It’s wild how we went from…

Critics: “Crypto is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted pyramid scheme”

Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”

…to…

Critics: “AI is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted labor exploitation scheme”

Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”

So why take the heat off of AI, as if profiting from mass plagiarism is different when it has an API instead of flesh and bone?

Right, but the technology has the system’s philosophy baked into it. All inventions encourage a certain way of seeing the world. It’s not a coincidence that agriculture yields land ownership, mass production yields wage labor, or in this case fuzzy plagiarism machines yield a transhuman death cult.

Considering most new technology these days is merely a distilation of the ethos of the big corporations, how do you distinguish?

We know how good they are at combing-over.

Constant Comment

Why are you booing them? They’re right!

It’s not that hard.

Fuck the RIAA: The artists should hold the rights to their music, not the publishers.

Fuck AI: The rights-holders (which ought to be the artists) should be able to distribute their work without fear that a bot will be allowed to use it to compete against them.

I just don’t see a healthy creative culture where you don’t push both buttons.

Are we looking from the perspective of the user or the wall?

1. Capitalism has alienated us from collective experience in shared public spaces. Blasting loud music is an act of protest. A violent rebellion that creates a shared experience by force. A momentary slap in the face to wake you up and remind you that we are all connected and these places inherently belong to all of us, for us to use together in loud, chaotic, contradictory ways — not to be parceled up, individualized, isolated, and reduced to sheer utility value.
2. Haha windows go brrr

Got blinded by reading a sign that told me to look away, got my fingertips melted by reading a sign that told me not to touch.

Went to an Ace of Base concert but stood too close to the speakers, and well… You can guess.

Biblically accurate angel32.dll

I’m more concerned about the earlier spikes. You good, internet?

The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said “Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?” Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, “Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man’s closures.”

Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire “Lambda: The Ultimate…” series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.

On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying “Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man’s closures.” Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying “When will you learn? Closures are a poor man’s object.” At that moment, Anton became enlightened.

I think it’s kind of strange.

Between quantification and consciousness, we tend to dismiss consciousness because it can’t be quantified.

Why don’t we dismiss quantification because it can’t explain consciousness?

“Insufficient detail. Please ask a specific question.”

“Read the wiki”

“Nobody here is interested in holding your hand.”

I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.

You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.

Basically, there is no absolute thing called “liberty”, because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you’re able to do. So you can’t talk about simply “liberty”, and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls “freedom to” and “freedom from”.

For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the “freedom to” shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the “freedom from” falling bullets.

We can’t create a policy which guarantees both “freedom to” and “freedom from” for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others’ actions.

And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called “libertarianism” plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that’s economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word “liberty” in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others’ attempts to bully you.

Okay but would you rather choke to death on a gummy bear, or a gummy man?

Checkmate, Haribros

Affording a mortgage is the easy part.

Then you have to somehow get your mortgage-contingent offer accepted by the seller when you’re up against cash offers, $50k over asking, with no inspection, no appraisal, unlimited possession, and a free hit of adrenochrome.

😉