fluffernutter

> The Future is Decentralized

tHE fUTURE IS qUANTIZED

The most exciting discovery in our lifetime. Zero conversations about it on some lame social news platform owned and operated by a bunch of dogmatic capitalists.

Clueless to innovation outside their realm of control.

I had an FBI agent tell me they were at capacity for investigating new fraud and that, unless someone was going to die, they couldn't take on new cases. This was 2 years ago.

It's not an unanswered question. It's a meme that the government figured they could use to make people imagine the trash they leave being mailed to them by the government, which then implies the government knows where they live and who they are, whenever they leave trash.

Why does there have to be a means for the government to mail the trash back to the people, if just imagining the trash being mailed to them causes them to stop leaving trash?

I doubt you are going to leave trash, and the reason why is because you are asking hard questions of an illusion.

Isn't it they retell and embellish them to the point they sound believable, like GPT-3?

There is no such thing as cancel culture, just like there is no such thing as the Q behind Qanon. The reason why is because these concepts are memes held in the collective consciousness of humans (and now AI because we trained them on our crap).

No one person or organization exists to "cancel" things. It's a thing that happens, like nuns all meowing together at the same time. It's a phenomenon of nature, or mind, but not at an individual organization or at a personal belief level.

In other words, people may be "for" "cancel culture", but the growth and life of the phenomenon itself is empty of meaning in the individualist sense. Also, because things like Facebook enable these memes to form, your statement could easily be rewritten:

> Facebook is being targeted by mass thinking on their platform because of their refusal to entirely ban republicans off their platform.

Now we see the truth of the matter, which is that Republicans support the Tragedy of the Commons for their own gain.

Maybe you like things simple.

That question is a setup. A leading question. A question with intent. This is why you ask it, so you can reply the way you do when you answer it for us.

Who cares if any of those companies can operate in China freely? It's really their problem, not ours here on the forum to discuss on a post that removes our options and choices. What is important to discuss is whether or not portions of the US Government are acting illegally in blocking or interfering with freedom of action and speech BY INDIVIDUALS. Fuck the companies. They caused this problem.

Do I not have a right to buy a product and use it? Do I not have a right to use an application with which I best communicate with the people who are important to me? Is it not the US Government's job to oversee the communications coming in from outside our borders and protect us from the harm that may be leveled against us by a nation state's transmissions? Why is it the state insists on making illogical choices that place us in a double bind?

Why is it that our actions are now being very clearly limited? Why is it that we continue to allow our liberties to be removed, one sliver at a time, because of big business greed?

Patents are really the stupidest things ever.

The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money.

Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all.

Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion.

Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next?

If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.

I think, given the damage Facebook has done to our civilization, that nothing that guy does is worth discussing, other than how to undo what he has done.

I really don't care what book he thinks is good, or not. He's a bad source of data.

> But no other instance is obligated to listen to you.

So deleting DNS solves this for the Internet?

Confirmed not working on Firefox.

It's 2020, just for the record.

> A) What percentage of the company are you getting?

Usually you are getting something minuscule initially, well below any founder or board member's share. The logic is that, if there is going to be money made, the company will need lots of headcount and that headcount all needs to think they own something significant in the entity, which they don't because of vesting, dilution, new CEOs, etc.

> B) What dilution is going to happen?

Unknown, and depends on the performance of the management and board, if they even bother to perform later when all the money is gone (because the company is actually not profitable, shocker) and they have to suck up to someone else who wants a higher dilution so they can get a good percent of the company. Don't forget the employees will be "the problem" if the company runs out (which means RIFs or worse). Unless it's going gang busters, in which cases that minuscule amount stays the same. Oh, don't forget preferred stock.

> C) When can you sell your stake in the company?

Probably never, or maybe when it sells, if you are lucky. Besides, calling it a "stake" is really a fantasy given the stake's value is tied to whatever the investors thought it was worth, which in their mind is always more than any sane person would agree to spend on the company to make it their own company's problem. If the company is even slightly profitable (unlikely) then everyone would lose their minds thinking it's worth half a billion or something. Think two 20 something year old founders thinking their company is worth 1B+ and refusing to take an offer from Facebook for half that while today they are gone and it's not worth diddly.

> D) How soon and in what manner does it vest

Usually to the advantage of the company. Most people never vest their full amount of shares because the company doesn't sell and over 4 years (typical vest scheduling) the chances are the company will re-up its coiffures, which means dilution and besides which you can't stand working for these idiots for more than 2 and a half years, tops.

Ah, so it's just a story you are telling yourself and us.

That makes a lot more sense!

I suppose if people keep repeating this, then it might be a thing with a given group of people who keep repeating it to each other. In that case, good luck hiring people like me or that other person here who clearly thinks it's wrong to think like this.

I can assure you, our value over time exceeds that of dogmatic thinkers. That's because, by the time you believe something, it's no longer true and we know that to be a fact before you do because we don't buy into this story.

The issue is not whether you should accept a situation which appears to be mutually beneficial to you and the entity soliciting the review. Corporations are typically going to make decisions about the things they do based on income to to corporate entity. While this usually aligns to consumer need and demand (for happiness even), it usually doesn't as a whole. Facebook seems to give people what they want, but actually they figured out how to progressively remove choices from users to get EXACTLY what they want without the users realizing what had been lost (time, attention, focus, desire for a unique product vs. the product resulting from the software driven dogma of the crowd, etc.)

The question should be whether or not the embodied process is fair, in whole, to the users? As much as we worry about "right" API design here (or what is the perfect framework for CSS?), you'd think we'd worry about how bad we are screwing users with all this software optimized to make startups, founders, VCs and private equity firms more an dmore money with less and less effort.

REST is an architectural style and while the decision to use the style may lead to "lock in", it in and of itself does not given it's a choice to use it or not.

I remember that book and it had immersive feedback gloves that controlled the dragonfly.

> but the parts that are unique to our specific solution

Search terms tweaked for your unique interests, and not a commercial entity's, for example.

I posted about microtubuals here many years ago and people lost their minds. Now, here it is again in an article where an AI wrote it and I can't tell what is real and what isn't anymore.

This will become useful for my move away from the Bay.

Maybe people should stop listening to corporations and start doing their own things.

Same here. It's constantly hoping I'll watch videos I've already watched and its forgotten I've watched.

It is a fallacy to believe that public information about a non corporal entity would help establish fairness. All corporations operate under the act of blame and judgement to increase profits, or they simply cease to be.

It is probably true nobody who currently codes against Twitter APIs wants new APIs. I've rewritten them before and won't be doing it again. Maybe someone new will come along to replace us. Twitter doesn't care unless it makes them more views.

Doesn't matter anyway because they already got rid of the useful APIs, which broke everything anyone I knew had written. Handwriting has been on the wall.

Sort of like boycotting Facebook, it's only takes the step of stopping to set you free.

Why should anyone continue to use Twitter if it is unable to guarantee someone won't hijack one or more of its accounts?

Let's face it, those aren't our accounts or our data. They are Twitter's.

All of that is controlled by Twitter, and intended to serve their business interests, or whoever happens to be controlling Twitter at that moment.

It was just a few days ago someone else was controlling Twitter.

> This isn't a Facebook problem

This is most certainly a problem Facebook created, however. Blaming the public for "not knowing how to use nukes better" while still building and cramming nukes in their inboxes is just ridiculous and it's time for this charade to end.

> The author of this article is some former pentagon and possibly a military spook

This is literally a strawman argument.

> this kind of data investigation needs someone with a good data science background. Otherwise all we're doing is using very limited observable dataset to make bold statements

Some of the research mentioned was funded by:

> The Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust

> Craig Newmark Philanthropies

> Democracy Fund

> Facebook Journalism Project

> Ford Foundation

> Google News Initiative

> John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

> Open Society Foundations

> Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust

Other people (or maybe the same people saying dumb shit) also say brilliant things there. Dissuading use of a platform of a certain type over another (like this forum)is irrational.

We need better software for displaying said content, not banning the content entirely.

Also, freedom of speech isn't what most people think it is.

> amateur journalism

You mean people talking about people talking about people doing things?