I definitely agree that I'd prefer the fediverse to stay a niche platform that a bunch of users who specifically want to be here join. Once it becomes a mainstream platform, forget about all the other issues, we start having issues with astroturfing from bad actors like what we saw particularly on sites like reddit.
I think we're going to find once the money situation becomes more normal, a lot of stuff that's moved online will move back to meatspace. Some things are just more efficient here if you're not getting unlimited money from the printers.
I've been thinking about a related technology, human genetic engineering. Imagine if you had a class of the ultra-rich who were all spliced in with the mighty mouse gene, so they were genetically superior physically to the common man? What would that world look like where certain forms of superiority can be bought and sold and then those bloodlines are just fundamentally different and engineered to be superior forever? What sort of risks could that pose? Some apparent genetic defects are actually protection against things, and for example humans with the mighty mouse gene would be much less survivable during a famine compared to humans who don't have that gene. Could an entire class of people genetically engineer themselves in such a way that they've painted themselves into a corner and die out despite ostensibly being superior in every way?
Back to Eugenics, something doesn't quite sound right with the hatred intellectuals have for natural evolution. It claims that humans are always just a short distance away from becoming invalids because we're letting our stupid evolution guide us, but evolution has done pretty well for us for billions of years that got us here, so is the problem here not in reality that it's something important they don't control?
Experts seem to hate markets. It's something they don't control that does a very good job at things that typically experts can't because it's a really complicated set of problems. In that sense, evolution seems like another system they don't like that nonetheless does a very good job at optimizing a really complicated set of problems, but leaves control out of experts hands. The thing is, evolution has an inherent memory of the past. It "remembers" that we faced challenges no history book talks about. It lived through those things and those humans lived through those things and our genes were selected for, brutally.
It's something I've been thinking of more and more lately, that we need a return to some level of intellectual humility; We need to stop thinking we're Gods and understand that we're wrong quite often and so tinkering with creation isn't something that will have the outcomes we'd like to think as we imagine ourselves as perfect.
The article talks about environmentalism, and I talk quite often about its failings. People who think they're the smartest humans to have ever lived try to force through policies that would undoubtedly kill billions because they don't actually know as much as they think. (That isn't to think that all environmentalism is wrong, but more that we need to base our priorities in humility rather than hubris and arrogance, letting nature do its thing)
Back to Eugenics, something doesn't quite sound right with the hatred intellectuals have for natural evolution. It claims that humans are always just a short distance away from becoming invalids because we're letting our stupid evolution guide us, but evolution has done pretty well for us for billions of years that got us here, so is the problem here not in reality that it's something important they don't control?
Experts seem to hate markets. It's something they don't control that does a very good job at things that typically experts can't because it's a really complicated set of problems. In that sense, evolution seems like another system they don't like that nonetheless does a very good job at optimizing a really complicated set of problems, but leaves control out of experts hands. The thing is, evolution has an inherent memory of the past. It "remembers" that we faced challenges no history book talks about. It lived through those things and those humans lived through those things and our genes were selected for, brutally.
It's something I've been thinking of more and more lately, that we need a return to some level of intellectual humility; We need to stop thinking we're Gods and understand that we're wrong quite often and so tinkering with creation isn't something that will have the outcomes we'd like to think as we imagine ourselves as perfect.
The article talks about environmentalism, and I talk quite often about its failings. People who think they're the smartest humans to have ever lived try to force through policies that would undoubtedly kill billions because they don't actually know as much as they think. (That isn't to think that all environmentalism is wrong, but more that we need to base our priorities in humility rather than hubris and arrogance, letting nature do its thing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RSENi5_hxA
"The only way out of all this is they'll have to tax *everybody*"
"The only way out of all this is they'll have to tax *everybody*"
tbh, youtube and facebook made unlimited money on copyright infringement then their content-id system made a faustian offer: "say, your stuff will be pirated any other way, why not let us pay you a pittance so you get something for it?"
Also, reintroducing prohibition. Alcohol has been the vasoline on the lens for many one night stands. (Also, ban vasoline)
Actually, this is an interesting thing because it goes to show the world is quote complicated. A lot of people who would agree that truth is an important ideal, but do we start banning anything that can be used to mislead?
It isn't like social media face-altering filters are unique or special. 30 years ago there were people taking their digitally scanned photos and removing blemishes or adding some hair. Do we ban photo editing software? Maybe we ban photographs altogether? If we ban photographs we should probably ban spell-check and grammar check...
Actually, this is an interesting thing because it goes to show the world is quote complicated. A lot of people who would agree that truth is an important ideal, but do we start banning anything that can be used to mislead?
It isn't like social media face-altering filters are unique or special. 30 years ago there were people taking their digitally scanned photos and removing blemishes or adding some hair. Do we ban photo editing software? Maybe we ban photographs altogether? If we ban photographs we should probably ban spell-check and grammar check...
Liberation, not control.
Leadership, not domination.
It's something easy to disregard, but do so at your peril. The exercise of raw power has a timer attached to it, and it's tempting to pull those levers once they're in front of us.
Leadership, not domination.
It's something easy to disregard, but do so at your peril. The exercise of raw power has a timer attached to it, and it's tempting to pull those levers once they're in front of us.
I'm surprisingly nonplussed at the idea that it would be manufactured by Ikea. It probably has some name that's 317 letters long too.
I think this protip might be an sj original...
People love grapes, but they tend to go bad quickly.
The two things that can happen is they start to dry out or they can get something nasty growing on them.
So my solution is to take tap water, add add a couple squirts of lemon juice, add your grapes, and refrigerate. They'll last much longer.
The water hydrates the grapes, and the lemon juice creates a fairly hostile environment for most pathogens.
People love grapes, but they tend to go bad quickly.
The two things that can happen is they start to dry out or they can get something nasty growing on them.
So my solution is to take tap water, add add a couple squirts of lemon juice, add your grapes, and refrigerate. They'll last much longer.
The water hydrates the grapes, and the lemon juice creates a fairly hostile environment for most pathogens.
I was agreeing with you, but then just expanding somewhat.
I have an entire section about opportunity in the graysonian ethic for just these sort of reasons.
I have an entire section about opportunity in the graysonian ethic for just these sort of reasons.
Opportunity is the father of invention, but not everyone has the same opportunities. That doesn't mean they don't have opportunities, it means they need to keep their eyes open for the opportunities uniquely presenting to them. You can attract more opportunities or drive them away by your actions.
People end up spending too much time upset that someone somewhere had different and maybe better opportunities than they do. They might blame the world's systems, but there's literally no system that can affect temporal or physical proximity.
Jon Bon Jovi and his high school sweetheart Dorothea Hurley have been together for 40 years and married for 31. Many women might go "why can't *I* be married to Jon Bon Jovi?", and the answer is simply that you didn't go to high school with him, you never had a chance. Abolishing capitalism wouldn't have changed anything. Changing who was president or in congress wouldn't have changed anything. Having a king or an emperor wouldn't have changed anything. You just weren't there, don't dwell on it.
On the other hand, every day we're surrounded by our own lives, and there are opportunities totally specific and unique to each of us. Instead of dwelling on the ones we don't have, we should instead focus on the ones we do have or could have if we put in the work.
People end up spending too much time upset that someone somewhere had different and maybe better opportunities than they do. They might blame the world's systems, but there's literally no system that can affect temporal or physical proximity.
Jon Bon Jovi and his high school sweetheart Dorothea Hurley have been together for 40 years and married for 31. Many women might go "why can't *I* be married to Jon Bon Jovi?", and the answer is simply that you didn't go to high school with him, you never had a chance. Abolishing capitalism wouldn't have changed anything. Changing who was president or in congress wouldn't have changed anything. Having a king or an emperor wouldn't have changed anything. You just weren't there, don't dwell on it.
On the other hand, every day we're surrounded by our own lives, and there are opportunities totally specific and unique to each of us. Instead of dwelling on the ones we don't have, we should instead focus on the ones we do have or could have if we put in the work.
I feel like the alternative to liking and reacting is 1000 messages saying "lol" "i agree" "i liek this"
Besides, my lizard brain does some important stuff, like telling me to eat when I'm hungry and to fear Cthulhu when I stare into non-Euclidean geometry not meant for this world.
Besides, my lizard brain does some important stuff, like telling me to eat when I'm hungry and to fear Cthulhu when I stare into non-Euclidean geometry not meant for this world.
It's interesting the preamble where it was previously called a code of conduct and it was renamed to a code of ethics hints at the sort of backlash I'd expect since the term code of conduct implies teeth that can bite you for not following it. I certainly would have a problem calling software enforcing behavior like that libre.
It sort of reminds me of one of those things that discusses the difference between being a boss and being a leader. A boss points and yells and says this is how you're going to do it or else. A leader tries to exemplify good behavior and present a vision for the future and model it so other people want to follow his lead rather than being forced to follow their lead.
The 4 freedoms and particularly the 0th freedom was what I had in mind for sure.
It sort of reminds me of one of those things that discusses the difference between being a boss and being a leader. A boss points and yells and says this is how you're going to do it or else. A leader tries to exemplify good behavior and present a vision for the future and model it so other people want to follow his lead rather than being forced to follow their lead.
The 4 freedoms and particularly the 0th freedom was what I had in mind for sure.