nonstickcoating

The wording might be off, but public advocacy is basically what is meant by "in a manner to disturb the public peace". This does not include discussing facsim in your home, but does include you not being able to hang a NSDAP-flag from your window.

I wonder why so many free-speech advocates are hell-bent on enabling fascists to spread their propaganda. They are certainly not the first but not the last group they will drag to their camps or shoot.

To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.

This is not correct at all. You are perfectly entitled to be a fascist in your own four walls, even discuss your fascist ideals with your friends. You can not, however, advocate for fascism in public or use insignias or texts of the NSDAP for anything but educational purposes.

EDIT: The comment below phrases it even better.

I do not think different is a good qualifier for good television. As much as I'd like to see more about the character Mike for example, I would not like to see him in some action movie. His character shines in it's very personal moments, while his prowess regarding violence etc. need only to be hinted at.

The action laden sequences are by far the least interesting aspect of Breaking Bad, serving at best as a somewhat believable and tension-relieving climaxes for emotionally taxing, morally difficult and thrilling parts of the show.

The team behind Breaking Bad managed to tell a cohesive, character driven story despite all the creative restrictions making a show for a large TV network causes (think profitability, playing to as broad of a set of sensibilities as possible).

Telling a thousand different stories in the same world and with the same characters drains them of believability and lessens the emotional impact of the stories significantly - they become arbitrary.

Better Call Saul was a good show because it divorced one of the more important characters (but by far not a main character) almost entirely from the original and focused heavily on humor, with light aspects of drama. Breaking Bad was the other way around.

Therefore, I cannot think of a show that is running for it's 21st season as anything more than at best the visual equivalent of easy listening music, at worst a continued cash grab by the studio producing and network distributing it. For a work of art to be meaningful, it needs to come to some kind of conclusion regarding it's content lest it reiterates the same points again and again, becoming boring in the proccess.

Of course, there is something to be said in favor of easy listening music or TV productions intended mostly for basic entertainment, I recognise this discussion is largely predicated on taste. But I think calling something like that art misses the point that has made art historically so important for humans: The intentional representation of thoughts and experiences of the artist(s) in a specific medium meant to elucidate active engagement with the topics at hand.

EDIT: Added a word for clarity.

That just sounds horrible to me. Breaking Bad was interesting precisely because it had to end. It was about very specific characters, their changing motivations and development.

Rebooting every episode just because the premise is kinda cool and someone wants more of it diminishes what the series achieved both visually and conceptually.

Cannabis can very well lead to dependency, I struggled with it for the majority of my adult life. I totally agree that illegalising it is laughable and it's by no means as dangerous or easy to get addicted to it as is the case with benzodiazepines, but it is also no joke. Of course I am talking about "recreational" use, not medical.

I really dislike the handwaving nature with which the very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis are discussed for the most part. Mind you, I believed it to be harmless for the longest time, too.

I recommend Kropotkin's book about Mutual Aid regarding this topic. Disregarding his obvious political affiliation he is one of the first critics of the then-emerging social-darwinist readings of animal behaviour with regards to Evolution and therefore deals with this topic quite extensively.

He was a zoologist apart from all the other topics he had time to deal in because of his noble heritage. Here is the wikipedia article [0] since I do not know how HN regards links to e.g. libgen.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

This[0] is a video by Adam Neely, who frequently talks about the cluster f*ck that is copyright law with regards to music, interviewing two guys having done this (within some constraints).

This[1] is the website linking to the dataset and code that was used to generate it.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfXn_ecH5Rw

[1] http://allthemusic.info/

I do not think the article argues that Agile somehow incites racism and bias, it argues that it doesn't account for them while it should.

That's really interesting. In Germany poetry is handled differently. In the earlier years of what would be high-school there are poets like Jandel[0] and Morgenstern[1] in the curriculum who wrote a lot of funny, nonsensical poems playing with language a lot. Later (if you do schooling aimed at getting you to university) there is a lot of in-depth reading of romantic[2]as well as clacissist (think the latet works of Goethe and Schiller) poetry. Also, at least in my Latin classes, we also read Ovid, as well as Shakespeare's sonnets. These poems are analysed regarding their contents, as well as more formally concerning meter etc. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Jandl [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Morgenstern [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

You are propably right, even though my experience with explicitly socialist (using the European meaning of the word here) topics nd discussions like this one is, that it does not get much traction outside of already quite leftist circles. I for example didn't know of the discussion they had until I read the article.

The prevailance of gang violence has it's root in social and economic imbalance, too. I do not disagree, police violence is different and not as "brutal" (can't find a better word) where I live, but of course I look onto the US as an outsider. I also do not think that letting society splinter into rackets would be preferable to the status quo, but I do think the status quo leaves a lot do be desired for the majority of people. EDIT: This shows itself e.g. in the organisation of precarised people in gangs. That police brutality and the state upholding it's monopoly for violence have nothing to do with each other seems far-fetched though. The police is the instution that guarantees this monopoly within the borders of every Nation state, it's quite literally their raison d'etre.

I think for this kind of niche, academic topic (even though the discutants are quite well known) 100k views per week after publication is nothing scoff at.

Police brutality is the direct effect of a state trying to uphold it's monopoly for violence. This monopoly in turn is (in the current situation) neccessary to uphold the expolitation of labour and the functioning of the state itself. Of course this is not exlusive to the capitalist system. The expropriation of serfs in feudalist societies through the armed forces of nobility serves a similiar purpose under a different economic and political system. Just the same as capitalism has a tangible effect on how the pandemic is dealt with. Where I live for example there were multiple cases of industrial workers (often migrants working for a few month and then returning to their home country) contracting the virus en masse, which in turn had a lot to do with overcrowded houses and flats where they were forced to live.

Because it is a fallacy to attribute to nature what is clearly at least significantly product of social relation. This is one of the very interesting things everybody (no matter their political affiliation) can learn from Marx and the whole group around Adorno and Horkheimer, but you will find this echoed by more conservative sociologists and historians, too. Zizek also frames this quite nicely in The Perverts Guide to Cinema, where he explains, that ideology is never a pair of glasses [EDIT]you wear[/EDIT] but the very eyes through which you see. Right now I sadly cannot look through my books to find you less leftist references for the topic. If you are interested I can link to some less controversial works of sociology once I have access to them again. (Edited for some typos and the marked addition.)

You could also look at the cheaper Arturia synth. I really like how they sound (though AFAIK a lot of people don't - maybe take a listen to some Demos on YouTube) and find them decently intuitive for a beginner. The microbrute for example comes with a small patchbay (be careful of the modular rabbit hole though). A cursory search suggests prices between 150 and 200€ (sorry, to lazy to do conversion since I'm on Mobile). I only played with the Behringer clones a little at a friend's place. They sound totally fine, I think Arturia's build quality is way better, though. They have the benefit of being clones of popular (some may say famous) synth like the Moog Model D or the Roland 303, so they have a familiar sound.

Another key factor is, that YouTube interleaves really well made educational content with fun and stupid videos (these have their own merit, of course). I think this leads to people hunting for new videos about topics that really interest them, those can be insightful and stimulating. At the same time, the next 20 minute TikTok compilation is one click away, as well as numerous click-farmy videos with no real substance but the appearance of depth and knowledge. This is simply not possible if you, for example, get your knowledge and entertainment from e.g. books. To click a funny video after watching a good video essay or educational content is somehow simpler than putting away your textbook and searching for your favorite comic in your bookshelf.

You cannot just dismiss communism based on "human nature", this was an old hat even in 1880.

It's not about their personal preference of economical system vut about Strauss literally using nazi-rethoric. Anticommunism is a core part of that.

This is not correct at all, sorry to inform you. For example, people like Götz Kubitschek[0] for example have close ties to the dominant groups in e.g. the AfD, his rethoric is full of antisemitism and fascist dog whistling. The "entnazification" never really happened. In the 60s, there were more people in the ministry of justice who had an active NSDAP membership during 1933-1945 than there were in the 30s and 40s. It took several decades to repeal fascist laws, influential politicians (federal minister e.g.[1]) stated his admiration of the Waffen-SS and held speeches full of anticommunism and antisemitism - these are the core tenants of german fascism and they get regurgitated ever since the few innocent German citizens were liberated at the end of WW2. One of the the main representatives of the german green party unironically defends the Person giving orders to fascist paramilitaries for the extrajudicial killing of communist and social democratic leaders in the 20s. The influence and long lasting after-effects of fascist thought and leadership in Germany must not be underestimated. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_Kubitschek [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Strauss

My flatmate, who is a baker by trade, violently disagrees with putting bread in the fridge. He argues that the condensation in the bag/box you store it in increases the chance of mold and interferes with the bread's structural integrity. He recommends to store bread in a paper bag in a bread bin somewhere on your counter top, but a clay baker or something similiar will also do the trick. I'll add, that it's perfectly legit to store bread in the fridge if it would go bad otherwise. Just one of the usual nitpicks tradespeople have regarding their line of work.

Furthemore: Did you think about what this means for people with e.g. serious cognitive disability? Your statement argues for prohibiting them from participating in public discourse wholesale.

You can explain on a technical level how the Iron Dome fulfills it's functions. You cannot explain it's social and economic ramifications without talking politics. Most of the arguments in favour of cryptocurrencies and blockchains focus on these economic and social factors (decentralised economy, NFTs for selling ones art). The technical merit of blockchain gets discussed so often, the outcome is always either "existing technologies solve this problem better" (which makes discussing the technical merit outside of a academic context futile) or "look at these economic and social improvements this technology provides" (which puts you squarely back into the political discussion).

The Web and the Internet are the sum of it's protocols plus the infrastructure build on top of it plus the untangible social effects it has. This is true for Web3 as well, but the protocols are in their infancy, the infrastructure is sparse and the sociale effects (as of now) concentrated in the blockchain space. The parent comment wants to discuss those three topics (maybe minus the social implications) with regards to what amounts mostly to a buzzword right now, precisely because Web3's protocols, infrastructure and social implications are far to under developed to warrant serious discussion concerning long-time stable solutions to real-world problems. I sympathise with earlier comments, that would like to seperate Web3 from blockchain and crypto-coins precisely to discuss the possible merits or protocols actually fullfilling what the crypto space right now fails to deliver on.

I am fairly new to programming (beside dabbling in it when I was a teenager). So far I enjoy C the most. I find it way easier to reason about than a more complex language like say Java (both in regards to language-features as well as the respective libraries). Also it seems to me every time C lacks something I'd rather like to have/use, having to figure out how to do it brings me closer to understanding advanced features in more complex languages. All this obviously assuming I correctly understand the problem I try to solve. Edit: This does not mean that I dislike other languages as a whole. I am getting into Lua for scripting and am obviously using Java at university.

Another person talking about blockchains as the future for societal and economic organistation but not understanding the very basics. I wonder how the author thinks e.g. resource gathering for industrial production is achievable in a decentralised way. This is the pipe dream of people that have enough disposable income, something not a reality for most people on this planet. And precisely this majority of people is responsible for the the very real, material foundation of the blockchain he loves so much, but he cannot think about it lest he admit the futility of his ways.

I’ll feel I can sketch the basic claims, paint the surface; but when someone asks a basic probing question, the edifice instantly collapses. Sometimes it’s a memory issue: I simply can’t recall the relevant details.

The people writing these kinds of books hopefully spend a significant amount of time researching (reading), thinking and writing about the topic at hand. Reading a book about that topic once cannot by proxy give the reader an equally deep understanding of the subject matter.

Reading Quantum Country means reading a few minutes of text, then quickly testing your memory about everything you’ve just read, then reading for a few more minutes, or perhaps scrolling back to reread certain details, and so on.

The author seems to, at least to some degree, equate knowledge with memorisation. I find this to be an limited perspective, since knowledge is also about connecting and balancing diverging information on the same topic, as well as putting it in relation to other topics. This point is actually talked about a few paragraphs earlier while discussing the hypertext format. An analog approach to this is the Zettelkasten[0] method.

It seems to me, that knowledge is the continuous engagement with a topic through reading, thought and writing. What the author is calling for as "new mediums" is nothing more than the technological encoding of certain practices of organising one's mind.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettelkasten