daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

cryptographically secure

Isn't this the only part of this that's really important? If you can see me in real life, if I can give you a cryptographically secure way to check whatever I'm sending you in the future, badda bing, mission success. It's only a problem if my code becomes compromised on my end, leaked or something. It requires faith that your friends won't get compromised, but that's pretty much going to be true of any system you might devise there. That's not the job of cryptography, or some document the government has, that's just the job of your own personal security practices to make sure you're not giving around codes and passwords willy nilly. I don't understand why this really needs to be tied to the government or to specific people at all.

Based, destroy the infantile mind of the materialist objectivist determinist this space is reserved for more future jargon tech-bro.

Truth is subjective precisely because I can say that the sky is red, and I will be correct. If you ever needed any help understanding that then you should've been paying attention to the difference in reporting between ukraine and gaza right now. It's not just "spin" either, I can plague you with misconceptions, turn you into a conspiracy theorist, warp what you think is really important in life. I can bullshit you, I can call a horse a chair, and I will be correct. Do you understand why there's no truth now?

Also fucking weird that the counterargument to "government issued crypto ID" is "well, we don't want the total death of objective fact, do we?". those two things definitely seem connected, those seem related. Definitely seems as though we couldn't just use another adversarial bot to run checks on whether or not any given thing is manufactured, entering into in a perpetual propaganda arms race that corporations and those with money and power are always going to win, in an unregulated and dystopian modern internet. All of which is what's already fucking happening. Seems like the solution to that would just be to double down on the police state tracking, which I would expect to be something that has concrete repercussions on the powerful, and never the common man, of course.

Why do we live in hell?

what if we just put them all on an island and then blew it up immediately

What's weird is that I don't even know how people know what the "kids these days" are into. Like where are they getting that information? Maybe I'm just divorced from the zeitgeist, but I dunno how people ever think to look at "oh this song has 4 billion listens" or whatever. I guess what I'm saying is, is the perception of "the kids" a real thing, or is it just kind of this weird fake thing people make up so they can get mad at their own hallucinations?

I've known about this for a while and it's just been mundane to me. It never struck me how stupid it is until now.

Just buy the bungee corded one with the pull string that they make, that's probably better anyways.

There's that, there's also just that they don't go in very far, doesn't work very well.

I simply explained why it was an unrealistic goal.

See, so this is kind of my problem, right. You've said that it's an unrealistic goal because it's not politically viable at the federal level, which, you know, other comment, right, I don't necessarily think that the majority of roads that people interface with on a daily basis have to be dealt with at the federal level, or have to deal with federal budget. I think the feds really only have to deal with like, amtrak and highways, and, again, not as much progress as there should be, right, but, progress on that front. More than we've had in the past 50 or 60 years, at least, which is a start.

But all that aside, right, like, this is a problem, a pretty major one at that, looking at death statistics, and even looking at projected problems like climate change, and the negative effect that this has on that. Not even necessarily just on the emissions of cars, which people plan to deal with via electric (booooo), but in terms of the cost of human development in such a fucked up way. Like ecological destabilization, and flooding from runoff, heat islands, shit like that, which, you know, climate change exacerbates. So we can agree, it's a problem, in general, that we need to deal with. Why is this, what the fuck are we talking about, you know? Like, what is the tradeoff here? What else would you rather spend fake money on? Why can't we just have healthcare and roads instead of having neither? Why is there this dichotomy, here? Like you're agreeing with the premise of the argument here but the disagreement is that it's like, not something you think we should spend political capital on, or just. Not something you think will get done? Like, why not? I dunno it is just kind of boggling my mind that you are agreeing with the core issue here, but you're disagreeing on the premise that nothing will happen about it.

If all you’re doing is repaving the top layer it’s not going to make any significant changes.

more than you might think, again, even just with paint. a road diet can take a four lane road down to two lanes, and can add bike lanes and a turn lane, which cuts down on traffic accidents from lane changes, and potentially road speed. you can do a lot with on street parking, and then you can increase the width of bike lanes and increase their traffic separation even more, if you really want to encroach on the space cars are taking up. you can focus larger projects on given intersections, you can increase the size of curbs, once foot traffic increases, and it becomes easier to justify. I don't have solutions for like a six lane fully stroaded out shithole, outside of maybe trying to make it into a boulevard with planters and trees and pedestrian islands in the middle, because the crossings are too long. you can also do that shit they did with covid and just cut off a street for a weekend and then see whatever the increase in foot traffic ends up being, and then present the results of that trial, which is a good way to get the idea across and raise support in the community.

if none of those, combined with changing zoning laws to allow more mixed-use development, and more built up development, if none of that strikes you as "significant changes", then I don't really know what to tell you. it takes a while to accomplish, and at this point in most places in america is a multi-generation effort, but I dunno, that's just kind of the way it is. if you're really cynical, I guess there's caltrops? like I dunno, what's your alternative here?

yeah see that's what I was talking about. you don't have to ask for 7.7 trillion dollars all at once, because we already spend a pretty ludicrous amount on road maintenance already. you just redesign the road the next time the maintenance schedule comes around, which works out to be like. what you were already gonna spend, + the cost of paint you were already gonna use, + maybe some bollards, - the projected amount you would save by making it so people can take more trips by bikes and walking. which decreases car usage, which decreases the frequency with which you have to do road maintenance and upkeep, because cars weigh a lot and wear down the roads way more than any other use of roads.

There isn’t enough political will in this country to pass universal healthcare, something that would end up saving the country billions of dollars. In what world do you think American politicians are going to replace 4 million miles of working roads?

We do have the political will in this country for universal healthcare, or, at least, most people, a majority, think it would be a good idea. it's just I guess up to how you define "political will", because we can have a majority that think we should have it, and then still not be able to get it even with popular support because the american government just straight up sucks and has bad voting systems and gerrymandering and even at the local level most of them are awful and are victims of circumstance of the presiding state and federal government. So that's just kinda. I dunno. It sucks.

I always find it very strange how this shit comes up, though, right, basically as nihilism. I don't think that guy's point was to try and convince you to like, go out an canvas for better road conditions, his point was just to convince you that your arguments and causes were wrong and that you should be thinking about road design differently, mostly in that it's a deliberate decision, and a bad decision. If you look at NJB, the guy who made that video, he's an omega doomer that doesn't really think progress will be made towards good urbanism within like, two generations, so he moved to amsterdam to escape it, basically. He's also a doomer.

The point wasn't to convince anyone to be an activist for anything, because that's a pretty rare person that's gonna be able to do that, the point is just that, the next time it comes around that the city has to do road maintenance, and they have a couple different options for proposals on how they might improve things, or if they will improve things, or if they'll just leave things to rot, you can vote to make them better and it will take like 5 minutes cause someone talked about this shit previously.

Which, was the other point I was gonna make. We've just had a big new infrastructure bill passed and new passenger rail funding, and new amtrak proposals, and even though it's not enough we're seeing progress on that front. And more than that, at the local level, things don't happen all at once with federal funding projects. They happen by degrees. You change the local standards, zoning regulations, so on, you know, shit you can precisely do because most politicians don't give a shit about it, or shouldn't right, if they turn it into a political issue where they're like "we're fighting the war on cars" with that mayor of toronto, gerard ford? it kind of becomes a mess. But if you can get it done, then over the next 20 years, things slowly shift in the right direction, as things have to be maintained by the city, and they decide hey maybe we'll redo some of this in a different way that makes more sense and will legitimately feel better to drive even if suburbanites have been so propagandized to hate everything but a 6 lane totally car centric road.

I also would maybe contest the point about people driving in lieu of anything else, you know, I mean, this is sort of always the problem with urbanist solutions, right, is this chicken or the egg problem. Sometimes it's easier to get big funding, even venture capital funding, for new development along a newly federally or state funded rail project, right, and that's obviously a good thing, and then sometimes it's easier to just change your regulations and then slowly make it so people can actually take their bike some place, right. I mean, you just kind of have to do both at once, whenever they become available as options, whenever prevailing conditions allow, and it takes a while. Hopefully you don't get shafted with a useless kind of commuter park and ride rail line, but I suppose that's better than nothing, and you know, hopefully some sort of development could come in and help fill some of the surrounding development with walkable shit so people have actual destinations at the suburban end of that, but then, you know, that requires you change the zoning regulations around that end of the track. I dunno. If you make the neighborhoods more walkable and have more destinations you might actually want to go to, more intracity places to go to, then public transit usually gets better, and if people have good public transit then that's good for making walkable places because then you can kind of have the ability to expand people's horizons and let them go places without having to own a car. I dunno, chicken or the egg, but also you just kind of do them both because there's not really a dichotomy between them, is what I would assume that guy to be getting at.

Is that what's created their safer culture, though, or is that just something that they also have? uhhh ummm the nordic countries the nordic countries! you ever heard of those! everybody loves those for all their cool examples of policies! no but fr like, portugal with their decriminalization has also had success in eliminating large swathes of their drug problem, oregon, not so much. So I question whether or not it's that singapore is really having success with their draconian tactics "but at what cost", or if the draconian tactics are just a secondary element, and then they're also just doing other shit that would cut down on their drug problem, like having disproportionate funding for their DEA equivalent. I dunno, I just find it hard to believe that draconian crime policy is doing the heavy lifting there, cause those come with some pretty heavy caveats in most places.

I dunno singapore might just kind of equivalent to a slightly more privileged hell joseon though so what do I know.

Using Singapore, which has the death penalty for drug use isn’t comparable.

I need you to draw a clear through line to why that's related to public housing policy in any given country.

I'm also gonna like, cite the soviet bloc style apartments, or china's rapid urbanization in around the same time period that the US decided to make public housing be a thing. I know for the soviet lunchboxes, you had your standard complaints of, oh, long wait lists, subpar build quality, yadda yadda, and then of course towards the beginning of the program you had a large issue with people who had previously been unindustrialized farmers basically just not knowing how to live in an apartment, shit like having your pigs stay indoors and stuff like that. I think similar issues were/are probably a part of chinese publicly subsidized housing complexes. I think barcelona's superblocks are also publicly subsidized but I don't know to what extent, and they seem to be working out pretty good. Now those are all places that provide publicly subsidized housing and have provided it to those who were pretty impoverished at the time. They also had/have (again idk barcelona don't even know why I brought it up) work programs and shit, which we used to have in america, so that might contribute to your point more, but I still think, you know, it is bad to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The projects were majorly flawed, but they are probably preferable to the whole like. rust belt suburban crime shit. I dunno, realistically it doesn't really matter what context an apartheid ghetto scenario is happening in, because it's going to have basically the same consequences on everyone involved.

I always thought that like every generation since we invented generations was labelled the "Me Generation", except for Gen Xers, because nobody really even bothered to ever even name them, which is something I kind of find more interesting than the whole boomer-millennial hate boner, but nobody's ever willing to talk about. but also

So yes, you’re a Zoomer and are lucky that Boomers for you will always be grandparent types. The rest of us suffered their generational narcissism.

I mean I have grandparents that were extremely shitty to my parents, you know, you can see how that has damaged a person, as their kid, but I also have another set of grandparents that are kind of chill and are. you know, I mean, they're old still, grandpa's maybe a little too proud that he's not racist, but then I kind of get that, when like everyone his age is also pretty extremely racist. Actually I just talked myself kind of into hating old people again because a shit ton of them are super omega racist, even relative to like the normal liberal baseline, which is a really low bar to have somehow passed underneath. it's like if you beat a game of limbo by flying to austrailia.

I wasn't really directing anything at you, I was just sort of like, hating the world and shit, and specifically hating that subset of people that hate the boomers for boomering, because I see it as kind of just like. whining and bitching, kind of. like an unproductive thing. and then on social media, it tends to turn from potentially being like a therapeutic thing, right, where everyone is able to vent about how much things suck, and maybe come to a conclusion collectively about how to change it. and it changes from that into a kind of combination of a toxic echo chamber, where things get ramped up and everyone's attention gets captured and directed towards some absolute nonsense, and also simultaneously you get some blowhard boomer who comes in and is like "what you say fuck me for fuck you guys" and then it turns into a pissing match where everyone tries to roast each other. I dunno I should probably not be posting when I'm hypercaffinated because it just ends up being me venting paragraphs at nobody in particular and doing the same shit I'm bitching at other people for doing.

I'm also like, shit man, I'm not sure you should have my generation's backs. they're just a bunch of dudes, I dunno. I've seen less victims of lead poisoning and horrible corporate propaganda for sure, compared to old people, they are more willing to be like. real and not horrible irony poisoned goblins, ironically. but I've also just seen a lot of chumps who are into like, basically white supremacist memes. I dunno the actual split on that though, it's kind of hard to tell, I have some paragraph about that I could chunk up again for you.

It's also fucking weird how I'm legally capable of drinking alcohol, right, but then some of my generation is apparently in like elementary school watching skibidi toilet and getting fucked up because the internet sucks now but the internet is also basically their parents since their parents are probably both at work full time and teachers are not on top of it. I'm like, those are just the kids bro, that's gen alpha, "the culture" that doesn't exist anymore is also just moving too fast for anyone to keep up with, the changes are too rapid, and you can't really keep track of them with generational cohorts anymore, shit doesn't work.

Also, the whole “I’m Gen Z and hate Millennial stuff” sounds as fake as you can possibly get.

that's cause it was. I am a zoomer, but I just think millennials hating all the boomers just sounds like a bunch of people who hate their parents or grandparents or whatever. I don't actually give a shit about millennials. I do hate the constant pop culture references to a cultural collective which I was doomed to not be a part of, as I had been born after it had almost finished dissolving, but that's mostly just an annoying thing, and I don't really attribute that specifically to millennials but kind of a broader cultural fuckery.

I'm bitter because I'm a child of the 2010's and that decade was fucking rough for like, shit that was good. I was in my first year of middle school when fnaf came out. The transformers movies and twilight franchise were formative media for me, and not like, things that I was invested in as a youth culture. Which is maybe what I think was happening for millennials, I don't really know, that might be kind of an inbetween era of media, too young for millenials, too old for zoomers. The millennials had pokemon and digimon, I had like, sillybandz and those weird bracelets that everyone was like, this shit is a holographic bracelet that makes you stronger and even at the age of 10 or whatever I was like that shit is fake as fuck man.

I was just trying to make a point about how, eventually, we will all be old. Well, most of us, and by most of us I mean some of us, I dunno if like half of gen alpha is gonna make it to old age, at the rate we're headed.

Also side note but like, millennials were right at the very tail age range of reagan, right? so it's just sort of like, he was the president when all the millennials were just like toddlers and babies, basically. So I doubly kind of don't understand the hate, right, in terms of like. I get it historically, he was a bad president, dissolved all the mental asylums which everyone knows they sucked but then he didn't replace it with anything, dissolved all the social programs and whatever, and then you look at the police recruitment before and after him and it sucks omega hard yadda yadda. But that's all like, stuff that happened for millennials as very young kids. did the 90's and early 2000's suck that much, for all the millennials?

Because I'm assuming that this is kind of like firsthand motivation for everyone, and not just purely historical bitterness, since I see historical bitterness as kind of more disconnected, and dispassionate, capable of like, step back analysis, which maybe pins the blame on reagan as more of like, he was the slammer in pogs. like in pogs how you have the slammer that slams the pogs and then they flip. that's a millennial thing, right? I dunno, I just don't understand it. It's sort of like. I dunno, hating ronald mcdonald reagan and then kind of by extension the boomers is sort of like hating the wind, or something. I understand being bitter about it since all the job prospects are gone and everyone's just working minimum wage garbage labor and nobody has any long term future plans and rent prices are horrible and where I live at least all my friends can deal with that by legal weed, but it's sort of like, I dunno, blaming that on some old freaks is just sort of the same to me as blaming it on like. the old freaks that preceded them. blaming it on grug for inventing fire, which certainly, a lot of people will do.

So, basically the whole reason everyone hates boomers is just because of ronald reagan, right? Like, that's pretty much it? That seems like it would be the common denominator. Which is weird, because, while the older portion of that generation seems to have a maybe majority which voted for reagan, the last 2 years of that generation wasn't even allowed to vote in the first reagen election. The younger voters voted for carter, the middle of the generation was split, and then the older portion of the generation, which seems to make up a larger portion of the voters in said generation, voted for reagan, pretty standard stuff. The real weird thing is in the next election, where basically every age range voted for his re-election, which is strange and something I don't really understand. It even had a higher percentage of young voters, compared to the previous election. Did everyone just hate mondale or what's up with that?

Which is all to say, I dunno. As a zoomer, I'm kind of just waiting until all the millenials die, because they're now getting up into their 30's, and I want to stop hearing about radiohead and all these dumbass musical artists. and hearing all these napoleon dynamite references, and I think superbad references, wouldn't know haven't seen it. I dunno, me? I hate the millennials for uhhhh. microplastics. and mark zuckerberg. and also Ipad parenting. and uhhhhhhh. ooh, I have a good one. I hate millennials for blaming everyone in an age cohort for the faults of a system which we know to be very centralized in it's power, when in reality they should just be blaming that system and the environments that cultivated those attitudes, and they should realistically just be blaming all of the things they mean to actually blame instead of just blaming a bunch of random old people. That's what I hate specifically millennials as an age cohort for. That seems like an incredibly specific thing, and not something that you could maybe blow up to be a general human tendency, yup, that seems fair.

Hating on old people is some boomer shit bro, what do you think is gonna happen in 20 years when you're all 50 year old freaks, and I'm probably dead?

so the idea is basically that they're using DEI to restructure corporations along like. profit metrics, right? sort of along the same lines as laying off the lower 10% of your workforce every year or whatever stupid thing that it is, which I've just been reminded of in a different lemmy post. so is the idea that DEI would basically just provide like a socially acceptable, progressive lens for that process to function through?

you know, that sounds more like you just dislike how corporations work, more than you dislike, necessarily, the idea of DEI initiatives. Like, if DEI initiatives were applied to a less flawed university system, to get more diversity in tech sectors at the beginning of someone's journey into those sectors, at the beginning of their journey into capability and compoetence, would that be, would you speak out against that, or would that be acceptable? I guess what I'm asking is, is it the framework of the system which is flawed, or is it this specific piece that you've called out as flawed, which is flawed? because it seems like the framework of the system, to me.

I also would like to point out that this POV doesn't really speak out against the narrative that like. if we get rid of/hire in their stead, all the capable straight white men everything, that would be bad. here's the point of what I'm saying, I guess. basically, right, if DEI initiatives are applied just to new hires, that would be fine, right? it's just that other people are getting fired, and then they are churning through people, and using DEI to launder that. if that's the case, you should probably, instead of calling out DEI and lumping that in, right, you should be calling out the churn, and calling out the fact that corporate likes to restructure everything every five years to get more short term performance indicators out of it for stockholders.

the DEI is maybe a way to launder that, but people, on hearing you disagree with that, are probably going to think more along the lines of "this guy is calling out DEI because he hates X kind of people", as most people who disagree with it do. what you would need to do is establish credibility first, with the preceding opinion, and then make sure that other people understand the perspective you're arguing from, since they will tend to assume the worst. by having DEI be the main point of contention, corporate has gotten another benefit out of it, which is that now everyone's arguing about stupid bullshit instead of arguing about how it sucks that we're all driven around at the behest of bean counters and their rich gambling addicted lords.

But I wouldn’t make that argument, because it’s reductive and, frankly, a bit silly to let a narrative take the place of actually reading some sociological studies.

I think if "you wouldn't" make that argument, because it's reductive, then you should refute it, after you have spelled out the narrative in your comment. I would appreciate that. Or just point me in the right direction idk that might be good enough.

DEI initiatives, which are really only thinly veiled plots to maximize profits

How do they make a company more money? Is it that it makes them more morally acceptable to buy from, giving them a larger audience? I always thought that the common argument against DEI, and shit like it, was that some morally neutral omnipotent objective third party somewhere wouldn't be able to hire all of the extremely highly qualified straight white men, and would be forced to hire everyone else who are by implication, less qualified, and that would tank productivity metrics.

Edit: which, by extension, ruins the economy, something something yadda yadda crushes western civilization, because now every company is run by some trans woman that wears programming socks, and has replaced everyone with a highly efficient system of different spreadsheets, connected to one another in some sort of chain, which generates free energy.

I tend to think that twd is fiction, and the people who negan piss off, who want to kill negan, only need to get lucky once, while negan needs to keep succeeding over and over (I've never seen the walking dead tho I'm just kind of going based on vibes).