BSEdlMMldESB

so math has gone the way of studying history, it only makes sense if your entire life is paid for by rent-collecting relatives of you.

the church started as the government and this is sometimes very confusing.

proof assistants have taken over?

comes down to what your goal really is.

you are either being sarcastic, or just super cynical.

in any case, I don't have enough fucks to give out for fame, my intention is different from the person who wrote the article who clearly enjoys the attention; to each our own

nonetheless, the signal is clear (and I agree with it) the author of something is usually the worst judge of which of their work is 'best', and ultimately, the "best hits" will not be their own choice but the choice of them inspired by the authored piece.

--

closer to the middle: do be wary of publishing too much, as if there weren't already a deluge of content

all they need now, is that some other computer buys it and consumes it.

Ah, yes. the tragedy of modern academia, turned into yet even more tools of imperilistic control out of USA (but culturally, as English as the new Latin) against the world through physics spiraling out of the real world version of the events around the manhattan project; but backed by deep mind researchers out of the British academies (the same ones handing out completion certificates)

that academia pushes away the kind of novel creative thinkers that it needs.

that the role of preservation of knowledge has completely overtaken the role of creation of,

that somehow 'industry' (research conglomerates) together with 'academia' (rent-collecting bureaucrats of old knowledge) have failed us all?

or maybe it's just millennial (the burnt out generation) find ourselves hopeless and without real vision for any future in the time when we should be taking on the leadership roles of all these institutions?

the logic of exclusive ownership asserts itself on a cyber-space in which it is not necessary.

yea, you (both replies to my comment) reinforce my point hahahha.

you are of the stance "there's no collective madness, just evil rulers"... it's naive

should have been a politician!

> That must not get lost in all this.

I fear it will. so long as we keep being all confused between individual things (actions of persons) and systemic truths (actions of institutions). e.g. "Putin be Bad"... uhm, he's just the face of a large government.... he does not exist in isolation.

we cannot live in a society where I must demonstrate to another human that I'm human with a piece of paper just because the other human is a bureaucrat with a computer.

this is an 'online only' problem

yes, when we do this to history, it becomes filled with conspiracies. but is merely a process to 'understand' history by projecting intentionalities.

this 'compression' is what 'understanding' something really entails; at first... but then there's more.

when knowledge becomes understood it enables perception (e.g. we perceive meaning in words once we learn to read).

when we get really good at this understanding-perception we may start to 'manipulate' the abstractions we 'perceive'. an example would be to 'understand a cube' and then being able to rotate it around so to predict what would happen without really needing the cube. but this is an overly simplistic example

your comment reminds me of this very dark comedy skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR76R4gaC48

as soon as we can find an economic paradigm that doesn't rely on taxing the trade of exclusive assets we can have a digital renaissance.

the thing with digital information is we can all copy it. the problem is that our economic paradigm doesn't deal with infinite-copying well.

so far the only 'solution' I see, is figuring out ways to restrict, limit, and restrict the copying capabilities of digital stuff. which is not a solution, but a rejection of the 'novel' possibilities enabled by digital technologies.

more cynically, it's not a rejection, but a capture. a few get to reap the huge benefits of digital copying, while the rest are relegated to collecting, trading arbitrary tokens and using them to pay for the permission to copy digital assets; which is completely dumb, I will die on this hill

> That's a mis-characterization of what's going on here.

it's not. it's a point made in a much more generalized context of discussion.

we're mixing different levels of generalization in this discussion, hence the discussion is broken and useless.

there's no redhat, there is only IBM.

let's just please not forget that they lived in a different time and place... I'm sure in Hilbert's time there was nothing bad about what he said like there's now.

not that I particularly like Hilbert, he gives me a bad vibe because:

how do I forgive shitty professors who have refused to help me? how do I let go of the fact they are awful people from a different era? How do I refuse to undergo the rituals which teach things I whish to not learn (certain attitudes) while at the same time making it through those same rituals I reject?

and it turns out the professor I speak of IS on D. Hilbert's lineage!

but how long should we pay for digital assets that have already been created?

to pay for stuff already made is not an economically productive activity. it doesn't create any more value. and this is even worse over digital assets;

also, this is why I was observing a distinction between digital goods which won't change (most media expressions) and software which needs updating

I consider this an open problem; but I have a minority view, as I always get downvoted when stating this position.

as I see this, the current hollywood strike is consequence of failure to acknowledge what I'm saying. and it'll keep getting worse. the problems in academic publishing are also an expression of this things I keep saying. I'm starting to get tired of saying this shit. not only do things not change, but they keep getting worse.

I suppose property over [blank] asserts itself over the digital to the decrement of most and the advantage of few. I see it slipping away... what could have been. what we could have had with the internet as we seem to chose (and I'm dragged along) to a world where everything is a service subscription and a few lucky ones collect rent forever; I guess they already do and always have, but now they will also do it over digital assets. capturing for themselves the technologically provided boons of the digital and internet technology

another way to frame the "entitlement to free stuff" is to consider the real costs of duplicating and copying digital assets: there are essentially negligible (and less than marginal)

though I suppose this is a little difference between 'static' digital assets that we don't expect will change, like digital art, or games, or mp3 and so on... and 'runtime software' which we expect will have to continuously adapt, be improved, and will need to get updated. though this is a fine line.

why should only a few select group get to capture the enormous productivity boon enabled by digital copying? that I ask this question doesn't mean I hate capitalism, I think that there are things it's great at, and things at which capitalism sucks.

digital assets are exactly where capitalism becomes the worst, whereas material assets are exactly where capitalism is at its best.

I peered behind the curtain and I cannot lie to myself

i don't?

I just wanna have physical ownership of the photos I upload into the cloud

if my shit goes down, only me is to blame and only me has a problem

if my house get's blown over by a river, I have bigger problems than streaming music from my own personal server and backing up my own photos

in a more ideal world, I have some replication on 'friends' servers. but nobody runs their own shit.

the cloud is a failure of the internet

originally we were all going to be able to host our own stuff in our closets, the 'intelligence' goes in the edges.

then the industrialists went full-cloud on this idea. and the 'intelligence' got concentrated in a few gigantic industrial warehouses.

but it sure feels more orderly this way. why spread the load when you can focus it and centralize it?

google is the new microsoft. has been for a few years now.

solution: make sure people lose access to such "dangerous" tooling

this will surely make Adobe stock rise even further. it's a win-win! (and yet... I have a sensation we all lose)

/angry sarcasm.... I just keep reading awful news lately

on the other hand. the very 'late' results of criminalizing drugs are also really terrible.... e.g. latin america

the free software movement and its close companion movement of open source are in need of a renewal

I think we should call it "liberty minded software"... software which cares and caters to the liberties of the users and makers of the software.

the concept of "this idea is mine, hence not yours" cannot die soon enough.

improving language (and communication) is never a solved problem

you pass it in?

it looks like it is a two argument function

> Why did geniuses during these periods exercise so much cultural force?

because of "historical leverage". the same basic idea as a lever but instead of 'amplifying' over space, it does so over time.