! I was unable to fix it.
There have been many times where people read a book or essay or they participate in a forum or chat discussion with me and then they comment on something from earlier on, from memory, and it’s not really recognizable as corresponding to any actual text and they won’t go back and find the text and the issue never gets resolved.
Limiting your reading has risks and downsides too so it’s up to you. Ultimately it’s your life and you have to use your own judgment a lot. Figure out some error correction methods that you can use now that work well for you and aren’t too burdensome, and maybe improve them later. Take error correction seriously and do something about it that involves other people sometimes but don’t get hung up with fear.
It feels hard to imagine I would act like that. Due to fallibilism I should take it seriously that I can make such huge mistakes, but I don’t think I would be so intransigent about it.
I think I’ll read lots now without a requirement of any analysis and/or posting here. But maybe I’ll want to post anyway since I’m posting lots of other stuff now.
This is itself an example of the issue I was talking about. I find a lot of times I give some advice, I later find out someone took it in a way I didn’t know about or intend. Like discouraging reading Popper wasn’t my intention.
Right. After some time I realized what was happening and thought there was a problem, but I wasn’t even on the forum then. I should’ve brought it up earlier after joining though. I’ve thought about it sometimes.
The payout is related to a 2019 class action lawsuit that alleged Apple was infringing on its users’ privacy by capturing conversations overheard by its Siri voice assistant without consent, passing the recordings to third-party quality control contractors. Apple offered a formal apology and pledged it would no longer retain user recordings, but pushed back against additional allegations that it allowed advertisers to target consumers based on Siri recording data. In January 2025, the company agreed to pay $95 million out to impacted users to settle the case.
Apparantley they did lie like that, and did get sued. That’s good they got sued.
Do you think the quote says that Apple spied on users? Do you want to analyze the text? Are you relying on information outside the quote? What do you think happened, like what do you think Apple was and wasn’t doing with mics?
I did, when and until I posted it. I noticed shortly after posting it that I had read it wrong. Apple was sued for passing siri recordings onto third-party quality control contractors, without the user’s consent. Not for simply spying and passing recordings on to third-parties. They weren’t sued for spying and pushed back against allegations that they were. I was mistaken.
Why didn’t I point out my mistake right away? Not sure. In future, I’ll try to point out mistakes I notice right away.
one thing I’m confused by here is him talking about girls enjoying S.A. and even orgasming or whatever with it being ok for some people. The other person in the conversation even brought up how SA may have serious harms overriding the fact that some people may enjoy it. The other dude seems to ignore the harm parts.
Also a women enjoying SA could be for bad reasons. I have very limited knowledge/experience with such matters but I’ve heard things along the lines of experience with abuse can make it a pleasurable experience. Stuff along the lines of parents set your attraction standards. So: dad is abusive, maybe even sexually abusive, and the girl kinda subconsciously will find those things attractive in the future.
Not saying that’s good/correct, but just giving a potential reason I heard of of why a girl may “enjoy” SA. Their enjoyment is not coming from a place of good things.
I recognize the name/voice in this video. Andrew Wilson is a Christian nationalist who in the past has had “Fascist” (or maybe it was “Fash” but explicitly short for fascist, I don’t remember offhand) in his online identity nickname.
He has openly advocated for stuff like taking away women’s right to vote. He goes around the internet debating in favor of misogynistic and extremely regressive ideas. I used to think he was very fringe, but I’m not sure any more. I am worried his views might be more popular than I thought, among some corners of the religious right-wing internet. He seems to get invited onto Red Pill style podcasts with some regularity.
What could even be his point here? That sometimes rape isn’t bad? wtf? I don’t believe that at all. And even if it was true, I don’t see what that’s supposed to imply. That it shouldn’t be considered as wrong as it is? That it’s okay to do? If true (which to repeat I don’t think it is), I think the only reasonable thing to conclude would be: some victims are luckier than others (which is hardly a interesting point to make).
Looking in the comments, I see that ‘involuntary orgasm’ is a thing and that it’s something that really confuses SA victims. Some say it makes it worse because it’s as if their body is betraying them. I don’t think your body decides whether you’ve been assaulted or not.
I don’t really understand how money influences courts so much, unless there is bribery involved. Otherwise, why can’t what seems like simple cases, like serving coffee 20 degrees too hot, be settled faster than a decade?
Also where’s that coming from? The first part of the video talked about a governments actions generally and the second part talked about the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit. I assume you’re talking about the McDonalds lawsuit but all he did was point out that the lady had a reasonable basis for the suit (instead of just a baseless “coffee is hot”) and that McDonalds was gonna stall her payments with appeals (leading her to settle for less).
Is the appeal stalling the issue you’re talking about?
I wrote the below before writing this, but I wanted to ask this first: do you think the case revolved around just proving the coffee was 20 degrees too hot?
I mean it depends.
I think you mentioned that you’re not from the U.S. if I remember correctly? Courts in America are just slow full stop and I’m pretty sure most courts are slow. Idk though I’m only familiar with how the U.S. handles things. I remember hearing in passing that Japanese criminal courts are quite efficient (not in a great way).
Courts/trials are busy. Its hard to resolve things quickly. They can also get complicated for things that seem simple. Getting a jury is time consuming, getting testimony is time consuming, depositions are time consuming, etc.
What do you think is simple about the case? Are you saying there’s a law (or think there’s a law) that serving coffee 20 degrees hotter than normal is a crime? Are you familiar with the McDonalds case?
She could’ve maybe had damage prior to the hot coffee. Resolving something like that, I don’t think, is simple.
Proving McDonalds serves coffee 20 degrees too hot may be simple, but idk, How do you know for sure the temperature was too hot that day? McDonalds has this image of cheap lazy employees. It would be on brand to serve lukewarm coffee.
Where’d you get a decade from? Were you just speaking broadly of lawsuits?
He said McDonalds threatened to drag the case out for a decade.
I’m not talking about the general speed of courts in the US. I understand you want to do things correctly so it takes time, but no way it should be possible to drag it out for a decade.
Yep, I’m not. I also now realized that I was thinking in Celsius. He was using Fahrenheit, so I thought it was equivalent to 36 degrees too hot in Fahrenheit.
We wouldn’t need a specific law would we? Let’s say they served 70 degrees hotter than normal without warning. Wouldn’t that be really dangerous and make McDonalds responsible for inevitable damages? Aren’t there laws that would cover such a case? I’m not sure 20 degrees is too much, when I think about it as 11 degrees Celsius it doesn’t immediately tell me it’s too much.
Her damages are way more than I thought you would risk with spilling coffee though.
No. I guess I should’ve researched it before commenting. I read a little more about it now.
I’ve heard before about rich parties using money to drag out trials or otherwise getting unfair outcomes. I haven’t looked into it much, I could have been told lies. I could be biased that because I don’t look for cases where the poor party wins (and is compensated fairly). Do you think money doesn’t matter that much? That would be great if true.
