Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
far beyond the level needed to generate civil nuclear power
True, and there is also the glaring fact that if any country in the world doesn't need electrical energy its one that has 17% of the world's natural gas and 12% of its oil.
Also they have vast highland watersheds which are just begging civil engineers "Please, dam me".
Oh would you look at that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_Iran
"We want nuclear power" is such a thin excuse that I wonder why they even bother.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When the left arrests abortion protestors, lawyers, and presidential candidates, that's because nobody is above the law.
When the right arrests illegal aliens, violent senators, and judges facilitating the escape of criminal suspects; that's fascism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Road a bicycle everywhere for 8 years strait.
I have family in Europe who do that. They have like one car between 8 people. Very fit.
In USA where they expect you to drive 30km to work, not so fun. (Also USA public transit is like 1/5th the usability of the one in this country).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
he wants non-consensual BDSM and this is the only legal way to do it, by making moderators do the punishment and humiliation while he watches in satisfaction.
No that's not what I meant.
I meant that he (may) embarrass himself and those he successfully solicits on purpose because he gets off on doing things that other people find shameful.
It's really not any kind of normal motivation that makes someone beg to be a mod for years and then immediately start an escalating chain of events which only a profoundly stupid person would fail to predict would end in disaster.
It would make sense if he was trying to make himself and the people he conned look shameful, and that is a kink. Specifically part of sadomasochism, satisfaction at social disapproval.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Once more, the egg is on my face. With zero reservations I admit this.
This is why it's important to have pies on hand. That way you can lick the meringue.
Any future requests for me to admit this some more, I'll just be providing a link back to this post (assuming I respond at all).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
That actually might explain his behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Iran with nukes would destabilize everything and risk proliferation.
It does annoy me that there is no rationality left in people about so many subjects including this one.
They go from believing whatever the bush admin tells them to saying nothing is a threat. I've seen it like 50 times recently "Iran isn't US problem, not a threat to us, their missiles can't reach us."
That is what I would consider, in terms of military understanding, "full retard". I wish these people would not go full retard.
Iran is a state which has continuously used proxy paramilitary groups for the last forty years.
The idea that they wouldn't give some of their nuclear weapons to these terrorist cells and then act innocent is suicidally naive. The idea that the west who cannot keep out millions of illegal migrants could stop something that can fit inside the smaller shipping container is absurd.
We don't need to occupy the country or spew some bullshit about nation building to stop them from building a nuclear weapon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@21Pilots
What was that one time everything was shit?What the fuck helped you not kill yourself.
Stress is caused by failing to meet goals.
You can temporarily retreat from large scale goals by focusing on tiny inevitable ones.
Today I'm going to brew some good tea and enjoy it.
I'm going to disinfect the bathroom.
That kind of thing.
It's like micro-dosed Buddhism which in a nutshell is: Train yourself to want only what is already in your grasp and only in the moment. Just make sure to come out of it when your serotonin recovers or the situation improves. Otherwise you'll be stuck there and you don't actually remember your past lives and transcend death and life.
Created:
It's almost as bad as paying your lawyer with your own money being a violation of campaign finance laws.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The body politic.Please expand.
All eligible voters.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The body politic.Who exactly are the people in question?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Because the riots did not break the morale of the people, but in theory it is possible and it has happened before and elsewhere.If you can overpower the government, sure.
No, the people.
Because the riots did not break the morale of the people, but in theory it is possible and it has happened before and elsewhere.If you can overpower the government, sure.
When you have no attention, any attention is good attention. It's a risk that can pay off and has in the past.
Stonewall riotsRefusing to cooperate with the police and trying to rescue detainees galvanized the cause, sure. Plus the fact that the building they destroyed was owned by the mafia, who aren't really innocent victims.
None of those details mattered. All that mattered was that it made a lot of noise and when people started paying attention that was their hook in the platform of a political party.
Snow rolling downhill.
Of course the objective merits of the agenda matter, but this is a phenomenon that can happen and therefore it is not absolutely correct that political violence far short of overthrowing the government is counterproductive.
Created:
-->
@Savant
People wanted to appease the abolitionist by throwing them a bone.By trying to secede from the union?
No, by electing Abraham Lincoln who positioned himself as someone who would appease the abolitionists while keeping the union together.
The longer the violence went on, the less support that faction got.
Because the riots did not break the morale of the people, but in theory it is possible and it has happened before and elsewhere.
Do you think pro-Hamas violence is what made people want to compromise with Palestinians?
Indirectly I think Hamas violence is what makes people want to compromise yes. They keep turning Gaza and the west bank into war torn wastelands and people are willing to give anything to make that stop happening.
I think they don't care about labels like "terrorist" when they're in this mode of thinking.
People being pro Hamas causes pro-Hamas violence, not the other way around.
Again you mischaracterize. I did not say violence makes people pro-violence, I said it can make the agenda of the violent more likely to suceed by virtue of the widespread impression that it is a problem that needs to be solved.
When you create the 'problem' with violence and thereby push something into political relevancy you've gained political advantage through violence.
Another example is the Stonewall riots.
When Palestinians want people to throw them a bone, do they focus on Israeli violence or Palestinian violence?
Of course they focus on their own losses and enemy attack in propaganda. That's a simple principle of propaganda and has nothing to do with the dynamic.
People who aren't engaged will decide there is a problem if there is violence even if they can't be bothered to figure out who started what or why.
Created:
-->
@Savant
compromise' that the south would never have agreed to if there weren't so many people tired of the constant chaosThis is always a strange take to me. People wanted to end slavery so abolitionists would stop rioting?
No!
People wanted to appease the abolitionist by throwing them a bone.
It would have taken another generation to abolish slavery without violence.
but I'm not sure any pro-slavery people were flipped to the other side because of riots
I don't know what's hard to understand about this.
If rioting flipped people it would be case (a), I said (d) because there is a case you didn't describe.
It doesn't convince anyone of anything except that they want normalcy back and that pressure alters the political landscape allowing politicians to offer previously radical appeasement as compromise.
but is there any policy you thought should be passed to appease rioters?
I am not a normie.
Normies watch 5 minutes of TV or listen to 5 minutes of radio and they think they know what's going on. Those are the people who can be shifted out of apathy by riots. In 1860s they read a newspaper once a week.
It's not convincing them of any particular policy, it's just making them react. The copperheads and Constitutional Union Party were a party characterized by the attitude "can you all please sit down so I can go back to making money".
Most people understand that appeasing terrorists invites more terrorism
Looks pointedly at all the pro Hamas demonstrations.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Cause so much chaos that people can't take it anymore, zone out, do the #fatigue, and your side can fill the power vacuum and pretend like a compromise with the extremists is the fastest way to "calm things down"i.e. overthrowing the government. I think we're on the same page with that not being a realistic goal (or a goal at all) of the protests.
Well not really. No more than every election is "overthrowing the government."
I'm saying in a democracy you don't need to convince people you're right or insert unelected leaders, you just have to confuse the pubic so much that they'll vote for whoever claims to "make it stop".
It requires a strong presence in media and a strong intellectual laziness in the public, because if they get a clear moral narrative they'll just go with that.
One could argue the abolitionists won this way. They made such a ruckus in every sphere that just about everybody was convinced they were behind everything that happened.
Lincoln didn't have to tell anybody he was going to free slaves before the election, the abolitionist being rabidly for him was enough to convince the entire south (and half the north) that emancipation was exactly what his goal was.
Given how it played out, the notion that Lincoln was conspiring with abolitionist is plausible and yet he presented himself as a unifier and a calmer of tensions.
Meanwhile John Brown is running around blowing people away and staging insurrections.
In the end, the south called the bluff; but if they didn't, I think it's obvious that what would have happened is a 'compromise' that the south would never have agreed to if there weren't so many people tired of the constant chaos... chaos caused by paramilitary abolitionists.
Created:
-->
@Savant
(d) Cause so much chaos that people can't take it anymore, zone out, do the #fatigue, and your side can fill the power vacuum and pretend like a compromise with the extremists is the fastest way to "calm things down" when the compromise is equal to or beyond what could possibly have been accepted by trying to convince people peacefully.
It's a small mirror of the dynamics of war.
In war every injury only strengthens the resolve of the injured up to the point when their morale or capability breaks.
Their morale breaks when they no longer believe they can win, after which every injury feels avoidable.
That is why it is entirely irrational to "attack a little bit". The only (informed) people who set out to "send a message" or make a "proportional response" are the ones who want the conflict to last longer and to make more enemies.
Nations, movements, and individuals should speak softly, carry a big stick, and be the type that never raises his voice so that when the rage comes it is feared.
Not because it is "cool" or "moral" but because it is the minimum of avoidable suffering. If it's a cause worth violence, you better be ready to kill everyone in your way if you can. If you can't do that, then don't start the fight.
The people burning down cars aren't thinking this through, they are just making enemies they aren't willing to kill. Hoping to break their morale through disruption was always a long shot. This country has gone to war with itself rather than back off perceived intimidation. Most people are like that.
Protestors would be effective if they violently protested for causes they disagree with. Perhaps some already are.
Yea some are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
People normally figure this out around age 10.There are only two possible cases here:1. There is reason for love2. There is no any reason for love1 means love is conditional. No reason = no love then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
What goal does the beauty of a mountain achieve?Love is not just use value but existence value as well.Existence value is use value, as existence is useful for a goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Love is the emotion tied to value.I prefer the term "use value".
You could but it hardly transforms the phenomenon into what you said it was.
A mother's love comes from the selfishness of genes, but the origin doesn't change the fact that is more reliable than a person's love of themself.
You lament that the values of others are the values of others and not your values, you've setup a fantastic goalpost.
Love is not just use value but existence value as well.
A man can love the beauty of a mountain, but he does not use the mountain to make beauty, it is something that existed long before he was born and will exist long after he is gone.
If the mountain was not beautiful he would not love it, in in that way you are correct. There is no such thing as unconditional love if you consider the identity of that which is loved to be a condition.
Identity is required for all logic and all responses to perception including love. Even loving existence is loving an identity.
Can you love non-existence and existence equally? Then love would have no meaning because you cannot value X and ~X at the same time in the same way.
This is pure deconstructionism, a conceptual disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
There are multiple forms of love because there are multiple sources of value judgement.
Love is the emotion tied to value.
Emotional and conceptual (which includes subconscious conceptualization) bound together to creative motive. That's how higher animal brains work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
This video shows all truth. Friendship and love are conditional. The moment you stop being useful to others in all ways, they will stop loving you.
No, it was never love if it stopped when you became useless. It was never friendship.
Love is earned by virtue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What is wrong about conditional clauses?
If/then logic is almost always the first wrong step into a morass of illogic, because in most conditions of if/then, the "if" clause is not currently true, and, therefore, cannot justify "then" unless "if" is changed to a valid statement, but then, there goes then, entirely, because it is still not justified.
All "if/then logic" isn't, simply because whatever follows "if" is not currently true, and will not be true until "if," whatever it is, is altered, and thus, cannot justify "then," regardless of what is claimed as "then," even when "then" is not identified by such a moniker, but is merely a statement of result. Glad you're amused.
In case it isn't obvious, there is pretty much nothing you can say to make me take you seriously after those two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
have a linguistics degree,
Before or after you learned to stop using conditional clauses?
among a set of degrees, so I know whereof I write.
You are exactly the sort of person I am talking about when I argue against appeals to authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a difference between thinking something is a good idea, and admitting that the law as a fixed meaning that cannot be altered except by changing the law.45 years later, America still thinks it's a good idea to have millions of babies with no path to real assimilation.
For instance, the 2nd amendment means a certain thing based on the words and the context in which it was written. It is not permissible (i.e. legal) to say "well that doesn't make sense anymore so lets just pretend it means something else."
The 2nd amendment means citizens have a right to own a tank, and the 14th amendment means anchor babies are a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh shit Lancelot's account is haunted. Or he's referring to himself in the third person. Take your pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
You don't even wana know what I think about that statement.Then make me a moderator and I will rule by being popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
No Mr. "Actually if-then logic is fake" is not the ideal choice or even an acceptable choice for a debate site moderator or a debate site member.Fauxlaw is a good choice, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Check under the bed, they're probably there already.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
The thing is, they never get the chance, often due to their own insanity that (thankfully) causes them to get in their own way, but also due to the intense security every politician has protecting them.
I think the first is the bigger factor.
More specifically: I think that the defenses politicians have are woefully insufficient to stop a well planned attempt, BUT that the kind of person who can focus long enough to plan well is also the kind that can foresee the consequences... namely that assassinations have almost never killed a movement or even organized crime.
Created:
Posted in:
Some people's thinking is hopelessly crippled by an inability or unwillingness to understand categorical logic, instead substituting a constant misuse of generalizations with no scope or connection.
The result is a abstraction structure that is limited in scope and far too small to describe the world accurately.
I would compare it to the difference between a chimpanzee and a human being (at his peak). The chimp has good memory, creativity, self-awareness, but what he does not have is the capacity to layer abstractions.
Remy is somewhere between a chimp and a properly functioning human mind.
Created:
-->
@Savant
and what? Threaten to put somebody in jail for life? :)Put them in jail but keep the politician in office, yeah. That ruins the blackmail.
Not in general. A party/community will use code words to indicate that they're threatening.
It happens right now and it would happen even more when there is a 100% chance of success.
So suppose a certain group calls themselves zeta.
They have about a hundred thousand members spread relatively evenly throughout the country. They can't win any elections, but they have a very high 'radicalization' quotient, that is most of them are convinced that they are being brutally oppressed and 10% of them are willing to go to prison to change things. If assassination would change things instead of turning the public against them, they would certainly assassinate.
If you think such a group is unrealistic, I beg to differ, I think there are 20 such groups right now.
That's 10,000 vetos in their arsenal, and they have no way to win elections.
They don't need to convince the public or a party or even the candidate lineup. All they need to do is convince the current leader that someone in their group will take them out.
So they will use weasel words, dog whistles, and coded language.
"If you don't, people will not stand for it" (wink wink nudge nudge)
"This is intolerable, it's worse than life in prison" (wink wink nudge nudge)
You can't throw anybody who uses such language in prison, and even if you did; that means they can use that power to protect a candidate. Want someone to be immune from "assassination"? Just threaten to "assassinate" them.
You think you can lineup 10,000 candidates and not one would give in? That is absurd. The only reason they might not give in would be because they know if they did, somebody else would "assassinate" them because you can't make everybody happy (so long as somebody is irrational).
Then it's not a game between the candidate and the public, it's a game between the groups that hate each other's policies, a game of sacrifice, and we know what that game looks like: it's called war.
Politics is war by other means and this is form of war that gives the advantage to those most convinced that they're right, not the unselfish.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Politician can just go to the police if they are threatened like that.
and what? Threaten to put somebody in jail for life? :)
Created:
-->
@Savant
If they can do it after election and force a new election it will just be used for extortion.
i.e. "do this for my community or you're out".
For example, some very unhappy minorities would gladly find volunteers to sacrifice themselves after every election. They just cripple the government until they get what they want.
Created:
-->
@Savant
The ability to filter is the ability to select.There's that, but I only trust minority factions to the extent they can "filter out the worst,"
Look how many times a popular policy gets implemented poorly because the people doing it are incompetent or corrupt.
The powerful would simply corrupt whatever process you have. The only solution is constitutional structure and personal incentive.
For example you say a selfish person wouldn't do 5000 hours of community service?
Yea but an insane person might if the community service was doing drugs. Before you laugh, I remind you that the government is stealing my money so that they can do a medically unnecessary surgery to create artificial vaginas in the bodies of convicted criminals.
No hand-waiving is permitted at this point in history.
Created:
-->
@Savant
That's a different game. Now you have a wide range of sliders.Or require that multiple people together agree to go to prison as a group.
"Staked Veto" might be the best phrase.
If the number is high enough, the cost can be lower; but in the extreme it's just democracy again.
So what you're really talking about is giving power to minorities that feel extremely strongly. I certainly see the appeal, being a part of more than one small minority.
Created:
-->
@Savant
No problem, just take out the other contenders.Steve Banon, Alex Jones. If they couldn't get them they'd start a civil war.Neither of them are close to being Trump successors.
Alex Jones as at least 100 listeners who would spend life in prison to make him president.
It's just war by another means. Everyone will know that the prisons will run out of cells before a winner is decided so they have an end game.
Created:
Whatever you think is crazy, remember that remy can beat you.
Created:
-->
@Savant
They would see this "symbolic assassination" as an attack because they're human and that's how humans think.So who would they remove?
Every non-nazi canidate.
Once Hitler and Himmler were out, the Nazis would likely settle for a less crazy person who repeated a lot of his talking points and was equally charismatic but not as insane as Hitler.
That is wishful thinking.
If they say the same things how would your savior types know that they don't have to "assassinate" this one too?
What they would do is have a candidate who is a puppet of Hitler and Himmler but says nice things about jews while winking and the nazis all know it.
but Hitler and Himmler were uniquely dangerous
That's the premise your system is based on, as I said, and that is what I think is incorrect.
If most of the Nazis wanted gas chambers, why wasn't it an official party position before Hitler came to power? Did they all have a secret agreement?
You're leaving out the obvious possibility: Hitler and the inner circle worked themselves up just as the rest of the party and the country were.
They didn't start with genocide in mind, and they would not have been the only ones who ended up there.
I look at history the objectivist way, which (pun intended) I think is objectively superior at making predictions. To sum it up: Philosophy first.
Philosophy makes men, men make history. You see only "men make history" and think "no man, no problem".
If someone like Trump was removed with my rule for being polarizing, who are Trump supporters going to turn to that's more polarizing than him?
Steve Banon, Alex Jones. If they couldn't get them they'd start a civil war.
If Pelosi was removed, it's not like Democrats would insist on replacing her with another corrupt stock trader.
and yet they refused to give up on Biden despite his obvious issues.
If someone had tried to invalidate Biden, they would have been enraged. They'd start a civil war too.
Again, not because it is about one personality, but precisely because it isn't. All that matters is that somebody took away their choice and that didn't change their mind on anything.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Idk that many people would have been willing to throw their lives away for Hitler before the Nazis had complete control over propaganda.
See, you're thinking about it the wrong way. "throw their lives away for Hitler".
They wouldn't be, and they weren't.
Hitler was an emotional abstraction like all god emperors to the people.
They did fight to the end for their abstraction in the hundreds of thousands.
Of course they worked themselves up to that state, and you can argue that they wouldn't have if every time they setup a rally the speaker was prohibited from politics.
I am certain you are wrong there. They would see this "symbolic assassination" as an attack because they're human and that's how humans think.
It is no different an effect than forbidding speech. They will say it anyway just so that you don't win (if nothing else). Every time someone "takes out" a potential leader, the supporters will double down on whatever was most radical in that leader's position.
They wouldn't just work themselves up to the fervor of the thirties, they would do it in the twenties.
The Nazis were crazy, but they certainly weren't selfless.
The true believers were absolute collectivists and collectivists are selfless.
You know the SS invented to suicide vest right?
Also pretty much any Jew or other target of the Nazis would put themselves in prison to stop Hitler and Himmler.
If jews outnumbered the core nazi faction then they could have stopped the take over democratically or physically.
The reason they did not is because every act of resistance created more nazis, and the exact same thing would be true of this method.
Also, would Hitler even try to get political power the way he did if he knew he'd almost certainly lose it immediately?
Well sure, they would just make repealing your rule and undoing all the exclusions the first thing they would do when they control the legislative body.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Not if Himmler was the man who replaced him, and there would be a thousand more after that.Adolf Hitler was not a remarkable man, or rather I should say his skills were not very unique. He was a brute with good rhetorical skills, there were hundreds like him, it was dumb luck that he ended up the fuhrer.Sure, but if he'd been removed from office before starting WW2, it's possible the Holocaust could have been avoided.
If you're thinking "each removal is a chance that the guy won't be crazy", that's bad logic.
You have to sum all probabilities. Sometimes people will take out a ruler who wouldn't do the holocaust and replace him/her with one who would.
Since individuals are enough to make a difference, the only consistent bias will be that the more fervent and radical people will make more of a difference on average.
How many frothing mouth SS types would happily throw themselves in prison to replace anyone who dared to "go easy" on the jews?
Created:
-->
@Savant
There aren't enough prisons to hold all the people willing to go to prison to stop the next Hitler when they are so easily convinced the next Hitler is in front of them. Parties don't have enough candidates to field.Politicians should be getting killed all the time then, right?
I am surprised at how rare it is, here are some thoughts on that:
People's subconscious are sometimes more informed than their conscious. There is what they say and then there is what their actions betray.
"House the homeless refugee"
"In your neighborhood?"
"Hell no"
I think people are aware that my theory is correct. They know that it won't truly end because they kill one guy, no matter what the consciously think they believe.
There is also the martyr effect. What you describe would remove it.
Finally what you describe is a transition to certainties. People planning assassinations right now are not sure they will succeed and not sure they will survive one way or another. Many may even believe they could escape.
Created:
-->
@Savant
I think it's based on over-simplistic-false (oversimplified to the point of being false) social theory that the wheels of history always move by the rare traits of a few people.
Now don't get me wrong, sometimes that is exactly what happens; but not all the time and there are categories where that is generally not true.
A think a repressive government is one of those categories.
Let's take Napoleon Bonaparte vs Adolf Hitler for example.
You kill Napoleon you change history, no doubt about that (in my mind) because Napoleon Bonaparte was a military genius who lucked out and was given an army in a time and place when winning battles could get you a country.
But would killing Napoleon make the french revolution any less bloody (Yes I know he was after the reign of terror), but suppose he kept it going? No it wouldn't end there. Just as there wasn't any one particular person you could kill to prevent it from happening.
History assigns a central role in all cases, in this case to Robespierre, but I believe Robespierre was 'surfing a wave' and not making a wake.
So was Napoleon in the social science sense. There was a thousand ways Napoleon could dominate his enemies on the campaign trail but there was really only a couple ways he could sell a narrative to the people of France and Europe.
Eisenstein was a remarkable man, but killing him would not have prevented the war which found a use for the atom bomb.
Adolf Hitler was not a remarkable man, or rather I should say his skills were not very unique. He was a brute with good rhetorical skills, there were hundreds like him, it was dumb luck that he ended up the fuhrer.
Trump is the same (morals aside of course).
These men and women ride the wave of history, and at the risk of mocking my own theory I'll use a sci-fi term: riding the flow of pyschohistory.
You kill one suffer, there are thousands more who will do the job. You take them out of politics, there are thousands more. Yes people convince themselves it's all about one man and his unique evil, but I think they're wrong.
If this system is implemented, I think it would prove it. There aren't enough prisons to hold all the people willing to go to prison to stop the next Hitler when they are so easily convinced the next Hitler is in front of them. Parties don't have enough candidates to field.
It would keep going until tens of thousands of people are in prison and tens of thousands of candidates are excluded and in the end nothing would have changed. The AFD would still exist. MAGA would still exist.
In fact what this would ultimately do is make sure the puppet masters never put themselves in the firing line by running for office.
Created:
Posted in:
“He also loved eggs and mushrooms very much, especially porcini mushrooms and sweet chestnuts, which he often brought back from his forest walks in Caputh. If it had been up to him, he would probably have eaten mushrooms three times a day, so much did he like to eat them. He also liked salads, rice, and spaghetti, prepared the Italian way. In general, however, the professor was unpretentious with regard to food. Schnitzel and meatballs were rare. Fillets and steaks had to be well fried, they were no longer allowed to bleed, otherwise, he would not eat them. He always said, ‘I’m not a tiger.’
Porcinis are the best.
I would rather have a porcini than 10 black truffles.
Porcini mushroom ravioli with San Marzano tomato sauce (with sage and thyme not basil) (ought to) make nihilists repent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
I did something which most people would say is very bad. I changed my diet to very high sugar diet.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Ok, now I have time (and the right machine) to look at the details.
When the time comes to expand, contributors will submit code anonymously.
- How? Through the battle-hardened tool of git-send-email. https://git-send-email.io/
- No usernames. No tracking. No government ID attached.
- You want to build in the shadows? We will make sure you do.
Anonymous contribution to a repository is certainly possible, but I don't think this alone gets us all the way there.
The git tools that are being referenced are almost certainly formalized versions of git commit patches.
In order to truly bypass the need for a constantly hosted git repository there would need to be a system that automatically emailed everyone every time a merge or commit occurred.
There is no way around the "who decides" issue, but this would have the added disaster of miscommunication creating unintentional forks.
You miss an email, you think somebody is out of the loop but they aren't, there is a schism in vision, etc....
Since decentralized hosting is required in any case, why not make the first project to decentrally host a repository and then commit (pun intended) to learning how to route normal git push/pull commands through TOR?
2. Hardcore IRC (Full Anonymity):Use Tor to connect.Use an IRC client over Tor (e.g., HexChat through Tor proxy or Irssi on Tails).IRC with onion routing — we will send you the details for secure communication.
This is secure.
⏱ The 1-Hour Oath — Contribute or Be ReplacedThis is not a democracy; it’s a war for your mind. We are seeking only the strong and the committed.Anyone invited into the backend of Arena development will be required to commit 1 hour per day to work. Not tomorrow. Not when it’s convenient.We all make time for what we value.1 hour a day. You are either building or you are replaced. Simple.
This is reasonable. Too many cooks ruin the stew, and that is especially true if they duck out for months at a time.
That being said, I am not sure I would commit to that; and what I won't do I can hardly expect others to do.
Regardless of who is on your "list of developers" you that team should be open to pull requests from people who aren't willing to take the 'one hour oath'. Some problems can be solved in isolation, and if someone (else) is willing to do it all the better.
📝 The White Paper — Coming SoonSoon, we will unveil The Arena White Paper — the manifesto of the movement. It will outline:The core principles of the ArenaThe structure of the Sovereign, Contender, and Normie ranksMonetization strategies: Sovereigns will lead, Normies will toilThe complete mission for total intellectual sovereignty
So the plan is to make a plan? Well that's where it starts :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I cannot refuse the libertarian dog whistle: YesIs taxation theft of your moolah?
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
You are ignorant of these matters.Using robots is very easy.
It will be more similar to having a roomba than a printer for about two hundred years.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Does it stand to reason that the vast majority of academic jobs that require no physical skill or dexterity would be replaced by AI.
"academic jobs" are teaching a researching.
"jobs requiring degrees" are diverse. Some are ripe for replacement because they can be characterized by a fixed algorithm.
Any job that requires true intelligence is not going to be replaced by fake intelligence.
It's the people who work with their hands that are in trouble. The vast majority of those also use creativity along with their physical skills. They will need to learn how to using robots as a tool or they will be left behind.
Created: