News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

fuzzythrowaway

First, they came for the people who wanted to make kinky art, and I did not speak out, for I am a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition kinda dude...

Then, they came for the people who wanted to reverse-engineer video games, and I did not speak out, for I find no amusement in seeing Mario take down Elden Ring bosses...

Finally, they banned me for a politically incorrect/inconvenient prompt (like asking for help defending Luigi in a debate or something), and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:We should be more ambitious with the software we build on Sunday October 25, 2026 @09:01PM (#50237692)
1) You are describing something that is not UBI, and calling it UBI anyway. A rationing system that is not fungible and that varies allocation is not universal, and not income as capitalism knows it. The Soviet planned economy was categorically not UBI. Full stop.

2) >I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed.

You did not.

3) That's not applicable here. Why did you respond to the UBI issue only?

>I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though.

I didn't speak to this at all. The "artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary 'productivity'" is independent of AI and ML and has existed for several decades.

>my views aren't uneducated reactions.

See 1.

My conclusion is that you actually aren't interested in a conversation. You haven't responded earnestly or considerately to anything in my initial post except the portion suggesting UBI, which you dismissed with a faulty presence.

Here is my suggestion: talk about something else from that post. Anything else. Do not revisit the UBI topic.

Re:We should be more ambitious with the software we build on Sunday October 25, 2026 @11:40AM (#50232742)
1) No, they didn't.

2) America in 2026 is not the USSR in the 20th century, so even if they did, our circumstances are very different from theirs.

3) UBI was only the first suggestion; you completely failed to address the other and then jumped to a black-and-white conclusion.

The general thrust of my proposition was that people shouldn't have to submit to an artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary "productivity" in order to access goods that are objectively abundant. When people realize that and make the necessary compromises, they won't have to worry about shipping useless AI-assisted slop for "income security" and can focus on using AI to build consequential and useful software.

Please do not get bogged down in whatever kneejerk anti-UBI thought-loop your misaligned amygdala is screaming at you.

We're all naked under our clothes, I don't see the problem. One of the funniest shock-bits I've ever seen was when Jon Stewart's book on American government and history included full-frontal (Photoshopped) nudes of SCOTUS, but I guess he couldn't get away with that during the current era of Puritanical panic.

It's just an adult human body, Michael, what could it cost? One('s) dignity?

Re:Social Reality in China on Friday October 02, 2026 @05:59PM (#49939135)
I think the thing people miss is that American friendliness is a bit fake, just not malicious. It's built on our pastoral history, but has evolved into a way to smooth down the sharp edges of a very competitive society - especially when that pastoral mindset ran headlong into the immigration that made contemporary America what it is.
Re:Social Reality in China on Friday October 02, 2026 @05:00PM (#49938563)
Which is why I think the whole premise of GP is kind of suspect. China has housed a highly-developed society - not just a civilization, but a contiguous, if evolving, social order - for longer than most of the rest of the world. Even what they consider backwoods and rural is basically urban by most historical standards.

These aren't the problems of a society rising out of a state of nature; as TFA states, "The narrative is that China experienced a “century of humiliation”". I think certain aspects of Chinese culture as we know it, writ-large, make more sense coming from people who weren't just recently struggling as a society, but who are well aware of how that condition compares to their historical one.

Re:FLUX 3 Image on Friday October 02, 2026 @02:17PM (#49936750)
I like the interface; very useful for some use cases that would otherwise be quite frustrating. Dislike that it's yet another platform held back by arbitrary moderation. You can't make a bicycle for the mind that locks if you try to ride it in the wrong direction.
Re:Dutch computer museums (2022) on Friday October 02, 2026 @02:00PM (#49936558)
The computer sections feel warm and sort of anchored in place, whereas those shots of the arcade gave me the "liminal space" heebies. I wonder why.

Are there any places like this in the US?