ta8645

You're right. That was less traumatic, but still fun, heh.

That is one seriously funky website; I will not recover from the experience soon.

For anyone who doesn't want to clone the above repo, english_knight turns out to just be a template for idiomatic makefiles. I pasted the relevant file from the repo here:

https://nopaste.net/english_knight

Yes, I agree that they're taking the SV approach of "move fast and break things". They believe that government is severely broken, and this is their chance to reform it in significant ways. But obviously that's little comfort to you, if you get caught up in any breakage.

What I wish is that the Democrats had heard the plea of so many working class Americans, who were basically saying the same thing as you. "Your policies, (like mass immigration), make me fearful for the future, and I don't know how I will survive, or thrive". It was the dismissal of their fears, often with derision and insults, that pushed so many of them into the arms of Trump.

Your dire predictions are a little premature. If we take them at their word, they're looking to reduce waste, and there's little reason to believe that treatment for autism falls into that category. Does anyone believe that there is no corruption or waste between the time of funding and delivery to a patient? Any dollars saved, and any efficiency gained, should be a net positive, no?

> It's their specialization.

As others have mentioned, we have gone through this in human history before, say when looms became automated and huge employers disappeared overnight. Things change, and those that come after us, wont miss the things that disappeared; nobody is calling for the destruction of automated looms today in order to restore those manual jobs.

To my mind, the problem is one of expectations, and wildly out of control governments which empower corporate monopolies. It has disempowered small, local communities to trade and lift each other up, in small and simple ways.

> I, an invested member in the continuation of society, would like a rather non-violent world to be in our future.

Of course, but we don't get there following fantasies. The truth is, through most of human history, most people were peasants eking out the most meager of lives. Often dying of disease in childhood, or at least well before their 30th birthday.

The problem is not poverty today.

By all realistic measures, nearly every single person in America (even those living on the street) is wealthier than most of our ancestors. The problem isn't even wealth inequality, since that's always existed as well, (and probably always will since it seems impossible to devise a political system that is durable and corruption proof).

The problem is unrealistic desires and a fantasy that everyone can live a rich life unconstrained by material limitations. The incredible wealth that Americans had enjoyed post WWII (arguably at the expense of much of the rest of the world) has set up unattainable expectations in people.

That's not to say we can't do better, but we need to reframe the entire problem and set it in the context of human history, not the last few hundred years of unsustainable growth.

Money flows to the things people want. The real housewives, the view, twilight, etc. Hell people make millions simply playing video games on twitch. But nobody is owed an income for doing something they love.

The question you should be asking, is how do you increase demand for the things you value? How do you make people want the thing you have to offer. Musicians, comedians, and other artists who figure out that answer (or luck into it), get very wealthy indeed.

> For. Doing. Nothing.

That's obviously not true. I've tried doing nothing for a long time, and am not anywhere close to a billionaire.

The question for the people who find this outrageous, why didn't you find the opposite situation just as outrageous? For years, liberals have been tacitly and often explicitly endorsing censorious behavior of Twitter, Meta and others as not only legitimate, but desirable. And this outcome is exactly why that was a dangerous position to embrace. Because, soon enough, someone you don't agree with will come into power.

We need to denounce censorship always, _especially_ when we disagree with those being censored.

Zig is a joy to write; it feels like a much-improved C. Writing and cross-compiling a custom app for Windows was great. The only thing I'd mention is that there is a lot of outdated information on the net for it. Zig has evolved and changed quite a bit, leaving it quite difficult to search (or chatbot) for up-to-date information on its syntax and idioms. It can be frustrating to get so many incorrect answers.

The difference being that the culture isn't awash in people demanding adherence to Kant. It seems that every time someone voices an objection to the tiresome identity-politics that is so prevalent today, others will ensure the conversation devolves into a discussion of slippery definitions and pedantic dismissals of the complainant's understanding.

The truth is, _many_ people are fed up with the dominant leftist dogma that permeates almost every area of culture, government, and the economy today. We can argue until the sun goes down about the nature and specifics of what that entails, but people are reacting to _something_; it does exist, irrespective of any failure to describe it well.

Isn't the same true for humans? Most of us stay in the same statistical search space for large chunks of our lives, all but sleepwalking through the daily drudgery.

They should get a new one. The P 6 in the wings relates back to an association that they're explicitly trying to move away from. Ie. the whole justification of the rename to Roku in the first place.

My wife grew up in a very poor home, with no dad, and a barely functional, mentally ill mother. She's a strong woman who never complains about the struggles she's faced in becoming successful.

But she does tell a heartbreaking story of being a young, confused kid, who truly thought she must be a bad person because Santa never brought her anything. It puts the lyrics... "He's making a list. He's checking it twice. He's gonna find out who's naughty or nice" in a different light.

The very first rudimentary standalone example:

     (define (main) (display "Hello world\n"))   

Doesn't compile, but instead gives error:

     Error: main: global variable `scheme#display' has unknown type

To connect to the PDP-11:

telnet pdp1173.com

login: guest

Why do you believe that to be the case?

The channel in question has a long history of showing all the problems they encounter for every iteration of the software. Started out saying it wasn't ready or usable by the average person. They've slowly become more and more impressed.

They post long, unedited videos of multi-hour-long rides with nothing elided, just long dull, monotonous driving. These condensed edited versions are just to highlight the successes, and failures, in a more digestible format.

> .. by various internal practices we can modulate our understanding of "Reality"

You just restated my explanation in more flowery language.

> There is a lot more complexity and nuance to this then your comment may lead one to believe

There's nothing in your link that contradicts my assertion. On top of which, you haven't offered an alternate explanation as to why Buddhism has produced so much more deep contemplation, than practical technology. If it is truly equal to the pragmatism that was elucidated in the article, the technological revolution would have been much further along 2000 years ago.

My impression is that Buddhism has a focus on "inner life" rather than the material world. So their pragmatism would naturally be employed on spiritual attainment, rather than science. After all, large factions within Buddhism believe that the reality around us, is mere illusion.

You're not wrong, you're just failing to appreciate the difference in scale.

Why should Republicans have to put up with hordes of deranged leftists who believe all conservatives are inherently evil Nazi's? Why should white men have to put up with all the racists who believe they're systemically, irrevocably evil by nature, and awaiting the day that all white people can be killed or enslaved?

Diversity of viewpoints doesn't mean every viewpoint is equally valid. It means that we endure the crazies on both sides, and don't let their stupid theories prevent rational conversation and good-natured and loving people from coexisting. That is, we become more mature, and find ways to cool down the hyperbolic rhetoric -- not abandon each other.

There are bad actors everywhere. But, as far as I can tell, there are very few bans of anyone on X, and no censorship or shadow-banning of any account. The community-notes section is available to everyone, so that misinformation can be challenged (but of course relies on people of opposing views participating). These are marked improvements over the previous regime.

All the abuses you're describing, were going on previously, it was just accepted by the majority as a good-thing, because it was only hurting "Nazi's". I'm not supporting anything the current ownership does on that basis, i'm saying we should all be fighting for a new paradigm, not just recreating the old one on a new platform.

And currently, there are very few voices standing up for a healthier interaction between people with opposing views. This will take a lot more than any technological fix, it will require an attitude shift. That isn't possible if we take our respective corners, and only come out when the fight-bell rings.

Again, I totally understand your objection, and you're right about the potential abuses that exist. The reason I said it is better now than before, is that the abuses under the previous ownership were not potential, they were real and being perpetrated every day. So I see X as _currently_ a much better place than it has ever been in its history.

But I'm with you on the potential problems and would rather have a system that was immune to such issues. What i'm really arguing against is people who saw the previous regime as correct and just, and are looking to recreate their echo-chamber somewhere else.

Part of what it will take to create a healthy town-center, that is much better than X, is for more people to speak up for ideals of diversity and tolerance. And to fight against the very loud and angry segment of people who see censorship and authoritarian control as good things, as long as they're working in their own favor.

Actually, my opinions are not reliant on the results of such a test.

Anything that X does which favors right-wing opinions, and censors or diminishes left-wing opinions, I oppose. I'm for free speech, and all of us being in the same proximity to hash out our differences, and accept that there will be some which always remain.

> Online communities have existed for over four decades now and we still haven't solved these problems.

The beautiful thing about digital graffiti is that you can remove it instantly, and return to an unmarred environment. As long as such tools are provided to each person, those who enjoy graffiti can leave it in place too. Win-Win.

We do need a new vision, with people embracing and promoting digital maturity. Both in a reduction of trolling, and in a stronger resilience against it. Because not everything that is objectionable, is graffiti. You should not hate your neighbor because he has a different political sign on his front yard during election season. We have to stop equating everything that is objectionable, as a catastrophic, intolerable insult.

There is a way to coexist, without it being a constant ideological battle all the time. If we can talk about the things we DO agree about, it makes it easier to talk about the things we don't. That's only possible if we're in proximity to one another.

Hiding in our own echo-chambers does not solve any real problems, and it creates new ones.

That's a very dangerous idea that has been tried in communistic countries many times. It always leads to horrendous outcomes and the authoritarian control of the public.

We should each follow our own moral compass, and oppose viewpoints that we find horrific. But trying to systematically stamp out disagreeable ideas, rather than to influence people with better ideas, is a road to hell.

You might be right, I don't have the data to know. But it might just feel that way, because previously it was entirely left-wing political content that was being pushed.

> People aren't leaving X because of polite disagreement. They're leaving because ideological extremism and hate not only run wild but are actively promoted by the platform.

I disagree. I think the definition of hate and extremism has been warped to encompass things that aren't either of those things. And that's part of the problem. The rhetoric has become so hyperbolic that we're having a hard time coexisting.

The answer is for us to walk that back, and encourage actual dialogue, not run into our own safe bunkers.

You can talk to the people at your table in a restaurant, and it doesn't matter if the table beside you is talking about something you disagree with. The food tastes the same.

I don't think the answer to the potential right-wing censorship, is left-wing censorship. Right now, X is actually closer to the ideal than any time in its history.

But yeah, if there is a truly distributed system, that had facilities and incentives which support and even promote diverse interactions, that'd be even better.