481–490 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for the times it’s not. C was invented at some point too. Nock and Hoon serve a purpose and exist for a reason.
In principal there might be a time where it's necessary. In practice Nock and Hoon aren't it and are a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech? I could certainly argue with someone on HN but also say their banning is unjust (if I felt that it was). This has been a "solved" issue for centuries. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
Your comment is baffling. You ask, 'How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?', then spend the rest of your comment explaining why it's good to not retaliate against criticism. Did you mean to ask and answer your own question? If that was your intent it sure wasn't clear. Do you not know what "retaliate" means, even with the context clue of threatening lawsuits against journalists? Is your…
>Do you not know what "retaliate" means
I'm using the actual definition, which I assumed you were too?
"make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack."
If someone were to criticize you, you can "retaliate" while also believing said person should be kicked off the platform. I'm doing it right now.
>threatening lawsuits against journalists
https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+threaten+lawsuit+j...
I can't find anything about this, except for a FastCompany article which I can't access atm because their website is down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech? I could certainly argue with someone on HN but also say their banning is unjust (if I felt that it was). This has been a "solved" issue for centuries. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.
which critics?
When I search for this, I get this article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-tr...
Which is full of honestly ridiculous examples like "he told an analyst to shut up and stop asking boneheaded questions." Or "he told his followers to edit his wikipedia page" ...?
The "best" examples are of workers are are currently in litigation.
Everything else, I see no reason why one couldn't support free speech on a social platform while also requiring beta testers to sign NDAs.
>welcome the criticism and respond with facts Do you have examples of where/when this could have been done?
At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this just comes from the fact that when one supports free speech, it comes with a *. It's easier to say "I support free speech" vs "I support the idea people should be able to post their opinions online without being banned (this doesn't mean anyone can post live execution videos or organize crime, etc)."
Stop making these decentralised uncontrollable platforms, they just get overtaken or shut down by authorities, because we don't live in a lawless society.
Currencies that can't be controlled, publishing platforms that can't be controlled, platforms where people can work for free. I mean, really, what's the idea here, I'm really losing my patience with these experiments.
They will never succeed anyway, because we still live in a physical world and even the most decentralised and uncontrollable platforms can just get shut down, as we have seen so many examples of.
Why not try to make something that is actually compatible with how society works?
Stop hacking for a moment and spend a little time understanding the domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some examples?
The most prominent is the hyperloop. The energy needed to maintain the vacuum entirely cancels out, and possibly adds some, energy savings from reduced friction. Plus the speed gained would be negligible compared to a well designed atmospheric bullet train. It adds cost, complexity, and energy usage for literally no reason
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mean administration is decentralized? (not OP) Not really. Accounts are linked to one single instance, and if the admin of that instance decides to ban you, the other instances can’t do anything about it. It’s not one decentralized administration but a lot of smaller centralized administrations.
Why would other instances have any say over it? Like what you're describing is the purpose of decentralization. What you want is one large centralized administration that can dictate what each smaller instance can do. You're basically describing Reddit at that point. It's like claiming IRC isn't decentralized because the mods in a channel can kick people out for spam or whatever.
Not at all. I want some administration that’s shared between instances. If you take a SQL database and split it into one instance per table, is that "decentralization"? I would rather think that decentralization is adding more nodes to the same database, such as no data is lost if a node is down.
Mastodon is like this: instead of sharing all the messages on all instances, you have multiple independant instances that may or may not mirror the messages of other instances. If one server goes down, all the content that wasn’t mirrored is lost and all the user accounts are lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mean administration is decentralized? (not OP) Not really. Accounts are linked to one single instance, and if the admin of that instance decides to ban you, the other instances can’t do anything about it. It’s not one decentralized administration but a lot of smaller centralized administrations.
> a lot of smaller centralized administrations Isn't that how decentralisation works?
If there’s no synchronization between these administrations I fail to see how this has anything to do with decentralisation. It doesn’t remove the centralization, it just reduces its scope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In principal there might be a time where it's necessary. In practice Nock and Hoon aren't it and are a joke.
You clearly have some sort of axe to grind so I’ll leave it here.
If it's a serious plan with seriously dubious components, it needs a real defense. "Sometimes you need to build new languages from scratch" isn't a defense -- certainly not one that is proportional to the dubiousness of the plan.
https://developers.urbit.org/reference/hoon/overview has a lot of justifications that ... don't land. They're valid reasons to _consider_ doing what they've done, but on net, I just am not even slightly convinced that it's a tradeoff that is worth it. Especially the tradeoff of "not only should we make our own weird languages, we should make them totally obtuse to read and write, just for fun'. It is clearly not the tradeoffs a person trying to make a successful project that attracts developers would make.
I suppose I have an axe to grind with apologists for this because I think it's a shame they aren't putting their efforts into something with a better chance of succeeding, since I agree with their goal but not their plan for getting there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a strawman because no one has claimed that a CEO must focus on short-term shareholder profit. The point is that the CEO works for the owners of the company. (In a publicly traded company that's typically shareholders represented by a board.) To keep their job the CEO just needs to be able to convince the owner(s) that they're making the right decisions. In the case of Apple, most owners (shareholders) trusted…
No it isn't. The claim is "A CEO is just an employee, paid by the shareholders to do the job shareholders want him to do." That claim lets four words, "the job chareholders want," work pretty hard. Could mean anything. Could be "run great shareholder meetings with lots of swag" or it could mean "do something that we can't imagine ourselves because otherwise we'd do it instead of investing here." In TFA Dorsey briefly…
As no one is making this argument, it's rather hard to continue the discussion past that point but I will try. I agree that the CEO can actively seek out new owners that more closely match the CEO's vision, but even then they are working for the existing owners (who must agree to sell) until it is sold, at which point they will be working for the new owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most prominent is the hyperloop. The energy needed to maintain the vacuum entirely cancels out, and possibly adds some, energy savings from reduced friction. Plus the speed gained would be negligible compared to a well designed atmospheric bullet train. It adds cost, complexity, and energy usage for literally no reason
I never heard anybody claim that Hyperloop vacuum tunnels were about energy savings. Hyperloop is about replacing air travel with an alternative that could offer similar or higher speeds. If you want to go 1000+ km/h (or multiples) reducing friction is a requirement and definitely not because of energy savings but because the vehicle would heat up and/or break, and then of course the turbulence and noise.