Think a bit literally; reading language is “adding” information to our memory. To explain certain data structures and geometry in English would take an absurd amount of storage; first draw a Cartesian plane; what’s that; first draw a vertical line and a horizontal line extending to the right from the bottom of the horizontal line… is a lot of information to import to explain…

|_

The information density, memorization of form, syntactic rules, of English obfuscates simple ideas.

It’s that obfuscation that’s leveraged by aristocrats to then create confusion around truth when simple mathematical analysis shows they’re one of billions like everyone else, propped up by politically correct adherence to the subset of English that’s socially viable; tax a minority pf the population empowered by run of the mill political corruption being an example of politically incorrect language right now.

Section 230 regulates what is allowed. DMCA, etc etc

You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it? You are not really selling a strong argument here, just wishy washy opinions decoupled from the negotiated terms of society documented openly.

Society, the rest of us, do not have an obligation to your head canon.

With the money printer off, tech corp are going where the money is; government welfare, not a free market: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/google-and-...

The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency

But for decades, government programs ran surpluses.

It’s not hard to explain it away in memorized economics terms. The thing is those terms are merely one set of reasonable, generic language. Not immutable laws of reality.

Technology is moving faster than that because of government investment; IBM refused to invest in solid state fearing it would undermine sales of old tube computers. Government invested in and gifted them solid state patents.

What do you think the cheap money flowing to tech corps was about the last decade? Government subsidy of technology, which is verifiable in that now that rates are down tech genius CEOs are not innovating but pushing traditions of austerity. These companies are middlemen dependent on government subsidies.

I mean intuition for state change in our meat bags. I mean measuring and building things that fit what we’d call in language now a use case, has been a thing humanoids have done forever.

Literally engineering an easier life came before language.

The problem with language is it couples ideas to emotions. It does not couple outcomes to emotions.

Qualified answers are customization of well known generalizations.

This was back in the 00s before the last decade plus of expanded info awareness.

Scientific measure of fossil fuels impact on environment was achieved in 1860s. How long the runway is before catastrophe has been modeled and then hidden away over and over.

There is absolutely no reason to bequeath immense influence on human agency to the aristocrats. One small time polluter in the middle of BFE has nothing on Intel and Apple.

I’m arguing figurative identity built through linguistic structures is bad for us. That it binds inner monologue to circling fantasy. That’s it’s entirely built on emotional policing; reinforced preservation of spoken story and tradition, which binds agency to pledges of allegiance, other words of power.

Whether it’s good or bad, I don’t know. That’s too simple a set of choices. I don’t think it has much to do with engineering tolerances to build a bridge or machine. I see how it’s correct use is babysat by the educated, as is spoken tradition. But I have yet to see how those educated are more than one of billions.

I don’t buy into figurative identity. It’s all a bit repetitive. If I can just dismiss the truth in language I have a hard time seeing how it matters in concrete terms?

To be real this is a perspective I’ve adopted over time. I’m in my 40s. I used to love creative writing and fiction. Now it all seems prosaic and repetitive relative to experimental discovery. I don’t use English to guide my next experiment but the measurements of the previous one.

If, as a normal human, one of billions, can function like this successfully it’s hard to see language as a fundamental requirement of doing and more of a historical barnacle like religious texts.

Edit: I really don’t care about comment scores and online reps either. Chemical addiction to doing what’s acceptable in the aggregate is exactly the argument against language I’m making. Infinite potential sentences of meaning, constrained by politically correct memory.

I would hope it’s obvious words are not stored as real things in us. Speaking and writing are trained mechanical behavior. If you merely train the smallest amount of language possible, behavior is tailored to defend that language. This isn’t really a novel idea.

There’s no substance to the idea English is responsible for humans engaging in human things; we built tribal life and tools before they existed. Anglo history has largely relied on the ambiguity of the language to manipulate the masses, externalize the work to prop up a minority “educated in language.”

I’d go a step further than this article and call human language a historical barnacle that spreads mind viruses and empowers inept ideas, leading to fascist police state behavior; language comes along, humanity develops religion and violent nation states, vain figurative identity to defend through violence.

Our “natural language” is math as it’s a necessary intuition to survive the real world.

https://nautil.us/are-all-brains-good-at-math-238539/

IMO this explains a great deal about current society stuck on the idea re-training is a waste, the habit of re-electing politicians for decades being one outcome of living life “on the career escalator.”

Such an inner monologue becomes a default state of being.

Accepting simple memes like “will work for money” become the norm and “will work to acquire knowledge” becomes vulgar language.

Why not troll the public and traditional media who are far more obsessed with office life than doing real things for others?

Why bother taking the article seriously? It’s unverifiable. I see no reason to give it a sincere discussion.

I’ve worked for orgs where engineer head count alone pushed 250 people. The number of people in power with no technical skills managing technical workers was a huge waste of time.

I’d like to see Twitter fire the cottage industry of professional non-contributors that has seeped into tech for the pay.

Employees like the TikToking “Facebook PM” who showed off 20 mins of emailing for work and the rest of the day brunching/lunching with their crew need to go.

But making a lot of money in a market that’s organically interested in tech the last few decades still does not make Musk literally the most valuable person alive except when measuring in politically correct fiat currency terms.

He’s literally one man in a society with a history of teaching idle idolatry.

I really don’t get the general public deflating the value of their self agency for dedication to Elon and Co todo list. We’ll except the copious amounts of government backed nation state scrip they command. But government bad too mmmk

Public talks a game about freedom and democracy while reciting a curated set of acceptable language regarding business, and bending their agency to the idea using the environment like an open sewer is optimizing for self.

But yeah flippant sarcasm about space man covers if. Yer so smert

I say give users the moderation power and let aggregate voting dictate content that remains visible.

No one wants public control of democracy though. What these guys want is a business friendly soapbox.

You’re not actually making any kind of new point. Just expressing your deference to old ones. Point taken.

You see, it is beneath Jack and Co. to participate in the real work of keeping themselves alive.

Jack recently apologized for his role in centralizing the web but of course he’s going to be a part of the new protocol centralization effort.