🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖

  • 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2025

help-circle


  • First I always discuss in good faith its a far more rewarding and enjoyable way to engage with the shared human experience. Second the condescending attitude isn’t particularly pleasant I’m not speaking with you in such a way I ask you have the same respect for me.

    Sure that’s a fair definition.

    I would argue the paradox of tolerance is widely misunderstood the full quote in which it is based is as follows:

    "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

    In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." - Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies 1945)

    I think most people ignore the second half of it as its convenient for them to do so.

    If you feel discriminated against because people don’t want you around, feel free to vote with your feet.

    Ahh yes vote with my feet and leave the fediverse hence why op is asking why the fediverse has stagnated and doesn’t seem to be growing. You have expertly just proven exactly the original point I was trying to make.



  • And here lies my point. A vast majority of people don’t think its hate speech. And a vast majority of people believe free speech supersedes hate speech.

    Please define hate speech.

    I’ve seen many people defending violence against Jews in the name of Palestine right here on lemmy so I’d say hating Jews is pretty mainstream in the fediverse right now.

    I believe the right to free speech grants you the right to express hatred as long as ur not calling for violence u should have the right to say whatever the fuck you want.

    That’s a pretty mainstream belief for a lot a people who have been completely ostracised and discriminated against by the fediverse as a whole.




  • Its all to do with how to grid works. Compute loads are large stable loads with ability to perform instant load ramping. The base load of the power grid is increasing (as it has done basically forever) base load is provided by slow to ramp stable large energy sources operating at heigh efficiency (nuclear, coal, geothermal etc) then u have a varying load which is the instant to instant power usage. Renewables provide unstable sources. If the renewables turn off (clouds, the wind stops etc etc) then u need to either generate more power to compensate or shed load. A compute resource can instantly shed load and sell that power they have provisioned back to the grid at a profit. Its using more power yes but it’s stabilising the grid which is the big issue with renewables.

    Xai is simply using industrial generators that would usually be busy making power for something else they are not increasing the net carbon output they are simply reallocating it. It does have proven impact but on the scale of global carbon emissions its fuck all.








  • Bluesky blew itself up cos they failed to be sufficiently decentralised and became an echo chamber. Activpub systems are less echo chambery but still have a very strong left lean that is significantly effecting out ability to grow especially among the centre who represents the majority. We need more right wing opinions and allow said right wing opinions if we want the majority of people to adopt it.

    The fundamental failure of the fediverse that is limiting us is that accounts are not transportable. We need some decentralised ledger of accounts that can be cryptographically verified with a zero trust system. U just set up a oidc server to do that auth and that plugs into every single fediverse application everywhere.





  • NASA did a lot of work no doubt they then made all that work public for the private sector to iterate on and improve and bring to market. Eg the accelerometer in ur phone was a NASA invention but it required someone in a private company to decide to put it in a phone and mass produce it.

    NASA isn’t held to more stringent safety requirements NASA literally defines the safety requirements which they apply to spacex, and any other space company as well as themselves.

    NASA blowing up a rocket on takeoff is seen differently than a private company, which just costs more.

    Tell me u know nothing about an iterative development and testing cycle without telling me u know nothing about an iterative development and testing cycle. Spacex falcon 9 is statistically safer than literally every other transport method on earth including walking. Its safer than all NASA rockets. Perhaps them blowing up so many rockets taught them how to not blow up rockets?

    Now here’s the kicker NASA doesn’t actually do that much they design some parts or requirements then let private companies take bids to actually build it.

    Independent speculative analysis thinks that the commercial launch fees are enough to cover the rocket price. Not to mention that starlink is a profitable service that is funding most of spacex costs as of now. Plus their are other launch companies that offer similar/cheaper(depending on launch profile) launch costs that due to free market completion will keeps costs far lower than NASA launches.

    That’s how the government works they fund things with taxes that are distributed to all citizens equally. The citizens then use those things to generate value which is taxed and continues the cycle. Every dollar spent at NASA has a 27x return in terms of GDP from the private sector. Ie NASA spends 1$ and releases research/technology then the public uses that research/technology to generate 27$ of value. I never said it more efficient to do everything privately its just more efficient to do most things privately.

    Healthcare is a great example its more efficient for the government to negotiate prices on behalf of everyone then let the public market compete to fill that service requirement. Its called socialised healthcare yet still takes advantage of private institutions competing in a free market to fulfill the collective service requirement. If the government runs everything u get the NHS which has gone to shit and cant afford to service all the people. If the government runs nothing u get the american system where the poor get fucked. If the government performs collective bargaining between the people and the provider u get the Australian system where everyone gets healthcare almost instantly of world class quality. U need both private and public working hand in hand. The governments purpose is to ensure free unrestricted competition between private entities and to negotiate with those private entities on behalf of the people that the government represents. That’s how a government works it doesn’t build a road it negotiates with a bunch of contractors who are competing with each other and pays the cheapest one to build the road.

    U say socialist yet u describe communist. I like the socialist policies my government has free healthcare, good roads, cops, firefighters, national defence etc etc. These things cannot function without leveraging the private capital and competition of the free market.


  • OK so let’s say a bunch of people decide to work together without stocks or formal government. Each of these people can provide a certain amount of “critical resource” but each person only has so much and some more than others. So these people working together decide that they all put in what they can and whatever they build together will be distributed among the people according to how much “critical resource” they put in. Congratulations u have reinvented stocks.

    The ‘government doing everything’ requires citizen involvement, which would be spread among the community when centralized wealth isn’t overriding public influence.

    What are u saying here? The government dictates what the people do to achieve some outcome dictated by the government? That’s literally how the soviet union was run.

    I’m not denying the government cannot do things (if they couldn’t why would they exist) just that the free market optimises and improves. For example the cost mass per kg to space.

    SpaceX Falcon Heavy: Around $1,500 per kg. SpaceX Falcon 9: Approximately $2,720 per kg. NASA Space Shuttle (retired): $54,500 per kg. NASA Vanguard (early rocket): $1,000,000 per kg.

    Who did it better?

    But ur idea is also fundamentally flawed from a logical point as well. The ingenuity and creative problem solving capacity of the entire population is far greater than that of some inner circle of party members. Government agencies improve and innovate until some private company comes along optimises and improves till it is a market viable solution.

    Ownership implies control of it if u own it you control it and thus can sell it hence a marketplace. Having wealth isn’t about having the wealth its about what u can do with the wealth. If u don’t get rich off doing something innovative what’s the point? For the good of the peoole? If it has no material benefit to you why do it? This is the foundational reason the USSR collapsed Ohh and all the starving dead people cos the government solutions where overpriced uncompetitive and not subject to free market pressures.

    I do need to ask are you intentionally saying some of the dumbest shit I ever heard to troll or do u genuinely believe that communism would work? Please read a critical thinking book, a history book, an economics book, and a phycology book. Then u will understand how utterly untenable these ideas are.