federona

If you were to make a general rule, it's saying if you want employment then don't say anything online, period. So it is in fact depriving any employee the right to speak about things publicly all the time. It's like putting a muzzle on a dog so he does not bark. If that's not slavery I don't know what is.

As for right to employment, well how far can you push it. And how does that not violate white privilege principles or corporate privilege principles. We have a corporate class which holds most of the wealth and if you say anything you will lose the right to make a living. That smacks of privilege, in fact white privilege.

Only the corporate class may speak. It's not sound in any way.

What are corporate values? The only thing you are legitimately saying to your employer is you pay me and I do the work and we both make money. That is all. Anything more than that infringes on your personal rights outside of your employment, as these comments are my own. The fact that we have the reach of corporations way outside of work in public life is not right in my opinion, it's akin to slavery. This corporation employs people with these sorts of thoughts??? That does not really register in my mind as any sort of sound reasoning for dismissal, for having the wrong thoughts and saying them in public.

Exactly. Especially when your actions are your own right to say what you think. It's akin to blasphemy and the problem is that the doctrine that you are violating has not been taught to anyone for them to even know that you are not allowed to say that.

Consequences arising from communication outside of work would make you liable to your corporation all of the time. Most of the arguments I see here are people should just know these things they are common sense, and that they have not seen any extreme examples, only things I personally believe are wrong so it's all good. Further some people here have claimed that they would actively work to get people fired that don't share their opinions and their opinions are discriminatory. Though their heart is in the right place, they don't live in the real world where people are raised in religions and cultures which actively promote those ideas. Therefore, they may believe their ideas to be right or generally acceptable. Holding people liable for "correct" ideas in an ever changing democracy is not sane. It's insane, you must be very dogmatic and authoritarian to believe these things just like the people who would work to get gay people fired for being gay, it's the other side of that same coin. It's wrong and I am happy to take all the down votes in order to state that point.

As for assholes being a protected class, it's called right to religious freedom. It's a human right. And many religions teach a lot of things that modern left who would use this sort of tool to power their way into winning. Which then will lead to the right seeking political solutions in the form of their own extreme power grabs.

My point is that if someone hacks and steals all the data on your social media site then they can expose random people by doing analysis on the site's data and make individuals lose their job. Whether that is something good or bad depends on your point of view. Should the consequences of having opinions against mainstream views and venting about them in public make you liable for those views to your employer? Sometimes the venting is honestly stating your feeling about the subject which causes gasps, the firing of the recent Mandalorian star comes to mind.

None of them work.

Except when some humans which at the time were more backwards than the leaders of the world tried, they were simply shut down using propaganda and force. So as to deem what they were attempting to do completely feeble... mostly due to them being against this secular religion. It was in many ways a religious war in idealized secular terms. Therefore I would argue that no actual attempt has been made, because the power structure likes it this way. Their secular religious clergy does well for themselves in it and they don't want revolutions to change it. Not that it can't be done. No one has been allowed to actually try in good faith.

Average citizen of only your country belonging to the majority, I guess that's what you mean, because the content of the news these days could be very dangerous if you are not a citizen of the country doing the reporting. And if you belong to a minority from a country or an ethnicity that is not favoured it could be even more biased against people's perception of you as a person.

The truth is an ideal and when we pursue that ideal, things go well. When we stop pursuing it, we get "post-journalism".

My response to that is that this idea is subterfuge for resolving complicating political problems with propaganda rather than by proper system design. We are in this situation, because propaganda has lost its power over the masses after 100 years. We need better ways to resolve problems that appealing to ideals while a select elite push their agenda on the people who accept it unquestioningly. In many ways our methods of dealing with this has been akin to religion, which also appeals to religious ideals to gloss over real issues and silence them.

Yes I know the difference, I was making a point, you can still know what you are saying but not say everything that needs to be said in order to fit the definition, in fact I am arguing that if you are telling a story, and not writing a book, you can't fit that definition.

Okay, in grey areas there is even more room for telling partial truths. If something objective as a number can lead to a valid disagreement, then what hope do we have for complicated political issues. To me in the end it breaks down into complicated power relations.

We can tell whichever shade of grey that we want to tell that those who are listening to us what to hear in the frame and the rhetoric which appeals to them. Fox news is biased to tell the partial truth of a certain demographic which feels empowered by that rhetoric. If more people believe reality as told by Fox News it gives them more power within the system to get whatever they think it is that they want. Currently they are going after Cuomo, a democrat, in the sidebars there are criticisms of cancel culture.

Philosophically even truth is an opinion. There is no such thing as truth, just a frame that you are objectively reporting from. Say you cover news about a certain group but don't cover news from another group. Or you report the facts only in the rhetoric of commonly held norms, like so and so nation committed atrocities, while our nation bombed insurgents backed by so and so and accidentally killed a bunch of children. You always report in frame even if done objectively, otherwise your journalism would be considered inflammatory and you would find yourself without a job. So yes there is pure propaganda, etc, but in general news is propaganda of stuff as they, whoever they may be, want you to know it.

If you want real news, then go to the country they are talking about and observe it for yourself. You will find things a lot more mundane than they are made out to be for the vast majority of people living there, until that passive propaganda gets them bombed or economic sanctions destroy their livelihoods. The justification of which is made in the objective reporting, even if journalists don't want to change they do so every time they report something. It's in the nature of the frame and the rhetoric they are writing from.

Your data is secure on b2, it's simply an interface. Code is on github. DB should be dumped and saved to b2 daily. Not really unreliable.

It would not be hard maybe a week or two of hacking to make such an interface on top of an object store if you were motivated. A simple php or python app with a time limited key stored in a db of some sort. There though are already open source free apps that do provide user management, etc. If you are looking for an ideal solution, but you have to pay for it with money or time.

Remote storage, redundancy, and portability. At $5/mo/tb. you can still access any of it anytime you want, you just pay for what you actually download.

If you use terabytes of storage on consumer oriented free or nearly free services you are going to get burned sooner or later. Switch to b2 or s3. Your data will be there for a much longer time. b2 costs $5/terabyte. If you don't access this stuff, it's probably at most $10 - $20/mo.

Society, current society also called capitalism, is designed not for greed but constant growth. When your goal is not satisfaction but constant growth and you already are a billion dollar company, then it makes you look at all the shady shit you can still do and get away with in order to grow. These companies don't need to grow, if anything they actually should be growing smaller and sustainable if we actually wanted to engineer towards goodness rather than money. The fact that the rich are getting richer while having absolutely no need for it says to me our prerogatives are wrong and our engineering about business is wrong. A lot of the common laws rules and norms around which business is built are insane.

That is to say that if the economy is a mirror of nature, then businesses should be engineered to die. Not to be a going concern forever. After a certain amount of profit is extracted and life is lived, into the grave they should go. Not just as a result of competition, but as a result of system design.

This would then lead to a more evolutionary world and better distribution of power and resources rather than continuous monopolizing and consolidation. Also a different mentality of you can't take it with you to the grave, rather than infinite mindset. It would be a cyclical mindset about finite things, not infinite things. Corporations want to be people, so engineer them like people and less like machines.

Umm a large crowd descended on the Capitol and people died as a result. There exist militia groups which saw this. The threat is credible and real. You are delusional to think otherwise. The US probably needs to mass arrest those people or break up their movements like they did other nationalist groups like the Black Panthers, who had similar agendas. And pass gun control laws to keep them from having arms with which they would threaten the government.

Would you care to elaborate. He wants to talk about philosophical things rather than hacking and you think his IQ has decreased because of that?

You could account for billions of years in terms of money. Where as destroying things in a thousand because that is our business horizon is much more likely, and actually it's more like a year or two from current business practices, maybe a decade for long term thinking. If our business horizon was a billion years, then all the money and economic wealth in the world and quality of life indicators, and jobs would be so minuscule as to be a rounding error.

China is in some ways like pre-WWI Germany in that it does not have an empire and everyone else does so it wants one to. But Chinese are not starving due to sanctions and have not lost a war, etc. Chinese are doing well. China is just flexing its muscle because it can. That is all. Not because it needs to or that it's people are psychologically in fascism mode.

There is no way to avoid another Cold War. A hot war is impossible. I am glad that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. I will be glad with China being contained. I will also be glad in a multi-lateral world where America does not go unchecked and can be held up by others to its ideals.

Thiel and his ilk are the reason we can't build cool shit anymore. Look at PayPal, horrible outdated interface that is still a kluge with old functionality glued to new functionality because it's just too big to be too concerned, and horrible customer service too. There is so much corruption and profiteering due to monopolization of various industries that this sort of behavior happens, Thiel is the guy who walks away with all his money before shit from his philosophy hits the fan; society being the bag man. Look at Trump who Thiel supported or his general idea of a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, competition and distribution is good. Thiel does not know what he's talking about. The rich can capture all the value, but what happens after that, they continue to capture all the value and don't have to improve or innovate to continue to exist, you can't hold them up to anything because what are you going to do you are locked in.

Do things 10x better he says, and then you will have so much network effect that you can do things 10x worse and people still have a hard time getting rid of you.

There are 3 million Native Americans in the US. 10 million people.

China still needs the US and the world still needs China. But not a powerful China that rivals the US and has an extremely authoritarian ideology and is willing to commit genocide of people that have been there for thousands of years.

US should be ready to do for Taiwan what the UK did for Hong Kong, move their best and brightest to US with Visas and path to citizenship if China were to ever take over.

Sounds like decent rhetoric to not get into the geopolitical aspects of this fight. Just write it off as diversifying the supply chain and then cut your biggest problem supplier out because they are not good for business.

So far, but how far... you should ask yourself. Businesses make decision in light of the current reality. So far Microsoft has had to deal with devs using open source stack on Mac due to things like Homebrew, forcing them to incorporate a whole Linux distro into their OS to keep devs there. So as long as you can keep open source going, you can hold the gates. But question is how long... indefinitely? As the market grows there is room but when the market shrinks and has maturity how much room will be left. And general network effects of the cloud are already felt all over the place, like a document produced on a pc hardly ever stays on the PC it ends up on Google Mail, Google Drive, Microsoft 365, etc. There is no privacy and basically at this point is a joke.

I don't mean real peak, I simply mean cyclic peak. It will fall and rise higher, but why buy on high when it's going to go back to low which is almost guaranteed with something like crypto.

The only problem is that from a political perspective you have given away all of your power for convenience which is not a problem in say a country like the US until someone comes into power who does not like you or the people you associate with. So yes as long as things are going well security is better taken care of, etc. but when things are not going well for you then all your bases belong to them... like imagine China for instance. So if you had the foresight to build you own bases and your political system goes to shit, you still have the right to carry on with your life whereas in other cases you could be sent off to some place you rather not be sent off to and your life destroyed because the political system and/or company does not like you. And such change is swift, damaging, and isolating as the majority will usually fall in line or not have done anything enough to warrant any attention -- i.e. like as in your average Chinese citizen... but a minority will have and then will be persecuted and have their lives destroyed as a result. Say Hong Kong opposition.

The meta problem is that hackers love to contribute to stuff just for the challenge. They don't have a consolidated philosophy to make things and a mega corporation that put out products that the public buys. You basically need a Linux foundation that competes and fights with Microsoft and Apple but instead you have Google co-opting open source stuff to make a viable competitor and closing things down even further, where pretty much everything happens on their servers. It seems that democracy and openness in that sense always creates value that it can't capture but is instead captured by Capitalists with deep pockets. The value created by open source can't be used to forward the open source or user centric philosophy.

How could it? Well you need the same level of zealotry and fundamentalism that Steve Jobs inspired in Mac users and then deliver products that capture that Zeal. Where you could not pry me away from a Mac for a decade until Windows created WSL 2 so is now bareable as a daily driver. Before that it was a decade of Linux, which was as good and useful as a Mac... just never bundled, marketed, all the quirks worked out, so it could be sold properly. What made Macs replacement for Linux was the community which made tools like Brew which would make it possible to install all the goodies you need for development. It seems all the software still gets developed by open source, and all the value is captured by Capitalists.

As Theil pointed out you need a monopoly, competition distributes which is not good for someone looking to maximize capital. But at the same time necessary for society, for what good is society without distribution. It seems he's basically advocating for working against society and everyone with money is like yes we need more of that.

Is it easy to convert a billion for a hundred million of btc to cash as it is to buy a stock? I don't think this is it or usd or euro.