rottingleaf @ rottingleaf @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

3,005

Joined

1 yr. ago

instead of explaining wherever you believe the disconnect may be

I've literally said that. People thinking the reason for racists raising their heads is because they are not forced sufficiently harshly to thing and talk the right way - these people are complete idiots, or fixing the actual problem is not what they really want from the subject.

It’s not you that’s wrong, it’s every person who’s replying to your comment that “doesn’t know how to read”

This is incorrect, I've met some capable.

Seriously though, spell it out for us dunces in the back. What is everyone missing here?

You bunch of jerks are not "everyone". See my answer to the first quote.

What are you even saying? There is no statement in your statement.

There is.

Were anti-lynching laws a mistake?

No.

Was assertive anti-racist education a mistake?

Some of it - may be.

It sounds to me as if you advocate capitulation.

No, I advocate not hurting the definitely noble cause by actions clearly harmful. Force-feeding people something is a sure way to make them resist.

Anti-racist education shouldn't be busy with throwing something people don't believe into their faces. That absolutely never works, and the reason some other people want to do that is to assert dominance. They don't have dominance to assert, they are bitches.

Knowledge of genetics (school biology level) is by itself a lot of what's needed to discard racism as an approach.

Knowledge of history, economics and why social mobility matters are by themselves a lot of what's needed to discard segregation as an approach.

Empathy too. Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe are in your school curriculum, are they not?

For context, this article was published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank originally founded by Charles Koch (among others). The fact that these guys are ringing the alarm bell should be a warning unto itself. You can read the full text of the bill (H.R. 1) here.

I don't think it should be a warning into itself. They basically provide a libertarian view on everything which doesn't seem to be augmented by real world politics. I've noticed they do that in many situations, some mostly unnoticed by most people in western countries, and some politically heated. That's a very good commendation IMHO, that they are still doing what they were supposed to do.

About the thing itself - border police also seems to be one military structure in your country relatively less accountable than those 3-letter agencies wearing black and fighting aliens and loudly breathing in our phone calls.

And it's possible that Trump wants to have it as his own terror force, like some Gypsy baron gone dictator.

Gemini is just a web replacement protocol. With basic things we remember from olden days Web, but with everything non-essential removed, for a client to be doable in a couple of days. I have my own Gemini viewer, LOL.

This for me seems a completely different application from torrents.

I was dreaming for a thing similar to torrent trackers for aggregating storage and computation and indexing and search, with search and aggregation and other services' responses being structured and standardized, and cryptographic identities, and some kind of market services to sell and buy storage and computation in unified and pooled, but transparent way (scripted by buyer\seller), similar to MMORPG markets, with the representation (what is a siloed service in modern web) being on the client native application, and those services allowing to build any kind of client-server huge system on them, that being global. But that's more of a global Facebook\Usenet\whatever, a killer of platforms. Their infrastructure is internal, while their representation is public on the Internet. I want to make infrastructure public on the Internet, and representation client-side, sharing it for many kinds of applications. Adding another layer to the OSI model, so to say, between transport and application layer.

For this application:

I think you could have some kind of Kademlia-based p2p with groups voluntarily joined (involving very huge groups) where nodes store replicas of partitions of group common data based on their pseudo-random identifiers and/or some kind of ring built from those identifiers, to balance storage and resilience. If a group has a creator, then you can have replication factor propagated signed by them, and membership too signed by them.

But if having a creator (even with cryptographically delegated decisions) and propagating changes by them is not ok, then maybe just using whole data hash, or it's bittorrent-like info tree hash, as namespace with peers freely joining it can do.

Then it may be better to partition not by parts of the whole piece, but by info tree? I guess making it exactly bittorrent-like is not a good idea, rather some kind of block tree, like for a filesystem, and a separate piece of information to lookup which file is in which blocks. If we are doing directory structure.

Then, with freely joining it, there's no need in any owners or replication factors, I guess just pseudorandom distribution of hashes will do, and each node storing first partitions closest to its hash.

Now thinking about it, such a system would be not that different from bittorrent and can even be interoperable with it.

There's the issue of updates, yes, hence I've started with groups having hierarchy of creators, who can make or accept those updates. Having that and the ability to gradually store one group's data to another group, it should be possible to do forks of a certain state. But that line of thought makes reusing bittorrent only possible for part of the system.

The whole database is guaranteed to be more than a normal HDD (1 TB? I dunno). Absolutely guaranteed, no doubt at all. 1 TB (for example) would be someone's collection of favorite stuff, and not too rich one.

They can chase you, idiot! Racists and other kinds of such are always the majority of people actually caring to apply force.

They are now assraping your country because they were chased under a rock for a generation. That's the whole bloody reason!

Thank you for confirming that Star Trek fans are still incapable of reading a text.

You can't fucking read!

Why did you type all that instead of actually reading my comment?

I mean, this is the best kind of illustration I could get for education allowing people to make right decisions and against pressure to behave.

You clearly lack said education and apparently think you can apply pressure.

Nothing I said has anything to do with minorities.

And that's why you deserve whatever you get, because you are not even capable of properly reading a thought wiser than your whole fucking life, without even any pressure being put on you.

I said that if you punish people, they don't go all "sorry uncle, I won't do that again", they go all "fuck you motherfucker, I'm getting a gun". Is that clear?

So punishing anyone anywhere is a bad idea by default, there are very specific cases when there's no better solution. Mostly when the other side can only be stopped by force.

People want to be openly racist again. That’s what MAGA really means.

And on this one should think a bit further and realize that any action causes a reaction.

Maybe outright socially punishing racism shouldn't have been the focus, and instead more effort should have been spent making sure more people know how, well, genetics work and also dream of stuff not involving racial difference, like future space travel or peaceful united humanity, that kind of thing. So that they'd make their own conclusions and have their own wishes.

So - they are tired of "the establishment" not making anything better, and that means they are also tired of some rules of public decency associated with that establishment. One of the reasons MAGA activism looks so gross - they want it to look gross. Because "gross" is not like that picture of "respectable politics", so already better.

In general studying psychology of people who are your opponents is beneficial. And especially hard when you can't make yourself respect them.

And it wasn't intended to be eaten with them from the beginning. The dry fat rim is for holding it.

In Russia it was impolite, actually, to eat chicken not with your hands. Can't say why, maybe it's the possibility of bones splitting and flying away, and maybe it's that some of the meat remains on the bones, so some visible food gets thrown out. As a kid I would sometimes get looks (making my hands oiled and dirty I don't like, being autistic and just because it's inconvenient).

In any case I'm not sure someone's eating habits affect their politics, unless demonstrating lack of basic hygiene or involving cannibalism.

I blame the idea of the 00s and 10s that there should be some "Zen" in computer UIs and that "Zen" is doing things wrong with the arrogant tone of "you don't understand it". Associated with Steve Jobs, but TBH Google as well.

And also another idea of "you dummy talking about ergonomics can't be smarter than this big respectable corporation popping out stylish unusable bullshit".

So -

1. pretense of wisdom and taste, under which crowd fashion is masked,
2. almost aggressive preference for authority over people actually having maybe some wisdom and taste due to being interested in that,
3. blind trust into whatever tech authority you chose for yourself, because, if you remember, in the 00s it was still perceived as if all people working in anything connected to computers were as cool as aerospace engineers or naval engineers, some kind of elite, including those making user applications,
4. objective flaw (or upside) of the old normal UIs - they are boring, that's why UIs in video games and in fashionable chat applications (like ICQ and Skype), not talking about video and audio players, were non-standard like always, I think the solution would be in per-application theming, not in breaking paradigms, again, like with ICQ and old Skype and video games, I prefer it when boredom is thought with different applications having different icons and colors, but the UI paradigm remains the same, I think there was a themed IE called LOTR browser which I used (ok, not really, I used Opera) to complement ICQ, QuickTime player and BitComet, all mentioned had standard paradigm and non-standard look.

It's not a glitch.

People have spent billions to build systems where such dissemination of crowd emotion is the main difference from the real web (what was on geocities or even LJ, and a bit of that exists in Telegram, because it's a Russian honeypot to collect intelligence, and Russia could care a bit less about keeping the line that American social media corps, in its effort to make the honeypot actually attractive to use).

Then spent billions to advertise them. Billions to kill competition.

Then they've lost billions from that, and yet doubled down on it.

That just doesn't happen by accident, it's a whole era of humanity's history now. Like 20s-50s (the "bad" kind of change, with goosestepping, cult of strong people, attempts to save empires, preparations for a nuclear war, all that) and 60s-90s (the "good" kind of change, with space race, hippies in the west, Soviet official ideology being peace and unification of humanity - BTW, it's funny how the western politicians of that time freeloaded on that, never denying such a goal, but also never accepting it, thus getting the good parts without the hard ones) and then what we have.

Well. Not very different from "opening up" to hashish fumes or Tarot cards or Chinese fortune cookies.

And robotic therapists are a common enough component of classical science fiction, not even all dystopian.

For the record, I agree that the results suck. Everything around us is falling apart, have you noticed?

You can do more with less with 1% deadly error rate, and you can do much more with much less with 10% deadly error rate. Military and economic logic says that the latter wins . Which means the latter wins evolution.

And we (that is, our parents and grandparents) have built a nice world intended for low error rates, because they didn't think such a contradiction between efficiency and correctness will happen, or they thought that it's our job to root out our time's weeds, loosely quoting Tolkien, and they have rooted out theirs as well as they could.

Which means that nice world doesn't survive evolution.

It's fascinating to see this find new pastures in the new world. As a proud Russian citizen.

Some day you'll remember with nostalgie those years of the ruling party actually caring to win elections.

Jokes aside, it's easier to cheat now because it's easier to do everything, and that's because of the Internet and modern computing systems.

You can't unmince minced meat back.

But you can apply the same change in a different direction and see that today direct non-anonymous democracy is actually plausible, if it's instituted, for big countries. 100 years ago it simply wasn't possible. Now it is.

Or that today Soviet system (as in Soviet democracy and not totalitarian state capitalism) is actually possible to build. When they were trying, they couldn't, they didn't possess the means.

And that both these things are actually what these people have done to us, but inverted. Our "direct vote" is the data they collect about us to classify and predict us for control. Our "Soviets" are that classification, and our "central planning" is those predictions and control.

They've done all this, just directed for their own interest. So maybe one can do the opposite.

That's old logic that might not be as certain in the new era.

What makes profit, can share it with those making laws.

And one anti-monopoly thing that was at some point common was that it's illegal to provide a service below market cost to capture markets. Probably if that were applied to the Internet and free services like Facebook and Reddit and Google, many things would go differently.

But at the same time even today payments over the Internet are problematic. If you could pay for storage and computation the same way you pay for landline, without extra bother, maybe we'd have something better.

China is, eh, self-defending in Xinjiang against Uyghurs? Or what's your point?

Something like a one-party political system with dear respected leader, concentration camps, surveillance, social rating system, GFW?

Note how I don't say anything about propaganda from every crack. That's because western propaganda has successfully evolved in the conditions of outright censorship not being allowed. Like killing cockroaches in a building again and again you make them evolve for the poisons used in the past.

If you are going to pick the "all this is not credible" line, then don't bother. Also credible is a synonym for "believable", and nobody can make you believe things you don't want to believe.