[1] - https://bytecellar.com/2018/03/14/a-planetary-anachronism-no...

[2] - https://bytecellar.com/2020/10/27/looking-back-on-35-years-a...

[3] - https://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/albums/7215762159627...

Most of what I do is creative, a mix of Art, music, programming, writing. I've done things like covid data analysis, I've written the odd letter on there, some of my newsletter gets written on there. I also use it for things like Usenet, IRC, Telegram etc. There's also a lot of really good games for it. I've heard classic 68k Mac owners have similar experiences. Of course, some say the Amiga is also the fastest classic Mac[1].

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jph0gxzL3UI

Without the context of non-verbal communication or the closeness towards people we've never met we react differently online to offline. I think it's important not to lose sight of the idea that people can blow up online, call you every name under the sun and still be perfectly good people.

I found Innuendo Studios' Why Are You So Angry[1] and SSC's varieties of Argumentative Experience[2] really helpful in coming to terms with my own online behaviour. There's also a pg essay[3] that's fairly relevant. I particularly enjoyed Rationality.org's double-cruxing approach[4].

Right now I'm focusing on avoiding continuing discussions at the point they stop adding overall. Nobody's perfect but it's definitely keeping my internal Angry Jack at bay.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ&list=PLJA_jUddXv...

[2] - https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumenta...

[3] - http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

[4] - https://www.rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-cr...

Yeah I can see that now. Thanks. I guess once you process the first bit that way the rest drops off.

By the no nazis bit not meaning anything what I meant there was that with everything else it can be hard to tell what's intentional on the site and what isn't.

I honestly don't care who calls you guys nazis or not. Even if I wanted to (which I don't, I gain nothing by doing so) I wouldn't need to. There are plenty of people doing that already. The harder thing to do is to try to understand without pre-judging. Thanks for clearing a lot of this up.

EDIT: I noticed this in another subthread:

> I do think the image should be provided with context.

I'm editing here because I don't want to add to the pile-on in the other thread. You mentioned this above:

> Once the actual Nazis started showing up we had to get more explicit in our condemnation of their evil

If you want to keep the picture, what would your thoughts be on a log of that condemnation linked from somewhere in the FQA? Not necessarily Appendix L. No skin off my nose either way but I thought I'd mention it in case nobody had thought of it.

Sure, I can see that and thanks for raising that. It wasn't intended that way but I can see how it came across. Some mediums are just poor for discussion and text is always poor for expressing context.

> The whole vibe just felt like it was more about who did what than what any of it was supposed to mean, which isn't really how we operate in general.

I got that sense from you at the time. I get that you've all been attacked heavily at different points. I don't think there's any way you couldn't have felt that vibe. I've seen people call you guys out to me since on a scale that I've not seen elsewhere.

The bit I didn't know is the how you operate in general. As an outsider that's just not info I have.

I genuinely had links and samples for Appendix L's C section - if you look at the post you'll see the drawing screenshot and references to building blocks. Not knowing how you guys worked, I perhaps wrongly assumed that this might've been welcome, but wasn't comfortable putting it in with that image there. I genuinely wasn't trying to gotcha you.

Kurt, so good to see you again! As I said in: https://mastodon.social/@stevelord/105510076754785649

> Was it Uriel that committed that section? I could kind of understand not wanting to remove it if it was. If that's the case then context in the FQA might be helpful for people who stumble across it.

That's hardly demanding names, unless you're referring to somewhere else in the convo. In that case please feel free to point it out.

If you want to see what doldoc and plumbing in one system might look like, check out Oberon[1].

[1] - http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/04/22/oberon/

Even so the 3.10 build I have isn't built against current AmiSSL so TLS sites fail. It is slower than say, Voyager Browser and much slower than IBrowse. Netsurf 3.6 is usable if you're patient on an 060/50. Performance is around what I'd expect from a Pentium 75-100 maybe?

It should be possible to use older machines to browse the web but it stops being about the machine and starts being more about availability of TLS libraries and rendering engines. In theory an Amiga 1000 (1985) should be able to connect to the Internet and may be able to run AmiSSL and IBrowse with the right upgrades. It might need custom hardware though. I think there's some jiggery pokery that'll allow older Macs dating back to 85 or maybe 84 (I'd be surprised to see an original 128kb Mac but the late 84 512kb model should work) to browse the web without modern TLS.

While censorship isn't directly possible, it's not really in the kind of state suitable for lots of people currently departing existing social networks and looking for something new.

I'm not saying there isn't potential. Even for the average HN user it's possibly ready to try but not yet ready for mainstream use.

Yes you can! There's the NuXT[1] which is a full system, or you could use PC-104 designs to build something approximating an IBM PC-type system from a later generation.

[1] - https://monotech.fwscart.com/

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBsv-jRiIT8

Sounds like you're in good company. The author recently upgraded from a 2015 Mac to a heavily modded X230[1].

[1] - https://thedorkweb.substack.com/p/everything-but-the-kitchen...

https://www.denofgeek.com/books/disney-refuses-to-pay-royalt...

I do a lot of writing, which means a lot of reading. Some of that writing I publish, a lot is not.

I develop my skills, not always in ways that are directly related to tasks I do for money, but they generally end up contributing to my income.

I also don't really have a weekend. If work needs doing, it gets done and I take the time when I don't have work. I worked 3 days in a row about 12 hours a day on a hardware project I'm shipping, building hardware, testing software, writing a manual, imaging cards. I'll do more of that this afternoon but I'm not working a large amount of hours today due to unrelated outages.

Like Couchsurfing before AirBNB destroyed it.

> (and it's a very expensive and wasteful way to do so)

No it isn't. You're confusing blockchain (the algorithm) with Proof-of-Work (a method for providing decentralized consensus).

> Blockchain does nothing to verify the correctness of the data it holds, only its consistency with the history.

Correct. Nor does any other data structure. Blockchain is literally just a data structure, nothing more.