71–80 of 924 posts
I feel this one. Having worked in security in the past, even I often feel overwhelmed keeping my own security going. I use the best defense in depth that I can, but I know that's not enough.
This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…
Paul Frazee (of Beaker Browser) had a thread that got some good reach on distributed without consensus (but often some ability to see people break their contracts). Holo did come up. :) > Maybe it’s time to dig into the non-blockchain smart contract idea that’s been floating around for a while. Drop the PoW and transaction fees, but maintain the trustless verification and open data/code https://twitter.com/pfrazee/st…
If some group wants to lie and pick each-others pockets: well, OK, carry on. Just let me know about it, and not take part in it. It's not the end of the world.
I think most sensible people had figured this out already. The people that don't and honestly believe everything will be fixed by a DAO or whatever... they're beyond reason.
They're trying really hard to solve a problem that hasn't been solved yet, which requires placing oneself beyond the "reason" of skeptics. https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm Their solutions may not and perhaps probably will not work because it's a hard problem. The payoff for solving this problem is civilization without single points of failure. No more wheel of rising and falling empires that take all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you think about it, humanity really is getting better and better over time. That is such a vague statement it is essentially meaningless. Better how? How is it not better? What do you mean by humanity? How is your life better? How is it worse?
On average, middle class and below lives longer and more confortable than in the previous thousands of years.
So yeah, sure, we have netflix, smart bulbs and food delivery. Can you sustain a family as easily as your grandparents ? Will you retire as early as them ? Will you acquire an house as easily and as early ? How meaningful is your job ?
The endgame of "length and comfort" is to live in some kind of coma pod like in The Matrix, you'd probably live to 150 years in absolute comfort
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Let...
For everyone reading this article who agrees with it, I would encourage you to start reading some history, especially ancient history, late 1800s history, and the history of colonialism. Society, once you look at inputs and outputs, is predicated on "the masses" abdicating intellectual responsibility to leaders who leverage them for their own benefit. This has happened since before recorded history. It is codified in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On average, middle class and below lives longer and more confortable than in the previous thousands of years.
Length of life and comfort don't mean much once you reached the bare minimum. If you have running water, central heating, a mattress and own any kind of motorised vehicle you live a more comfortable life than any medieval king. So yeah, sure, we have netflix, smart bulbs and food delivery. Can you sustain a family as easily as your grandparents ? Will you retire as early as them ? Will you acquire an house as easily…
[flagged]
Only in the "No True Scotsman" definition of Socialism. Because making everyone else to do what you want (eg. give something that they have to someone who you deem deserves it more) will always require force. So, decide right now: how much force are you willing to apply? The answer will have to be sufficient force to ensure they yield: lethal force.
[flagged]
This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…
I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive. We need to work together to find the best solutions for as many people as possible.
Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. You would likely want to stop China from shooting nuclear missiles at San Francisco. Yet I doubt that when you insist on this narrative, you would think of yourself as being tyrannical.
One of the best observations about why people in urban areas are more liberal, and rural areas are more conservative, has to do with the idea that when you are around more people, you need more rules to guide how to interact with one another. When you live on your own 200 acre farm, you don't want someone to come in and tell you what to do with your tree. When you live in a 200 person apartment complex, you do care when your neighbors are being loud at 2am.
With technology, we are living closer and closer with each other. I don't know how you are going to be productive without consensus.