What we really need is a system that's anonymized in both directions. Where the website can verify the specific claim, age, nationality, etc, but the issuer of the verification, aka the government, can't track where that verification has been used.

I think this should be possible, but it's different from the way standard identity providers operate, and I haven't heard of any of these government identity providers operating this way. That may be because it's easier, and it may be because governments like the idea of knowing everything we do.

2周前

Hillary Clinton says TikTok to blame for young Americans' pro-Palestine views.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2周前

Rage bait

2周前

Feminism in 60s was co-opted by the wealthy and powerful as a distraction

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2周前

Identity politics is a diversion for class politics. Can't have class solidarity if your political position is a specialized configuration of all your various identity characteristics.

Music @lemmy.world

hypna @lemmy.world

3周前

Rooster's Song

3周前

Permanently Deleted

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 3周前

The last time I recall having engaging, thoughtful discussions on the internet was way back in the days of forums. And that was so long ago I'm skeptical of my own memory of it.

Lemmy comments may be different from Reddit comments, but they're not better. I've concluded it's structural. This format simply does not produce useful conversation.

None of the other social media formats produce it either. Perhaps it's the result of optimizing for attention, which all social media does, whether by deliberate design or natural selection. Platforms that get attention grow. Those that don't, languish. It may be that things which gather attention to themselves best are repellent of deeper, slower, more careful thinking.

Actually, maybe I can think of one example. I'm stretching the definition of social media, and I haven't firsthand experience, but the way that Wikipedia operates may be a clue toward how to build a platform that produces useful dialogue.

3周前

The United States should be 50 independent countries.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 3周前

I don't know, and I even briefly tried looking it up.

3周前

How americans view the US

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 3周前

For those of us whose German is not up to par.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Music @lemmy.world

hypna @lemmy.world

4周前

Last Night I Heard The Dog Star Bark - Gwenifer Raymond

youtube.com /playlist

Music @lemmy.world

hypna @lemmy.world

1个月前

Parole de Navarre - The Dale Cooper Quartet

youtube.com /playlist

1个月前

Humans BY DEFAULT do not want to commit violence towards other humans, otherwise things like Killer's Remorse and PTSD would not exist.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 1个月前

That experiment has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Music @lemmy.world

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2个月前

I think there may be more opportunity for success here than your argument seems to suggest.

I agree with the focus on inequality. The sense that society is fundamentally unfair has a corrosive and a radicalising effect on politics. People can react to it in very different ways, from redistribution to out-group scapegoating, but the underlying motivation is that people see that there is vast wealth available in our society and they're still struggling.

Where I may disagree is that most people are non-ideological. Not everyone, but a healthy majority. They aren't focused on the philosophical roots of a candidate's policies. They care that the candidate

Sees, likes, and cares about themselves and their group
Has a vision that gives them hope for something better

Many people can find that in candidates with a variety of ideological positions. The overlap between people who supported Bernie after the great recession, and went on to support Trump is bigger than one would expect.

So the equation is much less zero sum. You don't lose one reactionary for every radical you bring into your camp. There really aren't that many committed radicals and reactionaries.

The most toxic message today is the economic moderate. "Hey, it's not so bad. Things could be a lot worse." This is the zero sum relationship. You can't keep both the people who are doing well and like how things work, and the people who are struggling and want the life they deserve. The material difference isn't left vs right, it's status quo versus change. There's a lot more room for flexibility in the change camp.

2个月前

Software by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that, when linked up with the correct hardware, becomes a Stingray for detecting Stingrays.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2个月前

Fucking cool, and also remember to leave your phone at home, or at least on airplane mode.

2个月前

No, AI Will Not Doom Us All. We have REAL AI Problems to deal with instead.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2个月前

I'm just commenting on the book. I find YouTube videos pretty insufferable. I guess it's a tangent.

2个月前

No, AI Will Not Doom Us All. We have REAL AI Problems to deal with instead.

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2个月前

I've listened to a couple interviews with the author about this book, and I have not found them persuasive. I can accept that there's a possibility that artificial super intelligence (ASI) could occur soonish, and is likely to occur eventually. I can accept that such an ASI could choose to do something that kills everyone, and that it would be extremely difficult to stop it.

The two other arguments necessary for the title claim, I see no reason to accept. First that any ASI must necessarily choose to kill everyone. The paper clip scenario is the basic shape of the arguments presented. I think it's probably impossible to predict what an ASI would want, and very unlikely that it would be so simple minded as to convert the solar system into paper clips. It's a weird proposal that an ASI must be both incomprehensibly capable and simultaneously brainless.

Second that the alignment problem can not be solved before the super intelligence problem with current trajectories. Again, this may be true, but I do not think it's a given that the current AI techniques are sufficient for human-level, let alone super-human intelligence.

Overall, the problem is that the author argues that the risk is a certainty. I don't know what the real risk is, but I do not believe it is 100%. Perhaps it's a rhetorical concession, an overstatement to scare people into accepting his proposals. Whatever the reason, I'm sympathetic to the actual proposals; that we need better monitoring and safety controls on AI research and hardware, including a moratorium if necessary. The risk isn't 100% but it's not 0% either.

2个月前

One Republican Now Controls a Huge Chunk of US Election Infrastructure

跳过

hypna @lemmy.world 2个月前

Pretty sure they're typically publicly owned. Maybe some places lease them. Couldn't find a national survey, but here's at least one example of a county that bought some machines and a service contract.

https://fm.kuac.org/elections/2025-03-10/assembly-fails-voting-machine-contract-may-force-change-to-hand-counting-ballots

Maybe a car fleet is a good example. Ford designs and builds the cars. Counties buy them, and often buy service and maintenance contracts to keep them running. The counties still own the cars.