Anti-asbestos people are pro-fire. If only our homes were made out of strong, fireproof asbestos! 180,000 people per year die in fires, and in spite of this, the pro-fire crowd continues to push their racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic agenda! In the 30 years since asbestos was banned, as many as 6 million preventable deaths from fire have occurred, and that's all on the shoulders of the pro-fire lobby. #asbestosisnotover
(Just having some fun)
(Just having some fun)
Anyone else remember when Twitter was supposed to have gone permanently dark by now because all those employees were totes important an critical to running a website?
I just made chatgpt go full angrily soyjack by proposing the bank of Japan, which owns over 50% of Japanese government debt just finish the job buying 100% of Japanese government debt then have the legislature dissolve the debt, ending a 22 trillion yen per year debt service cost which is more money than the Japanese government has been in deficit for most of the past 15 years.
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
I can absolutely believe that. Throw the right platitudes out without crossing the line into actually advocating anything, then you can say something two different people interpret two completely different ways.
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I made a bit of a mistake referring to it. The actual phrase is "one screen, two movies" referring to a pop politics idea that there's a disconnect between different political factions and despite living in the same world they're seeing completely different things. It seems to me that this would be a natural consequences of the rejection of an idea of objective facts, so instead of learning what data everyone has and trying to come up with a truth that integrates all the facts you have one sides subjectively held facts and the other sides subjectively held facts and you can never agree on anything because you can't even start from a remotely common data set.
So the modern skeptic question is "how do I know I exist", and one response to that was "I think therefore I am", but the postmodern extrapolation of that appears to be "I think therefore I am therefore I am whatever I think and so is everything else because I can't actually count on anything else objectively speaking"
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
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.