This, on the other hand:

>The guy is monetizing a certain base. Probably doing pretty well out of it.

OP does say it as if there's something wrong with it.

I'm not trying to put "intelligence" or "geniuses" on a pedestal, though I would argue they're already being put there by our culture's norms. If they were really so important, wouldn't people be a lot more outraged about faulty definitions and fallacious reasoning?

Instead, we get sarcastic variants of the "well, ackshyually" meme any time anyone insists that correct reasoning is a prerequisite for a meaningful conversation, and indeed colloquial language doesn't really optimize for the use case of honest, unambiguous representations of reality

I also disagree with this statement.

>a "more intelligent" person is defined as "having more consciousness" which, in a system that ascribes value to humanity and consciousness, is equivalent to saying that a more intelligent person is "more of a person", and therefore inherently "superior in value"

This is what I meant. Do you still disagree with this statement?

And, well... should I make my posts more detailed or less, considering they fail to communicate the idea? Or should I go back to just saying nothing?

But it is, even though it actually means nothing at all. Let me try and explain.

Our society prides itself on being both rational and egalitarian at the same time. Its most basic ideological paradigm basically says: "everyone is equal". Of course, that is a meaningless statement - people themselves are not quantities to be measured and compared; "everyone is equal" is just a shorthand for "everyone is just as much a human being as everyone else, regardless of the physical characteristics of their body, and deserves to be treated with equal dignity, because every person has a human mind."

Now imagine a trait, "intelligence", which basically says "this person has more mind than that person". This is in contradiction with the premise of equality; in the rationalist paradigm, this is more or less equivalent to saying "this person is inherently superior than that person". So either differences in intelligence do not exist and intelligence is a meaningless signifier (perhaps a performative role ascribed by particular situations)... or rational egalitarianism is in contradiction with itself (and therefore factually wrong by the rules of its own logic).

Either option is enough of a bummer that a normal person would be driven to ignore the matter entirely. Hence, the taboo.

Does this help? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/cr...

Subjectively, I would consider a single interaction that merits a $10 cash transaction effectively "organic": proof-of-human-work, as it is. Anyone thinking otherwise would be free to add parties caught in off-the-books transactions to their personal blocklist - as is the case with ad blocking today. Entities compiling blocklists could then be rewarded accordingly, and in turn withdrawing trust for a blocklist considered "corrupt" would be a one-click operation.

The long answer: the commonly leveraged argument that it's impossible to conclusively verify that the contents of a distributed ledger correspond to some sort of "base reality" is simply moving the goalposts. It is already impossible to independently verify that a private database on a cloud somewhere is consistent with itself, and thus that it corresponds to any reality at all - you have to blindly trust that the organizations involved would prevent conflicts of interest. And as long as they can get away with it, they're going to tip the scales in their own favor - which is the reason public ledgers face such vehement pushback from entrenched authorities.

To continue this line of thinking, society operates just fine on a shared consensus about what "reality" is, even though in the grander scheme of things it's impossible to conclusively prove anything at all - except maybe some abstract mathematical statements. All that blockchain technology is trying to do is leverage those to introduce increased transparency and granularity into the mechanisms of establishing societal consensus - which already operate on a scale where classical methods of public oversight are insufficient.

A distributed consensus network would be an ideal medium for this hypothetic model, as there would be no single intermediary able to fiddle with the interaction counts, and everybody would be free to crawl the resulting social graph using whatever algorithm their user agent provides.

Interesting nonetheless. I keep waiting for someone to make one of these with BPM sync and the capability to jump to pre-set cue points in response to MIDI or OSC control messages.

I even wrote one like that in multithreaded C some years back - it leaked memory like a sieve, but it was tons of fun to do breakbeat juggling in it. (When I last revisited that, it didn't compile anymore and I couldn't even read the code.)

All in all it's always nice to see devs honing their skills with multimedia stuff instead of bureaucratic CRUD types of things.

Or at least, that's the promise - it's on my list of "solutions to try as soon as the problems catch up to the corresponding level".

Making FB/IG paid would either be the final nail in their coffin, or just make them not-pointless. So it's win-win.

Put all likes (and dislikes!) on a public append-only ledger, and allow people to buy and sell them freely and publicly. Advertising and social proof rolled into one - after all, money is the best social proof we've been able to invent.

Users who care about organic original types of things are then free to filter out bought likes and look at just the ad-free graph.

>Have loyalty for individuals, and sometimes even teams, but never ever ever ever feel loyalty for a corporation.

That's exactly what an individual would say!

Is it OK to feel loyalty for a nation, then? Considering membership in one is involuntary - and that corporations don't, as a rule, exercise a monopoly on violence against their employees?

>Corporations are not people [...] from a "conscious being" perspective.

>If it helped you in some way, it wasn't intentionally; it just happened that its own interests overlapped with your own for a blip in time.

That depends on your perspective on consciousness and intentionality. I understand that the subject is not open to debate for the majority of individuals here, so I won't bore you with elaborations.

Suffice to say, if you weren't aware of the varying opinions on those, you could start by googling the "Chinese brain" thought experiment.

>But the nanosecond that its interests run contrary to yours, it will swiftly trample you into the ground and will be incapable of feeling sorry about it.

This can be said for sufficiently many individuals that we have a designation for them: psychopaths.

When an individual acts like this, we go out of our way to reproach them. When a corporation does this, it's normal value maximization. A double standard, maybe?

Moreover, humans have kept their place on top of the food pyramid for so long because corporations didn't have nanosecond-scale temporal resolution. However, thanks to the IT community's efforts, this is subject to change.

(Is that Conway's law in reverse, or just Occam's beard? I can't help but wonder.)

And I gotta get back to trying to build Deno from Git with Mozilla's overlays. Thankfully, Nix pairs well with git submodules...

It kind of looks like they're trying out different interfaces to the same basic core functionality and seeing what catches.

My personal gripe is that wrappers for languages that have their own package managers are abysmal. But griping about Nix on HN is just extra publicity. Now we're just waiting for someone to explain it in a sufficiently succinct way for the crowd.

Come to think of it, that's kind of like Monads in Haskell a few years back. Anyone remember the series of watered down explanations that failed to address the actual problem people were having, which was that that people were confused by the notation, if I recall correctly.

Nix's roots are close to Haskell turf, so it comes as no surprise they're struggling with explaining their abstractions, resulting in the series of mutually overlapping "official" ways to do things (none of which, incidentally, is the "obvious" way if there is one). After all, Nix is a build tool and not a whole language, so they get to try different CLIs and config APIs within with less overhead than experimenting with a language's syntax.

If you take away the voices of such people, pretty much the only voice left speaking is the voice of corporate money, which is usually anthithetical to the principles of open source development.

EDIT: Especially considering features like Gopher and MSP were deemed worthy of attention, the fact that his point about HDR metadata being silently stripped was not being addressed in a year is concerning.

This kind of breaks. For people like myself who already spend a lot of time debugging dependency and compatibility issues in less sound package ecosystems (scripting languages I'm looking at you), Nix alternates between enlightening and maddening. Which I like.