internet gryphon, they/she

  • 123 Posts
Joined 8M ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


more like “the society’s ridiculous standards made some men insecure about their heights”.

yeah this is a thing which is more or less directly caused by conventional beauty standards, it’s not a thing that happens in a vacuum! phrasing it like that is a weird choice.

their core ideas:

nobody has gotten it quite right yet

we think existing platforms have some good ideas, but no one’s managed to create one without profound flaws. we’re borrowing liberally from other sites, but we want to build cohost into something that works well and serves its users rather than just another clone. there is value in being in the same place as everyone

on a web without functioning search engines, blogs and friends-only sites may be okay for some, but they leave people who are scraping by on public visibility and word of mouth in the lurch. …but nobody wants a digital panopticon

on modern social media, there is an ever-present fear that someone will see your post, have their own bad faith interpretation, and decide to ruin your day over it. platforms are often built to encourage this sort of behavior to drive up engagement, but they don’t have to be. metrics are ruining our lives

modern social media is designed around a vicious feedback loop that keeps users Engaged at the expense of their mental health, all in order to make their executives more money. the value of social media is its posts

we aren’t the ones providing the most important part of cohost — you are. cohost exists to give you ways to express yourself and stay in touch with your friends.

my suspicion is this will not be “successful”, but i am interested in it because it feels like this kind of stuff–which is closer to how stuff on the internet used to be–is the next “innovation” in social media to be had.

not surprising at all, and in fact italy specifically is a really good example of how this can manifest. due to the widespread political conspiracies and corruption during the years of lead, the country has an equally widespread distrust of basically all its political figures, so conspiracism has taken a very strong root there. last year polling found 20% of the population suspicious of 5G, 11% of the population believing vaccination was useless, and almost 65% of italians believing big multinationals were “responsible for everything that happens to us”.

Advertising has a habit of grabbing any available space where we look, and if train windows are available, I’ll bet it’s going to happen any time soon. No, I’d expect it would not happen on those beautiful Alpine railways… But on dreary subway trains, oh yes! Maybe a nice use would be to display passing Alpine scenery on a subway train?

i’m reminded of the ongoing, piecemeal adoption of advertising screens on glass doors in supermarkets, which is a particularly cynical and dystopian, egregious example of this. i fully expect similar to happen with train windows if an opportunity arises.

Wake me up when the cryptocurrency community decides that these scams are a bad thing and something needs to be done about them, so far it looks like that community is more than happy they happen, as long as it helps provide liquidity to the space.

i’m reminded of how when dan olson did his big video on crypto at the beginning of the year he found the community more or less encouraged basic financial fraud schemes like pump-and-dumps and how if you made an NFT project–heavily tied to cryptocurrency–artificially inflating the value was a prerequisite to show you cared about your investors. the whole ecosystem is really just a nesting doll of scams, lol.

one of the funny consequences of this downstream is it’s bled heavily into fascist aesthetic; no doubt if you’ve spent enough time on twitter or another such website you’ve run into the traditionalist who thinks the bleached roman statue or the great, bland roman building is the pinnacle of art and who doesn’t realize they weren’t like that before

i’m not a tech person but i’ve kept an eye on MNT’s work, and it’s good to see they’re expanding their focus beyond just computers

the wikipedia problem is a real one but to be honest, i think a more immediate problem is that right-wing media is often free (because it’s both cheap to produce, extremely profitable, and even if it isn’t has billionaires who very willingly subsidize it), and good reporting that is easier to read and challenges your worldview often is not.

Then, on July 20, 2022, in a post on the Minecraft website, developer Mojang Studios dropped a bombshell: Minecraft would not support integrations with NFTs. The company laid out its position and stated in bold text that “blockchain technologies are not permitted to be integrated inside our Minecraft client and server applications nor may they be utilized to create NFTs associated with any in-game content, including worlds, skins, personal items, or other mods.”

For Critterz, the implication was existential. Although Mojang’s announcement did not detail how its new policy would be implemented, it seemed likely that a failure to comply with the new rules could lead to the end of the Critterz Minecraft server and the collapse of its in-game economy. Players who had paid thousands of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency for Critterz NFTs saw their investments plummet in value, and those who had been making money playing the game had their incomes vanish.

i… have no idea why these people thought that Mojang was going to be amenable to the ponzi scheme-ass style of game this is, or even why they thought Minecraft would support NFT integration. what could possibly incline you to believe this is a thing Minecraft needs, and which you stake so much of your wealth on?

removed for the following reason: beyond being out of date, this appears to be incorrect on several fronts. as mentioned by heady even the article does not say this bans hentai–only certain forms of hentai–and furthermore if there is a ban it appears to no longer be in effect.

as of this moment, kiwifarms appears on the verge of total and permanent collapse. lol, lmao even.

definitely feels like a “fuck around, find out” moment both on kiwifarms’s part and on cloudflare’s, because now they look like complete jackasses to a lot of their customers for their attempt to hold out on this.

yeah, from what i’ve seen it’s often extremely finicky even in situations you’d expect it to be able to handle and in which it shouldn’t be having issues, and that’s kind of a non-starter for both individual usage (because it kind of defeats the point of autopilot if you have to still navigate by hand a decent amount of the time) and mass adoption (because of the exponentially increasing risk of something going wrong between cars on autopilot).

gab may also be in contention, since as i recall they also use mastodon (and as a consequence have to be actively defederated)

As of July 1, 2015, more than 70 million people have records indexed by the III.

that is an astronomical amount, jesus

looking forward to this deadline blowing by once again, because this technology is much more primitive than musk says it is and he knows it.

an interesting piece for consideration; i’m generally of the mind that this is correct, but there are some people who simply need to be imprisoned for life. to its credit this article does mention it here:

Of course, some offenders may have to stay locked up for life because they remain dangerous. How to assess and manage their sentences is an important question I will ignore here. But such cases account for a very small fraction of the nearly quarter of a million people incarcerated for life in the US today.

but i think it downplays the necessity of doing this, in spite of the few cases it does apply to. i think it’s probably fine to sentence your anders breiviks and jeffrey dahmers to life imprisonment and keep them there, for example, because it is very unlikely that they’ll be rehabilitated even in the best prison system conceivable.

All of which is why simple graphs of things like ‘global historical GDP’ can be a bit deceptive: there’s a lot of particularity beneath the basic statistics of production because technologies are contingent and path dependent. Now all of that said I want to reiterate that the industrial revolution only happened once in one place so may well could have happened somewhere else in a different way with different preconditions; we’ll never really know because our one industrial revolution spread over the whole globe before any other industrial revolutions happened. But we can still note that the required precursors for the one sample we have didn’t exist in the Roman economy.

this is a particularly interesting point to consider–what other ways might an industrial revolution (or series of them) happen besides the way in which ours did? i’m sure someone out there has written alternate history to this effect, since there’s alt history for almost everything you can think of.

i would encourage you to actually engage with the article, which is actually quite interesting, instead of flippantly dismissing it in a way that leaves no avenue for discussion at all.

Because, at the end of the day, deference epistemology tells you not to evaluate certain things in certain situations. I think the potential of that for particularly egregious kinds of exploitation is obvious.

If you say, well, this person’s perspective is what we’re going with, kind of regardless of what I privately feel, I think you’re going to encourage very recognizable forms of abuse, very recognizable forms of bullying.

this specific point gets at the heart of the problem imo: fundamentally, you are outsourcing your position/analysis/evaluation to someone else, and you are doing so in a implies that person’s position is unimpeachable–but that’s obviously illogical and unreasonable to expect of anyone. nobody is correct on every issue, and furthermore someone’s lived experiences may be extremely important and priceless, but they don’t guarantee a person will come to a right or reasonable conclusion about an issue either. so when we normalize this kind of shorthand thinking, we ensure that our future analysis will somehow be errant, because a point that should be challenged will eventually go unchallenged, or similar.