I'm curious about this. What are postmodern notions of individualism, and how is this distinct from the prior notion of individualism such that it makes a key distinction so we can call one form stupid and the other not stupid?
Problem with ai as the future of any media industry: work created by an ai algorithm is not copyrightable in the US. That being the case, a music industry relying on AI would lose its ability to protect those works.
Nationalizing the Internet by giving control of social media to the radio regulator the CRTC.
With the passage of Bill C-11, I've closed registrations for this instance.
The people responsible should rejoice for every day they have on earth, because one day they'll die of old age peacefully in their beds, and they'll face an eternity answering to their ancestors for their atrocities.
The people responsible should rejoice for every day they have on earth, because one day they'll die of old age peacefully in their beds, and they'll face an eternity answering to their ancestors for their atrocities.
AI isn't capable of producing Jean Claude Van Damme going "I'm going to take my bo-at and I'm going to go down the reeeever"
Because that's art.
Because that's art.
There's a lot of people who think their "rights" trump everyone else's *rights*.
What's the difference? Natural rights are things you would have without anyone else around. Rights to life, liberty, property. You're free to speak, you're free to travel, you're free to believe whatever you want or have whatever religion you want. With nobody around to stop you, you can have these things.
You don't have a right to other people's labor. You don't have a right to other people's children. You have a right to say what you think but you don't have any right to force others to say what you think. You have a right to believe what you want to believe but you don't have a right to force others to believe what you believe. You have a right to follow whatever religion you want, but you don't have a right to impose that religion on anyone else.
What's the difference? Natural rights are things you would have without anyone else around. Rights to life, liberty, property. You're free to speak, you're free to travel, you're free to believe whatever you want or have whatever religion you want. With nobody around to stop you, you can have these things.
You don't have a right to other people's labor. You don't have a right to other people's children. You have a right to say what you think but you don't have any right to force others to say what you think. You have a right to believe what you want to believe but you don't have a right to force others to believe what you believe. You have a right to follow whatever religion you want, but you don't have a right to impose that religion on anyone else.
"killing innocent people and taking their stuff is hecking valid!"
These fokkin people
These fokkin people
According to the-federation.info there are 40,000 activitypub compatible nodes out there. Thats a lot of nodes not controlled by anyone in particular.
There are already big instances that defederate, namely gab and truth social. Just means they isolate themselves and everyone else keeps rolling along.
I think everyone's built something really amazing together, And no one person can break it at this point.
There are already big instances that defederate, namely gab and truth social. Just means they isolate themselves and everyone else keeps rolling along.
I think everyone's built something really amazing together, And no one person can break it at this point.
I feel like it's not necessarily that hard to get on the fediverse.
I did it with 3 completely different activitypub enabled services and I've got an IQ of like 87. There's some great write-ups out there.
I did it with 3 completely different activitypub enabled services and I've got an IQ of like 87. There's some great write-ups out there.
You can be proactive or reactive.
To me, being proactive is actively working to increase your footprint on the fediverse by following and interacting with people from different instances. Every server you interact with is a little more health for the fediverse and a little less centralization, and every time someone on a big instance sees something interesting from a person posting from a smaller instance that's an advertisement for decentralization.
Being reactive is to just defederate when things get scary. In that case, the people are stuck in their echo chamber and don't realize there's a world out there that might be really cool, and it'll only drive more centralization prior to an instance shutting off federation.
Unfortunately being reactive is easier than being proactive, so a lot of people prefer that even if the long term outlook is worsened by it.
To me, being proactive is actively working to increase your footprint on the fediverse by following and interacting with people from different instances. Every server you interact with is a little more health for the fediverse and a little less centralization, and every time someone on a big instance sees something interesting from a person posting from a smaller instance that's an advertisement for decentralization.
Being reactive is to just defederate when things get scary. In that case, the people are stuck in their echo chamber and don't realize there's a world out there that might be really cool, and it'll only drive more centralization prior to an instance shutting off federation.
Unfortunately being reactive is easier than being proactive, so a lot of people prefer that even if the long term outlook is worsened by it.
This isn't an extraordinary claim at all. It's well established through many different methods.
Cities with high levels of welfare such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as native reserves in Canada that are government funded communes are exactly what I had in mind -- there's poverty in a modern sense, but in a historical context some of the richest people in the history of the world and still richer than most of the world on a dollar for dollar basis. There are also examples of trust fund kids with nothing else to do committing suicide through lifestyle because they don't have anything else to strive for -- so rich neighborhoods can have similar issues to poor ones when you take away people's reason to live.
Many dogs misbehave when they have everything taken care of and they don't have anything to do with their energy. They might dig up your yard, tear up your furniture, freak out when the mailman comes by, and the advice from experts is to play with the dog more and to on more walks to "give it a job". Many millennials or zoomers are stuck in their parents house and they get all the essentials and sometimes more taken care of, and it's made the most miserable generation out there, with the most mental problems of all time.
The famous Mouse Utopia experiment gave mice all the space and food they needed and no natural predators. The results were that the mice became more and more dysfunctional until the colony fully died out.
Human beings aren't like lawnmower engines. You can't just fill them with fuel and do basic maintenance and expect they'll run properly for a lifetime.
As Dostoyevsky said: “Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.” because that's not how we're built. We've evolved in a world that will kill us if we're still for too long, so in the absence of a need for useful work, we'll pursue useless or destructive pursuits.
Cities with high levels of welfare such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as native reserves in Canada that are government funded communes are exactly what I had in mind -- there's poverty in a modern sense, but in a historical context some of the richest people in the history of the world and still richer than most of the world on a dollar for dollar basis. There are also examples of trust fund kids with nothing else to do committing suicide through lifestyle because they don't have anything else to strive for -- so rich neighborhoods can have similar issues to poor ones when you take away people's reason to live.
Many dogs misbehave when they have everything taken care of and they don't have anything to do with their energy. They might dig up your yard, tear up your furniture, freak out when the mailman comes by, and the advice from experts is to play with the dog more and to on more walks to "give it a job". Many millennials or zoomers are stuck in their parents house and they get all the essentials and sometimes more taken care of, and it's made the most miserable generation out there, with the most mental problems of all time.
The famous Mouse Utopia experiment gave mice all the space and food they needed and no natural predators. The results were that the mice became more and more dysfunctional until the colony fully died out.
Human beings aren't like lawnmower engines. You can't just fill them with fuel and do basic maintenance and expect they'll run properly for a lifetime.
As Dostoyevsky said: “Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.” because that's not how we're built. We've evolved in a world that will kill us if we're still for too long, so in the absence of a need for useful work, we'll pursue useless or destructive pursuits.
There are a number of problems with UBI, and important and dangerous problems.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
For the most part, the games industry started stagnating 10 years ago.
2007-2012 was a golden age.
2007-2012 was a golden age.
tbf, lighting has transformed in the past 20 years. Most energy use has.
One rental I moved into, I removed several kilowatts of incandescent light bulbs and replaced them with a couple hundred watts of LED light bulbs.
A lot of our other energy use is also way better than it used to be going back into the past. Cars use much less fuel, televisions use less energy since they're using LEDs and LCDs instead of giant vacuum tubes hurling electrons at phosphorescent coating (and the televisions last virtually forever comparatively speaking since the phosphor doesn't fade and there's no need for super high voltages). Even critical stuff like heating is on a completely different level now -- energy was much cheaper post-war so houses weren't really as well insulated, and more importantly the efficiency was on a whole other level. In the 1950s, a furnace might only be 50% efficient. Today, a furnace can be up to 99% efficient, which is absolutely mind-blowing when you think about it.
The massively increased efficiency of modern life is one of the few things saving us from the fact that consumer electricity costs have generally risen faster than inflation.
One rental I moved into, I removed several kilowatts of incandescent light bulbs and replaced them with a couple hundred watts of LED light bulbs.
A lot of our other energy use is also way better than it used to be going back into the past. Cars use much less fuel, televisions use less energy since they're using LEDs and LCDs instead of giant vacuum tubes hurling electrons at phosphorescent coating (and the televisions last virtually forever comparatively speaking since the phosphor doesn't fade and there's no need for super high voltages). Even critical stuff like heating is on a completely different level now -- energy was much cheaper post-war so houses weren't really as well insulated, and more importantly the efficiency was on a whole other level. In the 1950s, a furnace might only be 50% efficient. Today, a furnace can be up to 99% efficient, which is absolutely mind-blowing when you think about it.
The massively increased efficiency of modern life is one of the few things saving us from the fact that consumer electricity costs have generally risen faster than inflation.
It's like a reverse trolley problem. If you pull the lever, it'll kill more people, but at least you can say you did something!