It's a fork of pleroma. For a while it had additional features over pleroma such as quote posting but it's been somewhat stagnant for a while so I'm not sure there's actually any advantages at this point or if pleroma proper already has the new features. At some point I'm planning to migrate back to pleroma, but everything works pretty well for me so it's not very high priority.
https://github.com/Wack0/entii-for-workcubes
Someone ported Windows NT for PowerPC to the Wii. It works, too.
People go "How do people fall for scams on the Internet?", the real answer is "Because a lot of crazy things aren't scams!"
Someone ported Windows NT for PowerPC to the Wii. It works, too.
People go "How do people fall for scams on the Internet?", the real answer is "Because a lot of crazy things aren't scams!"
Every year, it becomes easier to become a millionaire, but every year it matters less and less because a million dollars is less and less. Eventually, a millionaire will be someone on minimum wage.
Patel always looks so surprised. Like "what the shit you guys actually made me head of the FBI?!"
Honestly, even the COVID shot was insanely harsh. I slept a full 24 hours with a fever with it, and my dad had to quit a job he has lined up because it knocked him on his ass for a month. Then we all got COVID anyway!
Neither of us are Americans, I just used it as an example we can both relate to. Unfortunately, as Rammstein sang, we're all living in America, so American politics get exported to every corner of the globe regardless of a national history. You know about it whether you like it or not.
A lot of the work I'm doing is taking my somewhat alien frame, and trying to translate it into something you'd understand. Considering I haven't published meditations on post-metamodern superpositional epistemology yet, it isn't reasonable to use those tools directly without making my somewhat long posts chapter length, so relating it to examples and mental frames we both can understand is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Directly applicable to me, Ottawa wants to blame me for their historic actions, but the truth is I have more in common with my local indigenous friends and neighbors than "my kind" in Ottawa (or for that matter, in Toronto) who rule. Ottawa apologizes on "my" behalf while queuing up the next intolerable acts they'll apologize for on "my" behalf tomorrow. Meanwhile I get to watch the land my grandfathers lived in stagnate and rot. My grandfathers didn't take anyone's kids, they died young of silicosis. Yet because as an aggregate they could throw my grandparents (and possibly yours as well, did they do anything wrong per se?) into a stack of people so they could take personal responsibility for the actions of a ruling class that oppressed everyone in various ways.
Meanwhile, my paternal grandfather died young and bitter at a government who told him he was fighting the fascists in Italy for freedom only to slowly become totalitarian and choke out all the freedoms he fought for.
A lot of the work I'm doing is taking my somewhat alien frame, and trying to translate it into something you'd understand. Considering I haven't published meditations on post-metamodern superpositional epistemology yet, it isn't reasonable to use those tools directly without making my somewhat long posts chapter length, so relating it to examples and mental frames we both can understand is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Directly applicable to me, Ottawa wants to blame me for their historic actions, but the truth is I have more in common with my local indigenous friends and neighbors than "my kind" in Ottawa (or for that matter, in Toronto) who rule. Ottawa apologizes on "my" behalf while queuing up the next intolerable acts they'll apologize for on "my" behalf tomorrow. Meanwhile I get to watch the land my grandfathers lived in stagnate and rot. My grandfathers didn't take anyone's kids, they died young of silicosis. Yet because as an aggregate they could throw my grandparents (and possibly yours as well, did they do anything wrong per se?) into a stack of people so they could take personal responsibility for the actions of a ruling class that oppressed everyone in various ways.
Meanwhile, my paternal grandfather died young and bitter at a government who told him he was fighting the fascists in Italy for freedom only to slowly become totalitarian and choke out all the freedoms he fought for.
I used to run friendica at first, but the php backend wasn't robust enough and messages got lost on my first hardware. Today I'm running soapbox and rebased.
An example of the point I'm is making is Baltimore schools -- the systemic way of handling illiteracy is to just pass everyone regardless of their math or literacy levels. That makes a lot of people "high school graduates" which the numbers say the black school districts are better than they were due to high graduation rates, but it ignores that they're all illiterate and innumerate (as measured by standardized literacy tests which show some entire schools lack a single graduate who is reading or doing math at grade level). Treating people like the system is them is the problem here. The measures get better, but in reality what just happened was global systemic damage to high school education.
The discussion goes "Oh, we need more black high school graduates because high school graduates in aggregate make more money than non-high school graduates". Those aggregates are true, but by systemetizing that, you don't necessarily ensure those students go off to make more money. Instead, you devalue high school educations and get a situation like the US sees where the university degree becomes the new baseline. This ends up harming all high school students as a whole, at the cost of nominally but not necessarily practically improving the lot of the individual students involved.
The person who is harmed the most by this game is the hardworking and diligent black high school student who does the work to earn a high school diploma honestly, only to have their work devalued by a system that hoped to elevate blacks, resulting in individual harm.
(Baltimore just happens to have a lot of majority black areas which is why it ends up being a focus here)
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-results-23-baltimore-schools-have-zero-students-proficient-in-math-jovani-patterson-maryland-comprehensive-assessment-program-maryland-governor-wes-moore
The discussion goes "Oh, we need more black high school graduates because high school graduates in aggregate make more money than non-high school graduates". Those aggregates are true, but by systemetizing that, you don't necessarily ensure those students go off to make more money. Instead, you devalue high school educations and get a situation like the US sees where the university degree becomes the new baseline. This ends up harming all high school students as a whole, at the cost of nominally but not necessarily practically improving the lot of the individual students involved.
The person who is harmed the most by this game is the hardworking and diligent black high school student who does the work to earn a high school diploma honestly, only to have their work devalued by a system that hoped to elevate blacks, resulting in individual harm.
(Baltimore just happens to have a lot of majority black areas which is why it ends up being a focus here)
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-results-23-baltimore-schools-have-zero-students-proficient-in-math-jovani-patterson-maryland-comprehensive-assessment-program-maryland-governor-wes-moore
If you wanted an account here I'll approve it no problem. I know, the 500 character limit seems really annoying.
I spent a lot of time laying things out to hopefully clear things up.
The confusion here isn’t personal. It comes from trying to use clean, totalising categories on a reality that is messy, layered, and often internally contradictory. My own framework starts from the assumption that paradox and inconsistency are normal features of the world, not bugs to be eliminated.
When I say “stacking fails,” I’m not saying statistics or population-level analysis are useless. Aggregates obviously exist and are useful at the level they’re meant for. The problem is a different one: stacking people into categories necessarily requires prejudice (Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you must assume everything about someone based on a limited selection criteria). To reduce prejudice and get things more correct you need to add more attributes to separate people into those categories to make it more accurate, but in so doing the less coherent that category becomes. At sufficiently high resolution, you are no longer describing a group in any meaningful way, you are describing an individual.
That is not a mathematical failure. It is a categorical one. The error happens when you try to take that compressed, simplified image of a population and apply it back onto real, complex human beings.
This is why I am cautious about any framework, including intersectionality, that emphasises the stacking of people into identity variables. If a person is the intersection of dozens or hundreds of factors (history, class, ancestry, education, geography, culture, trauma, opportunity, neurotype, family, etc.), then no small handful of those factors can stand in for the whole person. The more seriously you take that idea, the more it breaks down low-resolution identity thinking. Your piles of people are almost random because even if in aggregate they look a certain way, individually they can be quite different. You can stack into more categories to try to capture people in a more robust model, but as you continue you end up with a near-infinitely complex model, with n piles to represent n people.
This also exposes how unstable many of our categories really are. Ethnicity is not clean or consistent. Language, names, appearance, and culture are shaped by environment, migration, class, and historical accident as much as ancestry. Mexico is a nation, not an ethnicity. A single person can descend from both conquered and conqueror, enslaved and enslaver, oppressed and powerful. These labels collapse under even mild historical or genetic scrutiny.
At the same time, it is obvious that different people experience both advantage and disadvantage, often simultaneously, depending on which variable you examine. The same person can be privileged in one context and marginalised in another. This should make us extremely wary of flattening anyone into a single identity-based narrative.
The real danger appears when systems, not just people, take these simplified categories and operationalise them. Institutions, governments, policies, algorithms, and bureaucracies cannot deal with full human complexity. They are forced to compress people into boxes, risk profiles, types, and groups. Harm happens when those abstractions are mistaken for the actual human beings they are meant to represent.
Governance doesn't necessarily require universal aggregation. That's literally an invention of the modernist era. Before the beginning of the modernist era and the French Revolution, the concept that everyone in a nation needed to be standardized and modularized was not real. One of the reasons for systemic bigotry is that systems were allowed to expand and standardize and make assumptions about everyone living under them, whereas before that governance was more localized. There were problems with that approach as well, but different problems. With a modernist epistemology, this truth is quite invisible, because it's so strongly built into our worldview.
History is full of examples where aggregate observations were converted into essential rules about individuals. In the United States, the history of slavery and race turned a population-level historical condition into a permanent, inherited social status for millions of unrelated individuals. That was not science. It was the misuse of abstraction backed by power.
So I am not rejecting pattern recognition. I am rejecting the move where patterns are treated as people, when a simplified model becomes an identity, and an identity becomes a fate. The aggregate is not the individual. A label is not a human being.
The confusion here isn’t personal. It comes from trying to use clean, totalising categories on a reality that is messy, layered, and often internally contradictory. My own framework starts from the assumption that paradox and inconsistency are normal features of the world, not bugs to be eliminated.
When I say “stacking fails,” I’m not saying statistics or population-level analysis are useless. Aggregates obviously exist and are useful at the level they’re meant for. The problem is a different one: stacking people into categories necessarily requires prejudice (Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you must assume everything about someone based on a limited selection criteria). To reduce prejudice and get things more correct you need to add more attributes to separate people into those categories to make it more accurate, but in so doing the less coherent that category becomes. At sufficiently high resolution, you are no longer describing a group in any meaningful way, you are describing an individual.
That is not a mathematical failure. It is a categorical one. The error happens when you try to take that compressed, simplified image of a population and apply it back onto real, complex human beings.
This is why I am cautious about any framework, including intersectionality, that emphasises the stacking of people into identity variables. If a person is the intersection of dozens or hundreds of factors (history, class, ancestry, education, geography, culture, trauma, opportunity, neurotype, family, etc.), then no small handful of those factors can stand in for the whole person. The more seriously you take that idea, the more it breaks down low-resolution identity thinking. Your piles of people are almost random because even if in aggregate they look a certain way, individually they can be quite different. You can stack into more categories to try to capture people in a more robust model, but as you continue you end up with a near-infinitely complex model, with n piles to represent n people.
This also exposes how unstable many of our categories really are. Ethnicity is not clean or consistent. Language, names, appearance, and culture are shaped by environment, migration, class, and historical accident as much as ancestry. Mexico is a nation, not an ethnicity. A single person can descend from both conquered and conqueror, enslaved and enslaver, oppressed and powerful. These labels collapse under even mild historical or genetic scrutiny.
At the same time, it is obvious that different people experience both advantage and disadvantage, often simultaneously, depending on which variable you examine. The same person can be privileged in one context and marginalised in another. This should make us extremely wary of flattening anyone into a single identity-based narrative.
The real danger appears when systems, not just people, take these simplified categories and operationalise them. Institutions, governments, policies, algorithms, and bureaucracies cannot deal with full human complexity. They are forced to compress people into boxes, risk profiles, types, and groups. Harm happens when those abstractions are mistaken for the actual human beings they are meant to represent.
Governance doesn't necessarily require universal aggregation. That's literally an invention of the modernist era. Before the beginning of the modernist era and the French Revolution, the concept that everyone in a nation needed to be standardized and modularized was not real. One of the reasons for systemic bigotry is that systems were allowed to expand and standardize and make assumptions about everyone living under them, whereas before that governance was more localized. There were problems with that approach as well, but different problems. With a modernist epistemology, this truth is quite invisible, because it's so strongly built into our worldview.
History is full of examples where aggregate observations were converted into essential rules about individuals. In the United States, the history of slavery and race turned a population-level historical condition into a permanent, inherited social status for millions of unrelated individuals. That was not science. It was the misuse of abstraction backed by power.
So I am not rejecting pattern recognition. I am rejecting the move where patterns are treated as people, when a simplified model becomes an identity, and an identity becomes a fate. The aggregate is not the individual. A label is not a human being.
My conclusion isn't what you just said.
My conclusion is that going by intersectionality every human is a unique combination of attributes that make us infinitely diverse, so any attempt to stack them together ends up failing.
My conclusion is that going by intersectionality every human is a unique combination of attributes that make us infinitely diverse, so any attempt to stack them together ends up failing.
If I'm being totally honest, Ben Shapiro is totally correct about "if you can't afford to live in New York City, live somewhere else".
One of the reasons these cities are so unaffordable is a century of attempts to make them affordable. They've driven down interest rates, they've given mortgages to anyone with a pulse, they made 30 year fixed mortgages the best option in the US (such mortgages don't exist in other countries and are subsidized), and they're on track to make 50 year mortgages an option. They've taken money from everyone else through taxes and inflation and injected it into the housing market. They've added grants and bursaries and tax rebates. In the US, the interest on your mortgage is tax deductible -- so mortgages are directly subsidized by the taxpayer. The result? House markets that aren't possible to live in.
Moreover, the culture that says "Everyone should be able to live on Manhattan Island" is broken. Sorry, not everyone can live in Hollywood, not everyone can live in Manhattan. That's life.
And here's the thing: People make arguments as to why it's important to keep communities intact. "Oh, I don't want to move away from my family" -- and they're not wrong, but it doesn't matter. You can't live here anymore, because you promised that spot to a dozen other people from around the world and a hundred people from around the country. The argument that everyone ought to move to these places, and that it's a moral good that they do, and that there's no opportunity anywhere but these few international cities, it's all contributing to the problem. Instead, people who want to keep living in their homes should be trying to make the argument that there are plenty of opportunties outside of their cities and people should go to those places instead.
In my own country of Canada, we have the same stupid ideology with respect to Toronto and Vancouver. And those two markets are retardedly expensive. "Oh, there's jobs there!" it doesn't matter! The houses in Toronto are a million, and in Vancouver they're two million!
With all this, the actual answer is multi-faceted, but simple.
1. Cut mortgage amortization to 15 years.
2. Stop insuring mortgages and force banks to take on the risks of lending
3. Don't allow mortgages to be packaged up in securities at all
4. Allow interest rates to rise if that's where they want to go
5. Don't allow people to claim mortgage interest on their taxes
6. Eliminate illegal immigration, reduce legal migration
7. Start amping up all the cities that aren't the top real estate markets in the world -- Maybe living in North Dakota isn't so bad?
8. Eliminate programs intended to help the working class pay for places they can't afford in areas like NYC or LA, let the rich sleep in the bed they made (with no local services unless they pay huge wages). Watch these areas become less attractive all of a sudden.
Do these things, and suddenly people can afford to live in the city of their grandparents. Otherwise sorry you have to leave because there's more people coming who want it more than you.
One of the reasons these cities are so unaffordable is a century of attempts to make them affordable. They've driven down interest rates, they've given mortgages to anyone with a pulse, they made 30 year fixed mortgages the best option in the US (such mortgages don't exist in other countries and are subsidized), and they're on track to make 50 year mortgages an option. They've taken money from everyone else through taxes and inflation and injected it into the housing market. They've added grants and bursaries and tax rebates. In the US, the interest on your mortgage is tax deductible -- so mortgages are directly subsidized by the taxpayer. The result? House markets that aren't possible to live in.
Moreover, the culture that says "Everyone should be able to live on Manhattan Island" is broken. Sorry, not everyone can live in Hollywood, not everyone can live in Manhattan. That's life.
And here's the thing: People make arguments as to why it's important to keep communities intact. "Oh, I don't want to move away from my family" -- and they're not wrong, but it doesn't matter. You can't live here anymore, because you promised that spot to a dozen other people from around the world and a hundred people from around the country. The argument that everyone ought to move to these places, and that it's a moral good that they do, and that there's no opportunity anywhere but these few international cities, it's all contributing to the problem. Instead, people who want to keep living in their homes should be trying to make the argument that there are plenty of opportunties outside of their cities and people should go to those places instead.
In my own country of Canada, we have the same stupid ideology with respect to Toronto and Vancouver. And those two markets are retardedly expensive. "Oh, there's jobs there!" it doesn't matter! The houses in Toronto are a million, and in Vancouver they're two million!
With all this, the actual answer is multi-faceted, but simple.
1. Cut mortgage amortization to 15 years.
2. Stop insuring mortgages and force banks to take on the risks of lending
3. Don't allow mortgages to be packaged up in securities at all
4. Allow interest rates to rise if that's where they want to go
5. Don't allow people to claim mortgage interest on their taxes
6. Eliminate illegal immigration, reduce legal migration
7. Start amping up all the cities that aren't the top real estate markets in the world -- Maybe living in North Dakota isn't so bad?
8. Eliminate programs intended to help the working class pay for places they can't afford in areas like NYC or LA, let the rich sleep in the bed they made (with no local services unless they pay huge wages). Watch these areas become less attractive all of a sudden.
Do these things, and suddenly people can afford to live in the city of their grandparents. Otherwise sorry you have to leave because there's more people coming who want it more than you.
Aren't you utilizing implicit assumptions to conclude that strange names, strange looks, or strange ways of talking are related to ethnicity?
You and I don't speak English the same, even if we made an argument we came from wasp stock.
Moreover, again assuming wasp stock, there are lots of strange names. One of the characters in Future Sepsis is named Niamh (pronounced neev), which seems like a strange name, but it's Welsh, and even an English person might choose to name their child that despite not being directly Welsh.
Even the way someone looks, a lot of things can affect that I. The genetic side, the environmental side, or the cultural side without ethnicity entering the picture.
Then there are categories that the contemporary left believes are ethnic that actually aren't. Mexico, for example, is not an ethnicity. It is a state with a number of different ethnicities do the historical happenstance.
The left in fact often claims the same ethnicity is good and evil in their heuristic: an evil conquistador Spaniard European is now (without any real changes to genetics) a poor subjugated Mexican. The contradiction makes sense if it's not about ethnicity at all, but moral and power based.
Intersectionality at first glance looks like it makes certain groups more or less oppressed, but if you take it seriously, taken to its conclusions it actually means every human is unique and to make decisions solely on one or a couple attributes is to flatten them into something they are not.
You and I don't speak English the same, even if we made an argument we came from wasp stock.
Moreover, again assuming wasp stock, there are lots of strange names. One of the characters in Future Sepsis is named Niamh (pronounced neev), which seems like a strange name, but it's Welsh, and even an English person might choose to name their child that despite not being directly Welsh.
Even the way someone looks, a lot of things can affect that I. The genetic side, the environmental side, or the cultural side without ethnicity entering the picture.
Then there are categories that the contemporary left believes are ethnic that actually aren't. Mexico, for example, is not an ethnicity. It is a state with a number of different ethnicities do the historical happenstance.
The left in fact often claims the same ethnicity is good and evil in their heuristic: an evil conquistador Spaniard European is now (without any real changes to genetics) a poor subjugated Mexican. The contradiction makes sense if it's not about ethnicity at all, but moral and power based.
Intersectionality at first glance looks like it makes certain groups more or less oppressed, but if you take it seriously, taken to its conclusions it actually means every human is unique and to make decisions solely on one or a couple attributes is to flatten them into something they are not.
Europeans sniff their own farts about how superior they are then implement authoritarianism. France never changes.
We canuckistanis understand we're living in a failed state at least.
We canuckistanis understand we're living in a failed state at least.
Stop eating you fat fuck(r)
Ingredient: none
Frequency: all the time
Dosage: less food
Mechanism: not eating so much
Ask your doctor if stop eating you fat fuck (r) is for you. Not covered by most HMO or drug plans.
I lost 80kg on stop eating you fat fuck.
Ingredient: none
Frequency: all the time
Dosage: less food
Mechanism: not eating so much
Ask your doctor if stop eating you fat fuck (r) is for you. Not covered by most HMO or drug plans.
I lost 80kg on stop eating you fat fuck.
Whenever someone asks "which anime is this?" I want to go "It's one piece, from an episode in the middle, you probably haven't seen it". Because I doubt anyone's actually seen all the episodes of one piece, so nobody will know I'm lying.
If I dropped billions on a new AI, to better believe that niggas gonna be like "sj is the best at everything"