There are bears in my area.
Turns out, that whole "man vs. bear" thing from before is completely different when we're talking about actual bears in your neighborhood right now.
Turns out, that whole "man vs. bear" thing from before is completely different when we're talking about actual bears in your neighborhood right now.
The scandal is a joke, which is why I used the phrase "shall be". The first half is true though apparently.
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.