SailorMoss @ SailorMoss @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

158

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes

I’m not on YouTube’s side. But, ultimately Youtube has the advantage here. You guys are talking about technical solutions to get YouTube to continue sending you videos. But, YouTube has the nuclear option in their back pocket. Enshitification, YouTube is one of the only platforms that still works well on the internet without an app or logging in. If they want to badly enough they’ll stop allowing people to use YouTube signed out and ban accounts that watch with Adblock enabled.

We need to work on building platforms that work outside of Google. I think the hardest question is how would that work with monetization for new/smaller creators.

Well how do you do fellow Jacob Geller fan.

The majority of wealth — excluding homes — in Norway is held in its sovereign wealth fund. This fund is invested in a diversified set of foreign and domestic industries. If we can’t call a country in which the majority of wealth is held in collectively owned means of production, socialist. What even is socialism?

I don’t think it’s possible to make an unbiased algorithm. Algorithms inherently have the bias of their creators. People will find ways to game the algorithm. Computer drawn maps are just opening up another can of worms. The best solution is MMP.

This is why I almost never tip on my card and almost always tip in cash.

You might be able to say that drivers would be more likely to offer each additional resources (education or perhaps other more material resources) to ensure quality of service over investors who would be more likely to fire drivers. Others have pointed out that they have co-operatively owned taxi services in Europe and this doesn’t seem to cause issues in terms of quality control.

What I described seem to me to be the most evident biases and heuristics that the drivers would be subject to. What other biases and heuristics specifically are you concerned about?

Do you care more about the credibility of a business that you do have an ownership stake in or one you don’t have an ownership stake in?

The drivers have a collective interest in maintaining the credibility of their app regardless of how the ownership is structured. There will be a similar management structure to ensure customer satisfaction regardless of ownership structure.

Moreover if you’re an individual driver with an ownership stake you have a greater interest in maintaining the credibility of your business vs a business that some one else owns.

So in theory there should be slightly greater incentive to provide good service under this structure.

Were you using the same distro?

Foss licenses are copyleft, they bar individuals from enclosing the commons built by the collective for profit. Anarchism isn’t just letting people do whatever they want. Anarchism means against hierarchy. Having rules that prevent unjustified hierarchies from forming is entirely with in the bounds of anarchism. Including rules that prevent using copyright as a coercive hierarchy.

I would say it's mildly deflationary, the supply is fixed, it's not like 10% of the supply is burned every year or anything.

This is like saying tulip mania was mildly deflationary. At a certain point without changing the rules of the blockchain there will never be another Bitcoin made. That is somehow supposed to represent an ever growing economy forever?… And not be hyper-deflationary? Remember… they were still making more tulips.

As long as Bitcoin remains this deflationary it will be a terrible store of value and a terrible facilitator of trade. In other words a terrible currency. And the people in charge of bitcoin — that is the people who own stakes in the network — will never want to end that because they make too much money with it being deflationary. It would be funny if some people didn’t loose a ton of money in the process.

I'm not making the argument that economic systems are divorced from politics or don't have political or social implications. They obviously do.

If its not divorced from politics then what’s to stop the same or similar political situation that happened in 2008 from happening again?

Remember the thing I disagreed with was…

Satoshi saw this and knew there was a better way, so he created a new currency system in which no one person or organization could ever have the power to just turn on the money printer like that ever again. Because the temptation is just too strong.

If the rules can be changed by someone then what’s to stop whoever that someone is from turning on the money printers on for the wealthy under the right political circumstances?

Sorry but you’re just wrong about the rollback and how that works. The only reason the rollback worked is because the majority of the Ethereum network nodes and miners agreed it was needed.

I understand how it works. I used to mine Ethereum and I’ve run both a Bitcoin and Ethereum nodes. I’ve been following Bitcoin since I saw it on slashdot in 2009.

Of course they “agreed” to give themselves a bailout. That’s no more valid of an argument than saying the US agreed to the bailouts in 2008. Other’s disagreed that’s why we still have the fork.

Randomly forking is terrible for a currency. I don’t want to wake up tomorrow and find out that my money is worth half as much because some rich assholes didn’t like some transactions. And because they own enough nodes/ASICs/GPUs/stake and are friends with the programmers on the project they can just fork me over.

They can directly vote on proposed rule changes unlike in a representative democracy where they elect people who can change those rules and in most cases the only recourse if they make bad rules is to elect somebody different next time.

Most representative democracies have direct ballot initiatives and they’re based on 1 person 1 vote. We should work to have more of that because a broad base of people generally have interests different than those with access to wealth.

In the case of crypto none that I know of base their “democracy” on a system of 1 person 1 vote but instead on how much ownership you have on the network in terms of nodes/Mines(GPU, ASICs, etc.)/stake. This is not democracy, this is a system of political power based on ownership. In other words the same system of influence at the root of the 2008 bailouts.

There have been many proposals to change Bitcoin’s core protocol over the years, most of them did not succeed as they required widespread consensus which is hard to get and takes significant time.

Yes, the people who own stakes in the blockchain are going to make very conservative decisions that protect their own wealth. The US congress chose to turn the money printer on in 2008 because that was the best way to protect their wealth and the wealth of their donors. Again… its same system of influence based on wealth and ownership that lead to the 2008 bailouts.

#1. Ethereum is not designed to have a fixed supply like Bitcoin is.

Which is why Bitcoin in hyper-deflationary, which is a insane economic policy for any serious fiat currency. That policy can be changed in code by programmers just like lawmakers can change economic policy for national fiats. Bitcoin might be taken slightly more seriously as currency rather than a speculative asset if they removed the fixed supply. But that would hurt the existing wealthy stakeholders. Are you starting to see how this is still political?

The difference is that the law makers are in principle — though usually not in practice — supposed to represent the interests of everyone. There are no such lofty ideals on the chain. Whatever group controls the most wealth controls the chain. Its like our government in 2008 but with no pretense of serving everyone.

Ethereum programmers implemented a rollback on the chain in the code early on because many wealthy people close to the project lost money through an attack and needed to be bailed out… like the government did for Wall Street in 2008. The fact that its possible for the programmers to rollback the chain completely undermines the concept that crypto is decentralized in a way that meaningfully solves the problems it claims to. Wealthy players will exert their influence on crypto just like wealthy players did on the US dollar in 2008.

The fact that Ethereum Classic still exists demonstrates that there was not a consensus with the rollback — there was discontent with the rollback — just like people were discontent with the bailouts in 2008.

Satoshi saw this and knew there was a better way, so he created a new currency system in which no one person or organization could ever have the power to just turn on the money printer like that ever again. Because the temptation is just too strong.

Ethereum Classic proves this is a fantasy. There is no such thing as apolitical money. You’re trading a government who you have limited influence over for a group of programmers who you have no influence over. If something happens which hurts the programmers of your currency enough they will change the code. Just like they did with Ethereum classic.

Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t have been a thing if Reagan hadn’t ended the fairness doctrine. Rupert Murdoch is Reagan’s fault.

I’m sorry that’s not my intention. Do you think it would be best if we delete this thread?

I was just working through how my perception of him had changed over the years. I don’t want to downplay his alleged crimes.

I’m pretty sure he described himself as a socialist once upon a time. I’m not one to gate keep what people call themselves.

But yeah just because he’s a socialist that doesn’t make him a good person. Marx probably had an unclaimed child with his servant girl.

When I was poor and I complained about inequality they said I was bitter. Now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm starting to think they just don't want to talk about inequality. —Russell Brand

Still one of my favorite quotes, it’s unfortunate that I won’t really be able to use it any more.

Brand used to be a legit socialist back in the day. The longer he had money, the harder I think was for him to continue to understand the struggle of the common people. Either that or its audience capture like what happened to Dave Rueben.

The YouTube channel the Kavernacle has done some good coverage on his drift to the right.

The N64 used optical sensors in its joysticks. If you take apart the N64 joystick you'll see the joystick is attached to some disks with slits in them. The N64 had an optical sensor that would count how many slits passed by.

Here is a GIF demonstrating the mechanism.