It’s supposed to be growth related to the things which didn’t progress, so to say. So it’s not literally supposed to be growth of processes, just that stagnation makes things diminish in value, and compared to them things more alive “grow”. Something like that.

Kinda like inflation. And that’s fine, that can describe a pretty sustainable society, it’s not about consuming more and more, it’s like rotation.

Except with today’s oligopolies there’s a different idea, that they really have to grow as in capturing more and more of humanity’s resources. The AI bubble (or not) is their most recent approach to that.

That’s because expectations were shaped by the 90s when many things exploded (unfortunately much of that were countries, also landmines and other expendable means of destruction).

In the 00s it was possible to create illusion of that explosion still going on brighter and brighter, despite just continuing what started in the 90s, and then to create a few large-scale scams (or madness pandemics, or tech fashions, whatever ; point is they weren’t the same as years 1993-1999) with iPhones, new Apple in general, Google, Facebook, Twitter.

I’m not saying it was fake or worthless, it was a revolution too, but not what companies try to show since the dotcom bubble.

So - they are still trying to show that, with kinda rough, generic, and insincere effort, a bit like sex workers in their makeup.

And they can’t show that without such expansion in width, not in height.

I remember it when old sysadmins would remember OS/2, Fidonet and be respectful to FreeBSD (despite not having touched it for many years). And I’m kind young.

There are now “old” sysadmins loyal to Windows? Something is wrong with this decade.

So dramatic, LOL

If you buy\rent a house (suppose) intended as, well, housing, and make a family diner there without registration, you will break the law.

They can easily do this with the Internet.

They have a demographic pit in front of them which they themselves created with “1 child policy”.

Also CCP too doesn’t exactly serve the people. It’s a hierarchy of (possibly benevolent) bureaucrats.

Well, from this description it’s still usable for things too complex to just do Monte-Carlo, but with possible verification of results. May even be efficient. But that seems narrow.

BTW, even ethical automated combat drones. I know that one word there seems out of place, but if we have an “AI” for target\trajectory\action suggestion, but something more complex\expensive for verification, ultimately with a human in charge, then it’s possible to both increase efficiency of combat machines and not increase the chances of civilian casualties and friendly fire (when somebody is at least trying to not have those).

I initially perceived piracy similarly to how or perceive reading about archaeology and such, so the fact that someone is sincere in hating p2p copying and calling it immoral just felt preposterous.

Yet now it seems plenty of normies will agree. Then go listen to something they didn’t pay for on YouTube or Facebook or whatever, because “everybody uses that”. What “everybody uses” is fine, see. What they condemn me the pirate for is using ed2k, torrents and such other technologies. Even when I’m literally downloading public domain stuff or abandonware.

Opus is far better, but with MP3’s there’s been plenty of hardware players only working with that format. Also Opus is new, before it was Vorbis which was kinda as good as MP3 but far less popular.

And yes, MP3 is very “good enough”, like JPEG.

Year 2025 - politicians are held under control by evidence of them having raped children

Year 2035 - politicians are held under control by evidence of them having made children outside of the state incubator

The point is to make children used to checks.

It’s a didactic law.

IRL usually children grow up feeling they are free (except for their parents) to an extent.

This is intended so that identifying yourself in the Internet were normal by the time you grow up for it to matter.

But, of course, there might be some good considerations, if you’re into playing devil’s advocate. People might remember which stupid shit they were posting when they were younger, and want for future generations to be always conscious of the difference between pseudonymity and anonymity, and superficial anonymity vs real. People might want to make it so that nobody had a false sense of security, leading to really bad mistakes. People might want this to be the step preceding some way to fight bots.

And they might even not have good considerations, but eventually realize that the oppressive system they are building is best rebuilt for something better and used differently. Wouldn’t be the first time in history.

It’s just that laying down your arms in hopes for that is unwise.

YK, guys. Maybe it’s not a bubble. Just people prefer the future of hunger and poverty to the future of random unaccountable murders and totalitarianism plus hunger and poverty.

mpc as in mpd CLI client, where mpc_pl_len and mpc_pl_jmp procedures are not listed, but just call it with some other Unix commands to get playlist length and jump to a playlist position.

It doesn’t involve anything other than rights and freedoms. There’s simply no space for you not being a bullshitting leftie jerk here.

Go to Opus 128 kbps. About the same as MP3 320 or better.

most people are gonna have a hard time differentiating.

With the usual psychoacoustic model of MP3 if you can hear the difference between 320 MP3 and FLAC you are either lying or there’s something wrong with your speakers. It’s certain with long odds.

How about 48 kbit MP3? And more than that, for plenty of recordings that’s sufficient.

An algorithm for them:

set rand [clock microseconds]
set len [mpc_pl_len]
set to [expr {$rand%$len}]
mpc_pl_jmp $to

It’s P2P, like Napster used to be. You’ll have to share something or you’ll get auto-ignored by most users.

Oh, reminds me, you should also sort your share. I once got march-horny, added some German marches to my download queue (no judging pls), and then got a PM from the guy sharing them that I should keep my collection in order. And yes, the jerk ignored me.

Also not really p2p, there is a central server. The downloads are p2p.

RuTracker is a great non-private/non-ratio-monitoring torrent site for music

It was ratio-monitoring, that’s how it became great. Just after banned in Russia they decided that those who try hard enough to even reach there can be trusted to behave.

It’s not only for music, it’s for everything.

Suppose true, then we’ll reduce the use of “the whole Internet”.

OK, we won’t, no tools yet.

I really love Briar, except it’s functionally not quite there yet, and the desktop kind of such application synchronized with neighboring ships, so to say, with a delay-tolerant Web alternative, would be good. Over various links and media.

Anyway, it’s not a technical problem, it’s a social problem. Not really different from ID checks on the streets and everywhere you go in the city, except much of the city got virtualized. And ID checks on the streets are automated by cameras everywhere and face recognition.

Social problems are resolved in the legal, social, protest, civil war fields.

Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.

No, it’s not, this is factually incorrect.

You seem to be in denial that some ideologies start from a desired society to imagining whatever criteria will fit to practical means, like yours, and some, like libertarian ones, start from a set of desired criteria to imagining different possible desired societies and value sets and practical means fitting them. You seem pretend instead that libertarianism is too like the former ideologies, but with something you don’t like as the desired point.

Also even typical ancap doesn’t ignore externalia. Air pollution, for example, is considered. You might just not know what the flying fuck you are talking about, thinking it’s “something-something absolute property rights”.

I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can’t say that US oligarchs from the time “just loved liberal democracies with left traits”.

In rhetoric of course they did, just like in rhetoric they like libertarianism now. I don’t need anything more, because you haven’t provided anything more.

Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).

Facebook and Google and Apple and Microsoft are the oligarchies I was thinking about.

individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about “free” association.

This is a word salad. The whole point of libertarianism is that responsibility can’t be delegated. It’s just that to demand some things from others is not in your right, but that’s not about their responsibility, that’s about you making weird demands.

Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.

What is this intended to say?

I said it’s a good institution because it still does what it’s intended to do - provides libertarian perspective on events without drift.

I didn’t say you’ll find things you won’t call these cliches. Their purpose is not in being liked by you or in any way delivering upon your desires what they should and shouldn’t say.

I’ve just visited their site and read their articles on a few random popular questions - surveillance, “hate speech”, “AI”.

I frankly felt much better from their sober tone. This (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/misleading-panic-over-misinformation) article is perfect , it explains patiently and in non-agitated terms what I sometimes try to say about how some problems should be resolved.

(It, eh, doesn’t touch upon some bigger threats like Google and others not really intending to ever further compete, but that has happened in the past and many of those companies are no longer around.)