I think this is only a way to avoid creating things because we don't focus on collaborative note taking systems. Once people start sharing notes, they will start making friends by discovering the people who care about the same topics and create things together. Tweets and blogging are a bit like that but they are curated for a public image.
Add some diffusion models that take over the creative part, and knowledge management systems become a tool to act. Of course, the risk of getting lost in knowledge not only remains but increases.
How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?
Government doesn't even have to physically seize anything. They just have to say "transacting with these particular coins is illegal". The blacklisted bitcoin is now worth zero USD, as many individuals receiving money from sanctioned people discovered.
I honestly have no idea why bitcoin is still the most valuable cryprocurrency when projects like Monero exist.
You are right vis-a-vis sanctions and ( based on what I understand ) Monero at this time. I think the reason this is not a killswitch parent is referring to is that there is just too much money on the line for the government. LEOs are apparently still trying to figure out how do it right. Last bigger conference I was a part of representative discussed some of the less appreciated logistics ( for example, you can't sell that much of bitcoin and not tank the price for one ). It is different from auctioning Tony Montana's yacht.
> And so, for the record, if I may, disrespectfully, unkindly, repeat myself once more: fuck this con, fuck this exploitation and lazy hustle, and fuck this enormous Jenga of grifts.
Does this aggressive mindset help when the hustling targets the very core of human nature? Instead of bringing back the old, why not start looking for something new that thrives in that environment?
If everything is wholesome, it's meaningless. All that hustling gives value to 'the other' internet. Now, people who participate have chosen to do so.
Would it be an option to embrace that development? Instead of assimilating everybody the Borg way, it would also be possible to tag snarky people and allow each user to choose if their comments should be included.
The front page could be an example of good behavior, but people don't have to adapt instantly. They can be snarky, are flagged, and get the signal that the expectations are higher. With some resources for personal development, depending on the flagged transgressions, there could be a form of assimilation that scales.
I mean, what you are describing is still assimilation [0]. The way to get there can be multifold, but concepts like not being toxic (which seems harder to accept) and providing value instead of making joke-comments (which seems to be accepted somewhat readily) still need to be adopted by new people.
This is exactly how it should be, but it’s also a way that, at least IMO, does not scale and stopped working properly.
[0]: the process of assimilating new ideas into an existing cognitive structure
I still don't understand why Eclipse as an open source project couldn't adapt. Unlike emacs, which is written in elisp, Eclipse is written in Java, the language in which its users are fluent. Why do developers move instead of adapting their IDE?
That doesn't explain why the community didn't step up much much more and brought the development to new heights.
What is holding back Java developers from using their Java language to adapt the IDE written in Java that they daily use? If their boss told them to implement a feature, they would do that. But they don't implement the feature when they need it.
It's a relative doddle to make changes or write an extension to Emacs or even a Smalltalk system like Pharo.
Eclipse, by comparison, is complicated. There's a whole lot of scaffolding and frameworkshit that goes into building an IDE that works the way Eclipse does, and that greatly increases the friction of extending it. Plus Eclipse, like most Java programs, is not really a live system that can be extended and changed as you run it; both Emacs and Smalltalk are. Not being live further increases friction. End users aren't really supposed to extend Eclipse themselves, just download and install prebuilt extensions, and this is accounted for in its design.
Visual Studio Code has the same problem. It may be somewhat easier to extend than Eclipse, and it was certainly intended to be so, but doing everything in webshit didn't really address the fundamental issue.
> That's how society works. People have adjusted their self to fit in, they expect the same from everybody else.
This makes it seem like a personal failing of the person who is experiencing this disconnect, like the author. Neuroscience shows that this is not the case, and that those with schizoid personality disorders have true physiological and neurological differences.
I hope that you didn't intend to make this into some sort of judgment on the person for failing to "adjust themselves to fit in," because that is a huge part of the judgment that this author is feeling and trying to describe.
With a withdrawn self, how can there be a personal failing? My point is that people don't attack her specifically, it's just the way society is. Criticism works for society because people with a self choose which criticism they accept and which they ignore.
People cannot imagine her withdrawn self and thus cannot adjust their criticism and she cannot imagine a self or bring back her self for now and thus doesn't understand most people.
>which is: they cannot hear me, and i cannot hear them. and funnily enough i’m trying to hear them and i’m trying to listen but no one’s trying to listen to me, so why should i keep trying?
Question remains: How can a withdrawn self be brought back?
> Neuroscience shows that this is not the case, and that those with schizoid personality disorders have true physiological and neurological differences.
Sure, but you assume that the physiological and neurological differences exist in themselves when you could also say that are causal, due to the abuse/neglect. The effects on ones mind from negative life experiences would have to have a physical manifestation in the brain in order to create the patterns of disordered behavior of course. If they are caused by negative life experiences, then they could also be reversible.
This is true, as a broad statement at least. I can claim no expertise in the area, so I can't comment on the potential to reverse any such changes.
It is also possible that they are not caused by negative life experiences, and are somehow inherent in the organization of a particular person's brain.
Of course. But I think it's quite common to claim that one's problems in life are incontrovertible when they are not. You stated it as a fact when we really don't know
harsh but true. society, family, culture, work, a baseball game etc. Each of these social structures comes with a whole host of expectations and rules that make that structure work. we routinely sacrifice our internal desires to meet these expectations. generally because we accept that we are all better off when we sacrifice a little for the good of the whole.
I think the really interesting thing is that these things can all work when people have vastly different motivations for participating. for an example with baseball, Joe may like the thrill of a well oiled team making a double play while frank lives to score and hit the ball. both Frank and Joe hate getting up to practice. we don't all need to have the same motivations to make the team work, the only thing that is needed is for the participants to understand the team is necessary to get what they want out of it.
In which way are Egyptian hieroglyphs and their hieratic form [1] not an alphabet? There is a huge number of ligatures and some determinatives, but that's an ad-on. You can use the single characters like any other alphabet.
By that logic we also don't use an alphabet because we have started using symbols like the smiley. Which non-phonemic symbol have they used that couldn't be replaced by a phonemically created word?
Hieroglyphs include some alphabetic elements, but it’s not an alphabetic system. There are no significant historical texts written in it purely alphabetically. If you wrote out a complete text spelling out the words usually represented logographically in phonetic form they’d have thought you’d gone mad. Nobody used it that way.
Sure you will find some places where hieroglyphs are referred to as “an alphabet”, such as in childrens books, but we’re talking about the historical development of writing systems. We can’t do that accurately without distinguishing clearly between different types of writing systems, and this is well established terminology.
You’re probably right about emoji. Oxford Dictionaries named an emoji the ‘word of the year’ in 2015.
Why do publishers not offer end-users the right to transfer games from one service to another? That would allow new platforms to compete.
I can understand that established services like Steam oppose the transfer of licenses. But why don't the less established services remove the fear of losing access by making the licenses transferable among themselves? This must be prevented by the publishers. What's their benefit?
GoG did something a little like this. You could add copies of some games in Steam to your GoG account, by linking them—not just, like, letting you launch them through the same interface, but you'd "own" a copy on GoG, too.
I don't think it really took off. It was a little clunky and I'm not sure they got enough buy-in from publishers that the catalog available ever expanded much past their initial offering.
More broadly, I'd love to see a strict, legally-mandated separation of media distribution and production. Mostly for the film and TV industry (there's precedent—the US only very recently stopped barring movie studios from owning movie theaters, because it caused serious problems in the past, similar to how vertical integration of studios and streaming platforms is making things worse today) but maybe something similar would help the game market work better for consumers/users, too.
Decoupling the physical media from the license to access that media would be a huge boon for consumers and creators but publishers will need to be forced into it.
The ideal would be an open system where you can buy a license directly from the creator (or from a publisher on the creators behalf) then retrieve that content from any publisher by presenting your proof-of-purchase.
The infrastructure problem is funny because this wouldn't be a problem if Google would use GCP by themselves. They should also be smart enough to create an export function for google3.
No other company in the world has workloads that match Google's. So there are two options. You can spend a shitload of money making GCP actually work for the ridiculous needs of google3 applications and then actually get everybody to use GCP rather that using borg directly or you can not spend that money building all the infrastructure to do things that borg already does and has zero external customers.
Add some diffusion models that take over the creative part, and knowledge management systems become a tool to act. Of course, the risk of getting lost in knowledge not only remains but increases.