Skip Navigation

Posts
21
Comments
469
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • As I've heard it expressed, Chinese thinking is that capitalism can be kept in service to the (communist) state but then you see their capitalists investing in international Nazis (just like all capitalists) and I wonder how long they think they can ride that leopard before it throws them and starts eating faces.

  • Tea time

    Jump
  • To paraphrase a common joke, it's called the Fediverse because it's full of feds.

  • This was probably a rare Babylonbee hit and OP was rightfully ashamed of the source.

  • I really need to sit down and write out my full thoughts on this. I've been obsessed with Conway's Law for years. I think it applies very broadly.

     
            [O]rganizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.
      

     
            — Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent?
      

    Capitalism and its seeming totality are related to this. Because we are forced to live under capitalism, all our efforts end up reproducing it. That's why anarachy is the only real solution. Its the only system that proposes radically uprooting the way we live first (bottom up) and then letting the high level organization emerge from that new mode of living.

    All other forms propose the impossible idea that a distributed, fully realized democracy can be forced into existence using top-down controls. But, to modify an old saying, while the master's tools have many uses, we cannot use the plantation schematics to build a commune.

  • Proper Tie Usage

  • I figured rule of threes meant it was funnier to leave it out. 2017 would have been sad gooning to pornhub during the first trump nightmare.

    Then 2027 could be sad gooning to ai hyperporn during the second trump nightmare.

    Maybe I should have used 20 year jumps, but "2037, I am jerking off because there's no food, and the internet is nothing but ai porn.' didn't seem as funny a point for the "time shattering" bit.

  • I thought this was going to go Watchmen for a moment. Like...

    It is 1997, I am a young boy, I am jerking off to a grainy porno playing over stolen cinemax.

    It is 2007, i am in my dorm, i am jerking off to a forum thread full of hi-res porno.

    It is 2027, i am jerking off to an ai porno stream that mutates to my desires in real time. I am about to nut so hard that it shatters my perception of time.

  • Like all good sci-fi, they just took what was already happening to oppressed people and made it about white/American people, while adding a little misdirection by extrapolation from existing tech research. Only took about 20 years for Foucault's boomerang to fully swing back around, and keep in mind that all the basic ideas behind LLMs had been worked out by the 80s, we just needed 40 more years of Moore's law to make computation fast enough and data sets large enough.

  • As always though, "technology is ruining the kids" is actually cover for "our policies are ruining the kids, let's blame technology!"

    Am I saying AI should teach kids? Hell no, but this is a distraction. The article, via the teacher herself, outright states the problems. One, she has no time or motivation to work with the kids individually so she relies on tech to get more done. Two, this is because she's teaching 160 students. Three, and that is because we've slashed education funding to practically nothing. And with DOGE destroying the DOE it seems now we'll be educating the children with literally nothing.

    This isn't an AI problem. It's a "we don't give a fuck about children or the future" problem.

  • The King of Worms an anarchist? More likely than I'd think perhaps, radicalizing against the concept of death itself!

  • Not sure if it applies to recall votes, but my understanding was that only paying members (and people they vouch for) get a full vote, and the rest of us get rolled up into a "community temperature" kind of vote.

    I suppose in theory that makes it easier for a well-funded adversary to engage a hostile take-over, but it also prevents casual trolls with no stake in the server and brigaders from voting poorly "for the lulz".

    I'm not sure what democratic protections exist against a hostile major-minority take over (a 30%ish bloc who coordinate votes). Historically, it's kind of a huge issue for all organizations. I guess requiring 2/3rds or higher majority for recalls is one option, though it directly and inversely impacts the difficulty of recalling a hostile admin.

  • America: let's disband the CDC, FDA, USDA, any set of letters we can that might regulate something. all the livestock dies from preventable diseases

    Meanwhile, China: wHaT dO wE dO wItH aLl ThEsE cHiCkEnS?

  • Kick ass! I liked both of them (and I've been noticing @fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com posting around, being a generally cool poster). I continue to feel extremely validated in choosing to join this instance: cool people, strong values, and wise leadership. Thanks for all y'all do!

  • Wildly, in C# you can do either and it has different results. I believe a bare throw doesn't append to the stack trace, it keeps the original trace intact, while throw e updates the stack trace (stored on the exception object) with the catch and rethrow.

    In C#, you can only throw objects whose class derives from Exception.

  • This is incorrect. The C# is valid. Throw in a catch statement simply rethrows the caught exception. Source: I've been writing C# for 20 years, also the docs.

    I won't act like MS absolutely didn't steal core concepts and syntax from Java, but I've always thought C# was much more thoughtfully designed. Anders Hejlsberg is a good language designer, TypeScript is also a really excellent language.

  • This is just willful misunderstanding of history. Several of the founders were against political parties, but since game theory hadn't been invented yet they put in place a system that would force a two or one party system. Which it quickly did. There have been two parties from the very beginning, just not the same two parties. But arguably, the same two broad positions: the Federalists favored elites, while the DRs favored liberalism.

  • PETA isn't going to like all those für loops