Why is he so hated here? Twitter model is one thing that is kinda fit for global-open-decentralized approaches without much difference for the user. I could never use it, but plenty of people do and seem to have a feeling of hivemind over it.
Humans are apes desiring power, there’s no excuse under which you can give it to them. They’ll invent authority giving them right to judge you and think they are in the right.
Also why I absolutely despise the Silicon Valley - it’s many such people who think they are the elite now. I want that place detroited as soon as possible. Zuckerberg prosecuted for all the murders he’s committed (I’m certain there are plenty, a person with ASPD with such power just can’t be anything else) which are now unknown, Brin and other jerks playing “cooperating with legal elected authorities” while giving them something with no mandate whatsoever feeling themselves powerful - prosecuted for high treason, all these playing censorship and recommendation - prosecuted for scams on the scale of billions, yadda-yadda.
Cops saying this should be immediately sued for inciting hate or defamation or whatever against people who don’t want to be backdoored.
I have a right to not be surveilled, they don’t have a right to surveil me.
Anyway, I might all the time fly a weird trajectory between various ideologies, but they are all anarchist and Silicon Valley bosses are all thieves.
Well. Not very different from “opening up” to hashish fumes or Tarot cards or Chinese fortune cookies.
And robotic therapists are a common enough component of classical science fiction, not even all dystopian.
For the record, I agree that the results suck. Everything around us is falling apart, have you noticed?
You can do more with less with 1% deadly error rate, and you can do much more with much less with 10% deadly error rate. Military and economic logic says that the latter wins . Which means the latter wins evolution.
And we (that is, our parents and grandparents) have built a nice world intended for low error rates, because they didn’t think such a contradiction between efficiency and correctness will happen, or they thought that it’s our job to root out our time’s weeds, loosely quoting Tolkien, and they have rooted out theirs as well as they could.
Which means that nice world doesn’t survive evolution.
I’ve met Russian-speaking Israelis in TG, and even if he hasn’t, they already think that.
I think everyone thought of what you described, but most lacked mind discipline to think in specifics.
That’s all I wanted to say, very cool, good luck.
(I personally would prefer thinking of a distributed computer (tasks distributed among members of a group with some redundancy and a graph of execution dependencies, results merged, so the initial state a node retrieves only once), but I lack knowledge of fundamentals.)
Because the replacement comes from non-graybeards in FOSS, and their replacement from without-beards in FOSS, and they come from youths in FOSS, and they from teens geeking around with computers, and oops - teens are not geeking around with computers, they are watching reels and scrolling recommendations and doing other bullshit. If they have a PC, it’s an unloved work tool for them, with crappy bloated Windows, crappy bloated software for work and studies, not always crappy, but bloated games, you get the idea.
Because there was a generation very fertile on geeks. It’s going away. There are demographic pits and there are demographic, what they call them, hills? The point is, we are seeing the effects of the latter.
Not sure which particular parts are confusing, so I’m going to guess and rephrase like this:
People are obviously different, it’s obvious that a certain process can’t fit all sizes, so if there’s a kind of “attitude” with which that process fails, then the problem can be both with the process and with the attitude.
And in my personal experience there are processes which work just fine with that attitude.
Processes are built for human needs. Not humans are built for processes.
So the problem is with the process, which includes the instructor who seems to think that it’s not.
Then you are a bad instructor, obviously.
Because it’s often not like this and the difference is usually in the instructor.
That’s what I take from that.
(Other than common sense about meaningless mimicking versus gradual understanding from small steps, confirmed by plenty of research about didactics.)
People are different. For me personally “trusting the process” doesn’t work at all. Fortunately no, you don’t have to, generally.
Seem to be 2 problems. One is obvious, the other is that such tedious boilerplate exists.
I mean, all engineering is divide and conquer. Doing the same thing over and over for very different projects seems to be a fault in paradigm. Like when making a GUI with tcl/tk you don’t really need that, but with qt you do.
I’m biased as an ASD+ADHD person that hasn’t become a programmer despite a lot of trying, because there are a lot of things which don’t seem necessary, but huge, turning off my brain via both overthinking and boredom.
But still - students don’t know which work of what they must do for an assignment is absolutely necessary and important for the core task and which is maybe not, but practically required. So they can’t even correctly interpret the help that an “AI” (or some anonymous helper) is giving them. And thus, ahem, prepare for labs …
No fucking way, but mah direct democracy …
So. Switzerland doesn’t really have fully direct democracy in the necessary sense. It’s still an old nation-state with laws made in the olden day when you had to compromise. There are many cases where the “direct” part is optional and requires interested people to assemble signatures yadda-yadda. Not good enough to counter a campaign for legal change with a goal. That aside, its system encourages it to have politicians as a thing. Which means that for some issues it will always drift shitward.
It also has separation of 3 kinds of government by degree of locality, but not separation of the “an entity ensuring food safety can’t regulate telecommunications” or “an entity regulating police labor safety can’t regulate riot police acceptable action” kinds.
(Which is why I usually refer to my preference for a kind of “direct democracy” as a revised one-level Soviet system with mandatory rotation, plenty of places and sortition to state worker roles, despite that not having very good connotations.)