Gen z overthrew the government in Nepal because they were threatening to take social media away.
New elections held through discord.
First scandal shall be that it turns out the president is a furry and had some really bad looking DMs with a 13 year old he thought was 8.
New elections held through discord.
First scandal shall be that it turns out the president is a furry and had some really bad looking DMs with a 13 year old he thought was 8.
The one thing is that atproto as designed is effectively centrally managed and top down.
For fun, we can think about three different protocols in the way that they function. ActivityPub, atproto, and nostr.
Nostr would be the most decentralized and most individualist. You don't even pick a single server, you pick on number of different relays which will accept your messages and provide messages to you. It really doesn't matter if in the end which individual relays you pick because in practice it's just a ledger with all the messages that it received, and the protocol itself handles identity through your secret key. If the relay that you were using goes down, your user experience doesn't even notice because there's probably 10 others.
ATproto would be the least decentralized and most collective. It is hypothetically possible to host your own instance, but in practice user management and a lot of other stuff is Central to the main Bluesky organization. Getting banned or getting blocked or whatever, it's not that different from Facebook in that regard. If the main Bluesky service goes down, it will effectively mean the end of bluesky.
ActivityPub would be somewhere in between. You have individual servers that people will pick one or multiple, there is a centralized point where your identity lives, and each server has its own moderation policies and administrator team. If one server goes down, everyone on that server loses access to the fediverse on that server and they also lose their identity from that server, but they can very easily go somewhere else. If mastodon.social goes down, a lot of accounts will become inaccessible but the broader fediverse will be unaffected.
Bridges are obviously possible between the three because we see it, but I tend to think that the three are mutually exclusive and mutually incompatible in their aims and technical details such that integrating any two immediately means giving up some of what that protocol is trying to do.
For fun, we can think about three different protocols in the way that they function. ActivityPub, atproto, and nostr.
Nostr would be the most decentralized and most individualist. You don't even pick a single server, you pick on number of different relays which will accept your messages and provide messages to you. It really doesn't matter if in the end which individual relays you pick because in practice it's just a ledger with all the messages that it received, and the protocol itself handles identity through your secret key. If the relay that you were using goes down, your user experience doesn't even notice because there's probably 10 others.
ATproto would be the least decentralized and most collective. It is hypothetically possible to host your own instance, but in practice user management and a lot of other stuff is Central to the main Bluesky organization. Getting banned or getting blocked or whatever, it's not that different from Facebook in that regard. If the main Bluesky service goes down, it will effectively mean the end of bluesky.
ActivityPub would be somewhere in between. You have individual servers that people will pick one or multiple, there is a centralized point where your identity lives, and each server has its own moderation policies and administrator team. If one server goes down, everyone on that server loses access to the fediverse on that server and they also lose their identity from that server, but they can very easily go somewhere else. If mastodon.social goes down, a lot of accounts will become inaccessible but the broader fediverse will be unaffected.
Bridges are obviously possible between the three because we see it, but I tend to think that the three are mutually exclusive and mutually incompatible in their aims and technical details such that integrating any two immediately means giving up some of what that protocol is trying to do.
I don't use an unreliable power supply because they're unreliable.
Part of me wants to try a li ion one instead of lead acid, since the batteries are usually the thing that dies.
Part of me wants to try a li ion one instead of lead acid, since the batteries are usually the thing that dies.
All that time they're spending around radical Muslims is rubbing off on them
Press secretaries must wear burqas on the beach!
Press secretaries must wear burqas on the beach!
My man whatifalthist, over Christmas does a public 8 hour Ayahuasca binge, just keeps plugging out content like nothing happened, totally avoids any and all cancellation.
Good on you bro. Hide your steam key before the next trip.
Good on you bro. Hide your steam key before the next trip.
Hey guys I heard Donald Trump says nobody should replace their birth control with 1000mg of potassium cyanide daily. He says he feels like it would be pretty dangerous and wouldn't work as effective birth control.
Seems like prudent advice I'm going to follow it.
Seems like prudent advice I'm going to follow it.
The left likes to say Americans would never vote for a female president, but it seems to me a contemporary Margret Thatcher could have a serious chance.
They always like to say the problem with Harris is that she's a woman, but in reality the problem is that she's from The Z team -- if you don't want to run anyone else because you know that you've already made too many critical mistakes, and you think that the economy is about to collapse from all of the bad decisions you've made, and you don't want to destroy the career of anyone that you actually care about, you send in the z team. If she tries to run again in 2028, she would have to win a primary, which isn't happening.
They always like to say the problem with Harris is that she's a woman, but in reality the problem is that she's from The Z team -- if you don't want to run anyone else because you know that you've already made too many critical mistakes, and you think that the economy is about to collapse from all of the bad decisions you've made, and you don't want to destroy the career of anyone that you actually care about, you send in the z team. If she tries to run again in 2028, she would have to win a primary, which isn't happening.
I have ove rtime developed a bit of an eye for design for manufacturing in 3D printing, that looks like it would be really hard to print in one piece. You either put the bottom on the bottom and have this big gap to get over, or on top and you have a tough overhang, or you printed on its side and have a huge overhang you have to print there.
How did you end up printing it? Just a bunch of time cleaning up supports, or is it multiple pieces glued together or something? Or is there some internal design that's not obvious but limits overhangs?
How did you end up printing it? Just a bunch of time cleaning up supports, or is it multiple pieces glued together or something? Or is there some internal design that's not obvious but limits overhangs?
I think tylenol is one of the few painkillers recommended for pregnant women.
If you need it, you gotta take it. But the idea of hammering back any sort of drugs while pregnant, even "safe" ones is kinda nutty. My son's favorite foods are what his mom ate while pregnant. That's how much the two bodies are connected.
If you need it, you gotta take it. But the idea of hammering back any sort of drugs while pregnant, even "safe" ones is kinda nutty. My son's favorite foods are what his mom ate while pregnant. That's how much the two bodies are connected.
The money's coming from somewhere. Not to mention the influence to actually be able to get institutions to play along.
Scotiabank has a motto: "You're richer than you think". I have a motto: "Are you richer than a homeless person?"
I love watching the whole "damn boomers in the 70s" stuff creeping forward. I've seen it as late as the 2000s now.
I wonder if in 20 years it'll be like "Those damn Gen Zers with their million dollar homes they bought by driving uber" and a single family home will be ten trillion dollars. I only bring home a billion a year, I can't afford that!"
I wonder if in 20 years it'll be like "Those damn Gen Zers with their million dollar homes they bought by driving uber" and a single family home will be ten trillion dollars. I only bring home a billion a year, I can't afford that!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKceFlZmCpw
Five Times August is a truly based musician, and it's pretty nice to listen to as well.
Five Times August is a truly based musician, and it's pretty nice to listen to as well.
By flipping from utter ideal to utter cynicism, not only do you totally break your own idealistic argument, but you make any further discussions on rights moot because according to you, it doesn't matter anyway since you're not rich. And maybe you're right. But I think you're still wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand that the rich and powerful have always written the laws? Are you aware that the constitution was a compromise between The agrarian slave holding states so wealthy farmers in the South and the industrializing states so wealthy factory owners in the north, and between people who thought the government ought not to have any power because the states and the people ought to have it all and the people who thought that the federal government ought to be large and powerful more similar to the states of Europe? In spite of that, the Constitution which you invoked repeatedly here was created with a Bill of Rights that has done as good of a job as any protecting the rights of individuals.
Perhaps you don't understand that the rich and powerful have always written the laws? Are you aware that the constitution was a compromise between The agrarian slave holding states so wealthy farmers in the South and the industrializing states so wealthy factory owners in the north, and between people who thought the government ought not to have any power because the states and the people ought to have it all and the people who thought that the federal government ought to be large and powerful more similar to the states of Europe? In spite of that, the Constitution which you invoked repeatedly here was created with a Bill of Rights that has done as good of a job as any protecting the rights of individuals.
Seems like you're not actually reading what you're responding to, or at least not understanding it, before you write.
I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place.
None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional.
The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one.
The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms.
I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in.
I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place.
None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional.
The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one.
The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms.
I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in.
Not that it matters -- they could be manufacturing 8 billion GPUs a year, most people are using ancient GPUs because they can't afford one at MSRP anyway.
Seems to me that such a statement is nonsense. You accused me of making an absurd statement before, but the phrase "god given constitutional rights" is facially absurd.
God gives you all the rights. You can speak, you can go wherever you like, you can move your body in any way you'd like, you can hunt and fish and gather off of trees. God gives you free will to decide how to act, then scripture to try to convince you to use that free will to do good and not evil.
Pre-postmodern liberal governments (Also referred to as classical liberal governments) inherently take away your rights. Things God made you free to do are no longer allowed or are controlled.
The constitution then tries to bind those governments into not infringing any more than the most limited number of rights required under the circumstances.
The rights that the constitution protects aren't necessarily the best ones or the only ones, they're just the ones that everyone in the room could agree on 250 years ago.
After that, the constitutional rights didn't exist in a vacuum. Courts immediately created cut-outs for rational limits on freedom of speech including laws against libel, slander, and importantly in this case, criminal conspiracy.
The United States court system inherited criminal conspiracy charges from English common law at confederation, and because of the balance of rights between the right to speak a conspiracy and the right to not have crimes committed against you, they were kept on the books, and in many jurisdictions immediately codified under state laws. Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states, and in spite of the 14th amendment which extended the federal constitution to state law, they were not successfully struck down.
We're talking about a situation where a bunch of people are cheering for the violent murder of a peaceful political voice. As I said, that's really on a line. Then they're working on putting together a list of additional people to murder online.
Mass conspiracy to commit murder has never been constitutionally protected speech. Not even in 1777. God may have given us the right to do it, but the state has always taken that right away for the good of civilization.
We aren't talking about these things in a vacuum here. This is all related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which a leftist appears to have committed the murder because he didn't like what Kirk had to say (an act which fundamentally violated Kirk's right to free speech and his right to not be murdered). Some people online have been cheering for the murder and calling for more people to die, some people are naming who they want dead. There haven't been any state interventions yet, but some of these people were in sensitive positions for their jobs and lost those jobs for what they said.
One latenight talk show host falsely suggested that MAGA was the one who committed the murder and they were lying about who did it for political gain and had his show suspended, for what we now know was a week. Importantly, this wasn't on cable or Internet, it was on network TV where the show is broadcast over the airwaves.
Let's talk about that last point in terms of constitutional rights: The government has regulated the radio spectrum, such that you and I are not allowed to run a TV station. Even if we pay for the infrastructure, if we were to broadcast in such a way, we will go to Federal prison. So whoever is allowed to use that spectrum has a variety of additional limitations on their speech because they are given access to a public resource and expected to use it for the public good to an extent. Disseminating misinformation about assassinations to justify them is not in line with the regulations on that public resource (which have been held as constitutional for those reasons), so there are potential consequences to those actions.
Unfortunately, all of this thought about classical liberalism is probably just ghosts of a dead era at this point. On one hand, you've got mounting political violence from people who don't know or care that it's going to end in totalitarianism or actively desire totalitarianism because they think their foolish faction will be the one on top. On the other hand, you've got people who naively think you can give all the rights and none of the responsibilities in a society where the current sitting president has nearly been assassinated, a sitting supreme court justice has nearly been assassinated, and a peaceful political activist is freshly dead, his wife widowed, his two kids no to never hear their father's voice again. It reminds me too much of North Africa and the middle east, which was pacifist and Christian until the Muslims took over and never gave it up. It was only Byzantium and Western Europe which grew some teeth that were able to keep going with their ideology rather than be taken over by someone else's.
Postmodern liberalism attempted to give people freedoms they wouldn't have otherwise had, but in reality that's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, or in the case of a recent high profile murder, releasing a violent criminal 24 times before they just straight-up murder a refugee, which is why I made the distinction between pre-postmodern liberalism.
The next step in our society, if we actually get there and don't just collapse into murdering one another when they make a good point we can't counter without bullets, is a stage of liberalism that accepts the freedoms God grants us but also re-integrates the responsibility God demands of us to be judged worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. The focus on the state is a major problem, because by focusing on how the state does or does not protecting or "providing" your liberty, that becomes part of every answer. In reality, we do need collectivism as a cultural force -- just not a genocidal high progressive cultural collectivism. The idea of individualism as our postmodern society has defined it -- to make everyone look better by just eliminating any measure of a person's worth that they might not measure up to -- might make people free from judgement, but it will lead them to slavery, because they will lack the virtue the physical world demands to achieve personal liberty.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- you've got one side that sees murder their side commits as positive and to be promoted, and the mere response to murder as evil and to be attacked and punished. If you can't even get both sides to agree that "murdering peaceful individuals is wrong", then you're starting from the wrong end worrying about the rest.
God gives you all the rights. You can speak, you can go wherever you like, you can move your body in any way you'd like, you can hunt and fish and gather off of trees. God gives you free will to decide how to act, then scripture to try to convince you to use that free will to do good and not evil.
Pre-postmodern liberal governments (Also referred to as classical liberal governments) inherently take away your rights. Things God made you free to do are no longer allowed or are controlled.
The constitution then tries to bind those governments into not infringing any more than the most limited number of rights required under the circumstances.
The rights that the constitution protects aren't necessarily the best ones or the only ones, they're just the ones that everyone in the room could agree on 250 years ago.
After that, the constitutional rights didn't exist in a vacuum. Courts immediately created cut-outs for rational limits on freedom of speech including laws against libel, slander, and importantly in this case, criminal conspiracy.
The United States court system inherited criminal conspiracy charges from English common law at confederation, and because of the balance of rights between the right to speak a conspiracy and the right to not have crimes committed against you, they were kept on the books, and in many jurisdictions immediately codified under state laws. Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states, and in spite of the 14th amendment which extended the federal constitution to state law, they were not successfully struck down.
We're talking about a situation where a bunch of people are cheering for the violent murder of a peaceful political voice. As I said, that's really on a line. Then they're working on putting together a list of additional people to murder online.
Mass conspiracy to commit murder has never been constitutionally protected speech. Not even in 1777. God may have given us the right to do it, but the state has always taken that right away for the good of civilization.
We aren't talking about these things in a vacuum here. This is all related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which a leftist appears to have committed the murder because he didn't like what Kirk had to say (an act which fundamentally violated Kirk's right to free speech and his right to not be murdered). Some people online have been cheering for the murder and calling for more people to die, some people are naming who they want dead. There haven't been any state interventions yet, but some of these people were in sensitive positions for their jobs and lost those jobs for what they said.
One latenight talk show host falsely suggested that MAGA was the one who committed the murder and they were lying about who did it for political gain and had his show suspended, for what we now know was a week. Importantly, this wasn't on cable or Internet, it was on network TV where the show is broadcast over the airwaves.
Let's talk about that last point in terms of constitutional rights: The government has regulated the radio spectrum, such that you and I are not allowed to run a TV station. Even if we pay for the infrastructure, if we were to broadcast in such a way, we will go to Federal prison. So whoever is allowed to use that spectrum has a variety of additional limitations on their speech because they are given access to a public resource and expected to use it for the public good to an extent. Disseminating misinformation about assassinations to justify them is not in line with the regulations on that public resource (which have been held as constitutional for those reasons), so there are potential consequences to those actions.
Unfortunately, all of this thought about classical liberalism is probably just ghosts of a dead era at this point. On one hand, you've got mounting political violence from people who don't know or care that it's going to end in totalitarianism or actively desire totalitarianism because they think their foolish faction will be the one on top. On the other hand, you've got people who naively think you can give all the rights and none of the responsibilities in a society where the current sitting president has nearly been assassinated, a sitting supreme court justice has nearly been assassinated, and a peaceful political activist is freshly dead, his wife widowed, his two kids no to never hear their father's voice again. It reminds me too much of North Africa and the middle east, which was pacifist and Christian until the Muslims took over and never gave it up. It was only Byzantium and Western Europe which grew some teeth that were able to keep going with their ideology rather than be taken over by someone else's.
Postmodern liberalism attempted to give people freedoms they wouldn't have otherwise had, but in reality that's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, or in the case of a recent high profile murder, releasing a violent criminal 24 times before they just straight-up murder a refugee, which is why I made the distinction between pre-postmodern liberalism.
The next step in our society, if we actually get there and don't just collapse into murdering one another when they make a good point we can't counter without bullets, is a stage of liberalism that accepts the freedoms God grants us but also re-integrates the responsibility God demands of us to be judged worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. The focus on the state is a major problem, because by focusing on how the state does or does not protecting or "providing" your liberty, that becomes part of every answer. In reality, we do need collectivism as a cultural force -- just not a genocidal high progressive cultural collectivism. The idea of individualism as our postmodern society has defined it -- to make everyone look better by just eliminating any measure of a person's worth that they might not measure up to -- might make people free from judgement, but it will lead them to slavery, because they will lack the virtue the physical world demands to achieve personal liberty.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- you've got one side that sees murder their side commits as positive and to be promoted, and the mere response to murder as evil and to be attacked and punished. If you can't even get both sides to agree that "murdering peaceful individuals is wrong", then you're starting from the wrong end worrying about the rest.
The way that the conversation has been changed to the State versus the market is brilliant in that it ensures that the only thing that can get any more power is those two things. In that way, even though they are ostensibly in opposition, they end up in a symbiosis by crowding out anything else.
The problem is that culture is not conducive to the increase of power for the market or the state because it will judge people in government and it will judge people in the state and they don't want to be judged, they just want everything.
The problem is that culture is not conducive to the increase of power for the market or the state because it will judge people in government and it will judge people in the state and they don't want to be judged, they just want everything.