Skip Navigation

Posts
7
Comments
1400
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • There is no reality where repeating state propaganda lands you in jail, unless maybe you do it in some way the state doesn't like. Government censorship can't solve this problem, it can only make it worse.

  • Propaganda by definition can be basically anything, and isn't inherently bad, it just means someone is spreading a message on purpose. What makes it bad is when it is in support of evil. People often think the solution should be to give control to some central authority which identifies the bad propaganda and filters it out, but that's a problem because such authorities are subject to powerful perverse incentives and are easily corrupted. Obviously the current US government is going to promote harmful propaganda and suppress necessary propaganda, and even if we can boot them out, the underlying corruption risk will remain.

    I think the only actually robust solutions possible will have to involve individuals being able to take on more responsibility for social networks and information sharing, and not leaving it up to a company to decide what everyone sees. The basic premise of TikTok as an endless stream of personally appealing content that a hidden algorithm curates for everyone is inherently dangerous. People should move to some sort of model of sharing information that has more of a community trust dynamic and involves way more people in the work of filtering out bad info, and doesn't put all the trust in a single party.

  • Should be pretty simple to make a client display things like that without voting UI stuff

  • Imagine being the person who paid 7.9 Bitcoin for stolen Runescape gold that now gets deleted

  • What's a better way to word it? I can't think of another way to say it that's as concise and clearly communicates the idea. It seems like it would be harder in general to describe machines meant to emulate human thought without anthropomorphic analogies.

  • I think maybe we're getting to the non-boring type of dystopia

  • If you were invited to such a party you're probably already ahead of the curve

  • Makes sense, in other contexts I'd watch at lower speeds (I watch starcraft games sometimes at 1.25x), but for me this is kind of like the video equivalent of skimming an article, actively reading and listening at the same time and not multitasking. I also manually skip around to get to relevant information faster.

    I'd also like to mention that I'm able to do this because I use FreeTube, not because I pay for YouTube...

  • Not OP but informational podcast/interview type videos that are heavy on talking and long I watch at 2.25x with subtitles on.

  • “Instead, the disclosure claims that the memo was rolled out in a secretive manner in which some agents were verbally briefed while others were allowed to view it but not keep a copy,” Blumenthal said. “It was reportedly clear that anyone who openly spoke out against this new directive would be fired.”

    Seems like they know it's not

  • What features would people expect/want such software to have?

  • I recommend https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-possibilities

    Violence is in fact unique among forms of human action in that it holds out the possibility of affecting the actions of others about whom one understands nothing. Any other way one might wish to affect another’s actions, one must at least have some idea who they think they are, what they want, what they think is going on. Interpretation is required, and that requires a certain degree of imaginative identification. Hit someone over the head hard enough, all this becomes irrelevant. Obviously, two parties locked in an equal contest of violence would usually do well to get inside each other’s heads, but when access to violence becomes extremely unequal, the need vanishes. This is typically the case in situations of structural violence: of systemic inequality that is ultimately backed up by the threat of force. Structural violence always seems to create extremely lopsided structures of imagination.

    As I understand anarchism, the idea is a society where human culture becomes powerful enough to overcome and replace this sort of violently imposed top-down structure.

    My current understanding is, destruction of current system of government (violently or otherwise) followed by abolition of all law. Following this, small communities of like minded individuals form and cooperate to solve food, safety, water and shelter concerns.

    I think your main mistake is to get this backwards; the mere destruction of government and law doesn't by itself effect the formation of anarchism. You need a culture with enough utility and resilience to replace it and endure without falling back on the crutch of structural violence.

    The book I linked goes into some detail considering what that might take, focusing on the example of the nearly-anarchist society of 1990 Madagascar, where technically they were under the rule of a formal government, but in practice almost all governance was independent from it and driven by their unique culture. To summarize a little from memory, ambitious people basically aspired to be liches, with living supporters conducting regular rituals involving their tombs and bodies to avoid getting cursed, because having a prominent place in a reputable tomb after death was the only path to be considered an important person. But the main way to get such a position was to provide for people enough that they would become able and socially obligated to maintain your place in the tomb. There's clear social utility there; achievement materially depends on positive contribution.

    If it is the case that the concepts and relationships that define society and how we behave are essentially feats of imagination, then it should be possible for this force of imagination to itself be the basis for holding things together, rather than forcing it into artificial molds defined by violent hierarchies. What's needed for that to happen is to sufficiently develop cultural imagination as a technology that it can build systems that stand up to the pressures they need to bear, that currently get handled through destructive shortcuts that treat people as things.

  • I assume the motivation for a lot of people to go online and answer people's technical questions is to puff up their ego

  • This is one reason it could have been better for OP to not have deleted their question, as there are likely many people who would think to word their question the way OP did but don't know the more technically correct way to word it.

  • I'm sure it helps a lot that these are games with player hostable servers

  • I'm trying to figure out whether this is a felony or not under the notorious CFAA

    In practice, any ordinary computer has come under the jurisdiction of the law, including cellphones, due to the interstate nature of most Internet communication.

    Maybe it depends on whether those speakers are only bluetooth or somehow internet connected?

  • Probably better than ChatGPT etc, assuming the teachers would have been using those to prepare lessons and stuff otherwise

  • Cats are supposed to have pretty good directional hearing right

  • Do you mean that pricing systems are a smaller contributor to cost of living than they are implying?