copymoro

oh no! you're going to have to scroll!

it's not like you need more materials of any sort to deal with a 400% increase in the space occupied by text

immigrants which mostly arrived BEFORE 1990... I don't actually see contradictions between your comment and the parent you're replying to.

this ponzi scheme is a crime, illegal, it must be destroyed: it's crypto.

this Other ponzi scheme, is the USA economy: it's fiat.

--

I'm over 30 years old and this underlying truth is still haunting me. no wonder I went insane trying to decide which was it.

that sounds really terrible.

to be a victim of your own reactions, to be aware of the irrationality of such reactions.

> I'm aware this is fundamentally a "your brain is wired different" issue

that's one way to think about it, but it doesn't seem conductive to being able to change this. Unless you believe in adult brain plasticity (and AFAIK the plasticity adult brains is still being debated)

My point is that it's a learned response, to get so pissed of about this. and that being aware is but the first step towards being able to chose how you respond to those stimuli; oh and that it's not easy and it can take a while for your new changed choices to become automatic

the shadows are so dark (or the secrecy so official?)....that for all we are able to know, they already done it.

wilderness?

there's no wilderness... it's all somebody's backyard.

nor are we anywhere near being able to inspect how google is doing all this.

if only there were some way to somehow be able to share that information with everybody, some technology so that we can all access such potentially useful information about how google is functioning right now

sorry about the snark, but it's a vent for accumulative frustration from seeing a worsening trend in this regard.

Kafka would recognize this trend; computing is truly becoming a "bureaucrat's best friend".

what he says, is but the way in which he conveys the meaning

the rich by this point aren't any group of people, but a section of the system.

the system is structural, not-alive. he is choosing to regard the system like rungs on a ladder. each rung is a social class.

the point I'm making is that he's describing the "ladder", referring to structural/systemic aspects of our civilization, not the "persons" standing on each rung which is the meaning you chose to focus on.

our society really is arranged in tiers or classes regardless of you accept it or not (but again, this is a way to understand it; there may be others)

in the UK the so-called "rich" (to answer your question) would be people with legal noble titles.

in Smerica this class of people is not explicit. I guess the older European system (which inspired American ones) at least is explicit about the fact that the royals and their nobles are "the rich" class. I countries with continuing monarchies, like the UK, they really have a noble title and registration. they're "better than you" by legal definition because of choices their parents and older ancestors made (or were forced to make)

the soul may well be a cultural construction.

nonetheless, human culture has always had the quality of somewhat existing separate from humans themselves. a big chunk of our culture now is written down.

all this written culture is now more independent than humans than ever before. but I digress. the point is that the soul may well be a cultural concept that literally means that the culture (or the humans) or their gods made themselves out of the proverbial thin air.

now there are machines than can write on their own. in a way all classical computing does is exactly that: rewrite things around according to tables (functions as mappings).

so a soul is something we chose to have, our culture has by this point accumulated possibly hundreds of different 'ways' to develop one but we're fundamentally free such that it's possible to chose not to have one i suppose.

I think that by this point, saying "cure cancer" is like saying "cured all disease", just because "cancer" are of many different kinds, some of which are pretty much cured.

nonetheless, I don't know enough about this because I am not an specialized oncologist. Which I only mention as a lead into a reflection of how in spite of all this information technology, I fear it's not getting any easier for the layman to learn more about types of cancer; the real shitty part is that it started getting MORE difficult in the least 8-10 years.. this time because of all this information technology.

funny how 'sales' people bear the brunt of educating 'laymen' (consumers/patients) about new developments

I say we need to give up fuels of all kinds.

nuclear is still based on fuel.

not anymore

there are too many government-sized subsidies all over the allegedly (but not really, not at all) free energy market. the energy market is too important to allow 'the market' to fully control it; so it's intervened with subsidies, tax-breaks, and other such kinds of influences (soft controls).

so many, and I know/understand so little about this, that I don't think it's necessarily more efficient. the centralized aspect of it (the historical norm for electrical grids) creates POWER besides the electrical.

wrong, you also need to not get caught

or you can to all America over this, and change the meaning of cheating for yourself

I'm pretty sure that the real drive behind the pro-nuclear push is and has always been about centralizing electricity "generation" (i.e. conversion); ultimately for reasons of creating authority and/or centralizing power.

> Nobody seems to mention the fact that most of VR games out there require using the hard-to-familiarize hard-to-memorize joysticks to interact with the game.

> I own a Valve Index and I mostly don't play it because of it's just really a hassle to have to physically stand up (or even seated) and to wave your arms around, only to forget how to reload your damn gun after a couple of weeks/months of not playing.

> I wish that people built simple keyboard-and-mouse VR games that I could enjoy the VRness of the experience using my fingers and palms like I'm used to in the past 30 years.

all I hear you saying is that you're an older person now, and that you learned to play with a controller and that's how games should be.

well, I'm even older (or lazier) because I never even learned to play FPS games with a controller. WASD+mouse for me please.

I always see people confusing familiarity with "simplicity" and "ease of use". of course familiar things are better! but let's not mangle together the simple and well-made with the familiar; though it's hard to do this.

> Most people I've worked with go home and watch football after 5pm.

after 3 years of working as a programmer in the same company I understood why people do that. It's a sanity preservation mechanism.

So then I burnt out and quit.

because contemporary corporate dominated academic institutions are labor manufacture not education centers.

untapped? ahahahhaah

it's not untapped. it's just slightly more effective if I don't tell you I'm trying to program you.

in any case, in terms of "ultimate principles" all meaningful information is in the end an expression of some form of control;

more precisely, we can only observe (as a 3rd "objective" party) the results of meaningful exchanges between interacting entities by noticing (measuring) changing behaviors whenever "meaning" gets transferred from one to another entity; i.e. I'm pointing out that (similarly to electricity/magnetism) we can never observe "meaning" directly, but can measure its effects on beings interacting with the "fields of meaning" ahahhaha.

yikes... so "fields" are the new euphemism for "cells"??

this is all future programming languages.

finally we can have something beyond procedural, functional, imperative, etc.

I think this is such a big leap, that all those formerly different paradigms will be considered essentially equivalent "compiler or runtime"-based languages. Kind of like I think about "assembly" and all their variations by architecture.

> So long as you're consistent with that view for all forms of intellectual property that seems a reasonable position.

the main point is that digital 'property' works essentially like culture, by people copying each other.

whereas non-digital property, i.e. real world property, works differently.

this distinction, in my view, changes the valid view for each two sorts of assets: digital, and non-digital.

> on the theory that that incentive encourages the development of creative works and enriches society more than it would have without those barriers

I don't agree with this view. But I'm thinking that there's another distinction between two types of persons and their applicable incentives. Maybe each kind of person needs different sort of incentive?

So in both cases the issue is to ignore a difference (in the way the asset works and) in the way to incentivize persons.

what gives me hope that they won't, is that they probably only bought Bandcamp to use it as a salvo in their legal battle versus Apple.