IGI-111

6 ms·

1.
by IGI-111 7y ago
Isn't that pretty much what CLRS is for?
2.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Usenet was fun while it lasted. But september will probably never end.
3.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Have some empathy for the loyal afficionados of the ML programming language. Poor folks must live a constant emotional rollercoaster reading this site.
4.
by IGI-111 8y ago
The most convincing argument against the commodification of sex is, in my opinion, that such intimacy holds a special enough place in human psychology that even an efficient sex market wouldn't make people happy. I'm not sure if i
5.
by IGI-111 8y ago
This is why I wouldn't blame it on socialism per se. It was the stated goal of the socialist government however to get there. And I'd rather argue that this aim partly caused the outcome. In fact I feel this is the main miscommuni
6.
by IGI-111 8y ago
And there is that meme again, people fail to understand what socialism is. Social policies or redistribution don't make a socialist state. Norway is a liberal democracy. The workers don't own the means of production there. And the
7.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Pretty sure spying on people who just want to play a video game without telling them or letting them opt out ahead of time is not only a bit immoral but also very much illegal, at least in Europe. I doubt the form they have on their website
8.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Queue long post about why such witty proverbs are overtly large generalizations that are never entirely true This is so self referential it should be called Brandolini's paradox.
9.
by IGI-111 8y ago
We'd just be back to the time where the powers that be demonized the internet for what it was: something they couldn't control or sometimes even understand. Email is a different beast, being private communication. But Usenet is ex
10.
by IGI-111 8y ago
So I suppose my stance that the benefits of online voting for direct democracy largely outweight the complexity cost of a sufficiently secure solution are equivalent to the older type of objectivists who realize that free market isn't
11.
by IGI-111 8y ago
You're arguing for the personal right to act a certain way as I understand it. I'm arguing that such an action has terrible ramifications on a large enough scale. These are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason that we ca
12.
by IGI-111 8y ago
People misuse Popper a whole lot. The paradox has more to do with being firm on the application of the rule of law as it pertains to violence than a metapolitical discussion.
13.
by IGI-111 8y ago
I know this is a joke (although only partly), but blocklists are honestly part of the problem. People got to this ridiculous level of childlike annoyance at the mere existence of dissent through group effects alone, but compounding it by li
14.
by IGI-111 8y ago
There's not escape, every nook and cranny is getting more political these days. Not sure why, I blame total ideologies that prescribe the personal being political.
15.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Certainly. But free speech is an inherently liberal position by definition, construction and history. You're free to think that it's all bunk and tyranny of the majority is just fine. Many people do. I'd just like it to be cl
16.
by IGI-111 8y ago
It's the good kind of nihilism I suppose: accepting that ultimate futility doesn't spare you from having to strive for meaning, but it does help you relativize your losses. That said on the topic of conservation, or more accuratel
17.
by IGI-111 8y ago
Well more specifically it's one of the longstanding arguments against SaaS as a concept. It's a tired tune to say that RMS was right, but he was. Letting people be controlled by software is not a good idea for pragmatic reasons th
18.
by IGI-111 8y ago
It is a core tenet of Liberalism (in the actual sense of the word) that yes, free speech does mean that you have a right for your ideas to be engaged. Moreover people like Mill or Popper would argue people have a duty to engage every idea,
19.
by IGI-111 8y ago
I think the core assumption blockchain proponents make is that a lot of problems can be better solved if they rely on trustless sytems, and that this includes mainstream things. I'm not sure if i agree with that, but there once was a t
20.
by IGI-111 8y ago
I think it's fair to be reminded here that centralized computing has existed in the past, and that the IBM was unsinkable.
21.
by IGI-111 8y ago
The obvious benefit of something like Filecoin is that you don't have to trust people to host your data. However vile it may seem to some, if they want to get paid they have to provably host it. And it's fragmented enough that you
22.
by IGI-111 9y ago
>Those people were there specifically for harassment. This is a lie. And you don't have a fact to back it up.
23.
by IGI-111 9y ago
You're forgetting that politics are inherently subjective. There is no way for you to make up a rule about what should be banned besides "I don't agree with it".
24.
by IGI-111 9y ago
As usual, depends on the contents of the code. That kind of legalese is just tooling to organize discourse. You won't build an open minded community if its rules mandate righthink. Doesn't mean you can't try and protect peopl
25.
by IGI-111 9y ago
We'll make some. The gamble we're making is that we're smart enough to survive in the most dire conditions. That's a stupid gamble, but we might win. Plus we're on a roll so far.
26.
by IGI-111 9y ago
Affordable enough space travel that we can survive. Earth is just a bootstrap.