Sloogs

Sloogs , 19 days ago

Outside of a few small local businesses that actually care about doing right by people, loyalty hasn't mattered for decades dude. Companies don't give a shit about any of us. Why even bother thinking in terms of loyalty, it's completely misaligned with how they operate.

Sloogs , 1 month ago

Are there modded clients for mobile?

Sloogs , 1 month ago

Lol I can tell you just used Google Lens or some shit and then proceeded to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about by assuming it was Japanese (it's not).

Sloogs , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I've heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. But also you could have libertarian leftists or anarchists that lean more towards negative liberty, as well as fiscal conservatives that lean more towards positive liberty on social issues, so it's not fully a left/right thing.

Basically the difference is enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference by government or any other entity even if it limits options and social mobility for anyone but yourself due to their life circumstances.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):

"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity's evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, "is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of 'freedom from', namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions."

I don't know that I agree with that premise but it's an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in relation to positive/negative freedom just so you know I'm not making anything up.

Sloogs , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I didn't invent that take if you think it's strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻

I don't think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone's rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.

Sloogs , 2 months ago

Is the AI open source? Curious what you're using and what your experiences with it are.

Sloogs , 3 months ago

I think I heard about it actually, it's the issue where people make up shit on the spot online to confirm their biases

Sloogs , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

In-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.

When it shows that potential, maybe more people will get on board. Until then there are a host of problems that make a ton of people not want to touch it including but not limited to:

1. Capitalists and scammers are already exploiting it the way they do with traditional currencies, except in sometimes new creative ways because of either the lack of regulations or because the technology inherently makes it impossible to trace.

2. I don't see the involvement of predatory capitalists or financial institutions changing in a fully crypto world either, because people are always going to need financial services like loans and insurance on their savings and the financial institutions will always have the imbalance of power.

3. The currencies mostly benefit people with a ton of capital to handle consensus, which further entrenches the power imbalance found in (1) and (2).

4. Insane amounts of resources are needed to reach consensus in a way that is not good at all for the environment, whether that be electricity, computer hardware, or whatever other resource. Sure we already use a lot of power to make our society run. But crypto is asking for more ON TOP of that, compounding the issues. Saying the financial industry already uses a lot of power is not a good argument when I don't think anyone is reasonably convinced that they're going away even after crypto were to take over, and now you're adding an insane power or pollution requirement to run the world's currency system.

5. Relying solely on crypto leaves people destitute if their wallets got hacked, unless they decide to utilize traditional banking with insurance (hint: people like stability and a lot of people will choose to do this over having their life savings wiped out).

6. Chucklefucks are using the technology to commodify and break the best part of the digital world which is the ability to have bit for bit reproducible copies of information.

I'm serious. Fix all of that and you absolutely would get people on board. Not even kidding. Crypto would be taken seriously. But I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.

Sloogs , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

That's one of the reasons wrestling fans prefer the term scripted or staged as opposed to fake. It still requires tons of athleticism, and lots of wrestlers are still taking very real hits and injuries despite trying to minimize the impacts of them.

Sloogs , 5 months ago

It's simultaneously possible to realize that something is useful while also recognizing the damage that its trend is causing from a sustainability standpoint, and that neither realization particularly demonstrates a lack of understanding about AI.