wittysense

I wish all the best for the U.S., but this country has only presented fear and obstacles to my family, and demands loyalty, recognition. I am a Citizen of the World, and it will be strictly incidental should I corroborate with the U.S. in any way. I bring peace and sharing —

But I will not be lied to, and I will not be coerced into a lifestyle not of my choosing, and I will not be intimidated. I deserve better. The United States has driven me to a life of constant fear, fear not based in delusion but in the severe mismanagement of its society. Daily I find myself at the mercy of its community, whose fear shake the seat of my soul: beliefs of technological domination, spying, etc. I will no longer provide free consultation, on doorsteps or coffeeshops; nor will I abide the complaints of American peoples.

Of this decaying society (U.S.), its peoples will manically accuse anarchism or even the grossest fictions, due to an untrained intellect. Of this decaying society (U.S.), its people must find someone to blame — at which point anarchism becomes indistinguishable from treason.

The United States has mismanaged not only its government; it has injected a venom against intimacy, intelligence, and true investigation. I cannot trust the United States to secure my freedom of intimacy, freedom of intelligence, nor can I trust its integrity or investigation.

I find it disrespectful to myself and undermining to my initiatives to qualify my identity with "U.S. Citizen."

In any event, most people who look at me assume I do not speak English. You cannot coerce someone into looking like an American, and a majority of Americans only look at me with abjection or fear since I have "wild" dreadlocks, which to them look unkept. In many cities, I am heckled on the street with terms like "nigger" and "faggot"; and in polite society, potential peers are taken aback at my personal history ("You can't REALLY be from there!") or even the mere fact that I am a trained philosopher and Web developer. In many ways I look like a "primitive" man largely on account of very matured dreadlocks, and this society is simply too naive, sexually repressed to allow for people who look like Russell Brand to walk the streets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJhErmJuoQ.

Every one of my days in public with you Americans reminds me of that interview. Even yesterday some square approached me to ask if rolling up one pant-leg was a "new fashion thing." I will not be trapped in a country of style-vultures-spies-after-our-personal-brands XOR complaint-ridden-poverty-stricken. I deserve better.

??? I wouldn't. But clearly these governments will.

We're getting muddled here. Stop asking "me" as if you are asking me, this user: wittysense. Whatever I personally would do is irrelevant, and the answer to your questions are NOT easy. They don't come easy. You don't just get the answer to these questions in passing in line at a coffeeshop, dude. And no one is calling these books with positive, pompous, bourgeoisie descriptors.

I said DRY. BORING. ANALYTIC. BORING. I didn't have fun reading this crock of shit, and I don't think I'm cooling on behalf of it. But talking about "what if they point a gun at me" premisses is so uncritically off the mark, and absolutely not at all even the beginning stages of how these people are thinking at an international or federal level.

The only way we can avoid fucking it up is by giving ourselves the opportunity to understand the conceptual schemes they are using. They use these schemes to produce vagueness and unclarity which results in MISMANAGED human lives (people shooting people because they follow orders) which results in SOMETIMES carnage and death. Yes, sometimes people just mug you. Shit happens. We're talking about GLOBAL if not effing INTERGALACTIC surveillance.

THIS is not a "shit happens" scenario. We need CRITICAL THINKING. May I say "critical thinking" without seemingly advancing some posh 1% tone? Everyone agrees with critical thinking. I am here trying to point you in the direction of those people who have given us critical thought on concepts like "amorality" and by analogy "alegality."

I'm [not] going to teach it to you. I had to read it myself, and I am quite confident I am not WAY of the mark. I can say "I have a degree in philosophy from a top school" but that won't convince anyone of my points. So I'm not arguing in that way. I'm telling you that "I have a degree in philosophy" at least affords me the telling of which authors one should read. Have SOME faith in that. Or just bloody a Google search. "Error Theory" "amorality" -- my typings here are DENSE with connected keywords.

"What if the President points a gun at you?" is the obvious response. It is RADICALLY different from "What if Joe points a gun at you?" You're asking the latter. I'm underlining the former. Why are they different? Why is one representative of this debate and the other not?

[EDIT: Some of my typos are so bloody self-defeating.]

Crimes of reasoning occur before any bullets are fired.

No guns or triggers are involved when they draft these laws or play these very critical decisions at an international legislative and economic level.

Guns don't sell guns.

Planned Economies, Post-scarcity anarchism.

Alain Badiou, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky. The only reason we're all seemingly fucked is because the U.S. DID a decent enough job to lock down knowledge and disseminate according to their time tables.

I'm not going to answer your thought experiment. I've been through it too many times. Go read HLA Hart. Go read Donald Dworkin. If all you can think in terms of is coercion, you are NOT in a good spot intellectually to deal with these problems. "So what if I hold a gun to you?" is so demonstrably non-critical, HLA Hart had to write a book "The Concept of Law" in order to demolish it with VERY, VERY, VERY boring to read, DRY analytic philosophizing.

Stop feigning dissent, and actually start reading.

...

This response is exactly the problem: "Live and let live." In the face of anarchy, this is not a mature or safe philosophy to hold for oneself or to recommend to others.

You have to understand that we are talking about (A) a legal system and (B) a moral system. We generally have moved away from absolutist moral systems, thus becoming more "error prone" there. At the same time, we all fully admit to the _belief_ that morality is "fuzzy" or "vague." So we allow for interpretation. However, no one will say thus vagueness entails a lack of any coherent system all together. So, they deduce that it must come from some supernatural substratum. Whatever. Belief in whatever you want in terms of metaphysics, but we are still in agreement about the phenomenological structuring of morality: it is underpinned by our capacity to agree or disagree. The moral system is available in virtue of our capacity to go one way or the other. Of course, the only "response" to a moral nihilist is to "slap" that person.

That's all within the framework of morality. What happens when we say it is METAPHYSICALLY impossible for there to exist disagreements at the LEGAL level of critical thinking? So ASSUMING that morality is the bedrock of legal systems, we're suggesting supervenience of properties related to the "spooky" properties that belie moral disagreement. Thus, legal systems (assuming the parasitic nature of the legal on top of the moral) become "error prone" and by John Mackie's argument: essentially erroneous.

We admit that law can be an artform. Who wants to allow for Dadaist lawyers ?

"That's a-legal" is just a can of worms, and you hackers are going to fuck it up.

SRSLY.

Previous poster said all of that -- all of language, all of that "thinking outloud" -- ultimately to stick you with the oh-you-shouldn't-be-surprised "I don't have any theory of rights or justice, I'm just pointing out the violence that government tries to hide."

Of what Noam Chomsky has said time and time and time, and time, and time, and time, and time time time time motherfucking time again: "See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence."

It's like you GUYS ACTUALLY do not read, and if you do, we ALL know EXACTLY what it is you've read.

We are not prepared. We "hackers" today will be the anthropologists of this dystopia; nothing more.

It's like you're all hiding the belief that philosophy has not progressed since the time of Plato, and you don't want to admit it. Now I have to watch you all become your own little Socrates, from pg all the way down to the bottom of the barrel -- "hey, get a degree in philosophy sneee! it'll make you more well-rounded! sneee! haha! we're life hacking with the remnants of the failed capitalism cut us some slack -- play ball! sneee!"

Call it rambling, because you CHAPS just overanalyzed a whack-a-mole game (i.e., Snowden) all over my Web. Would MOST of you PLEASE go read a modern legal philosopher?

I hope you get the point here. There are about a couple million too many Socrates-types around, and this planet has way more than enough hemlock (along with various other death-remedies) to spare.

Not "welcome to this hacker space." "Welcome to your new barracks."

I thought teaching Python to my friends was cool, and y'know "giving back" to my community; little did I know that makes me a "hacker" and thus an enemy of the State.

I'm sorry I use vim. Does that make me an enemy of the State as well? Now I' Neo, out to spy on my friends and pillage their digital whore-stores.

Oh man, Error Theory comes to legal systems. HLA Hart is spinning in his grave.

I am absolutely not surprised. I've been whistling the Cowboy Bebop Intro since before I could spell "legal nihilism."

This planet is a joke. And it's because probably .3% of You (here in this "hacker community") will know half of what I'm talking about. Snowden playing hop-scotch around Europe is "hacker news."

lulz argue over the flippantness or "integrity" of headlines until you realize you've described your own simulation.

Lover of wisdom.

! Cheers to the tip.

Yelp does not like Tor.

? You're confusing security with anonymity. The bitcoin mining strategy ensures that transactions are secure, untampered (ID theft? counterfeit bills? credit hijacking?), thus securing anonymity if it is developed (throw away accounts, as said above) when and where needed.

The problem with classical currency is that anyone can spoof anyone else and the system inherently cannot prevent this. Fraud correction is a painstaking manual/organic process involving customer service, account IDs, and headache.

In the face of a growing culture that makes it wildly impossible for me to enjoy my life, with rigorous criticism and the only friend to be my Terminal and vim where I can type out, hundreds of times a day, things like "$ jangyrun" and "$ git down master"; in the face of speculation of psychosis due to use of the computer system; in the face of a heavily sexist technoculture and a "Black" culture to which I am expected to account for or justify, wherein it itself is ragingly sexist:

You win. I am crushed. I will wander these days, perchance sharing what little I know of front-end architecture, but beyond this, I can put forth nothing else. I expect many other developers to fold under the crushing weight of a country lacking any orchestration what-so-ever.

And my only lullaby is the dictum, from all of you, that I am "always wrong." No wonder people stand aback, shocked, when I call myself an "idiot" or a "moron." No wonder I seem crude and jaded to women, because when things do not work, they "die" or cumbersome, inelegant, "programmer-talk" is just "more efficient" or what have you; jargon files trapped in the insufficiently neuroplastic fabric-circuitry that is my constructed "mind."

If my hands were not so fully alive, from these years of writing code, I would have absolutely nothing to live for. I thank this country for that. And yes, I realize that I am over-generalizing, and I am probably wrong. Or I need more clarity. Or I write too emotionally. Or I'm "batshit." Even you call me a "fool" or go beyond the constraint of constructive criticism to inform me that "dyslexia is a niche" and therefore it is "ugly" -- that I am wasting my time.

You did not understand one of these sentences produced here. Of course you didn't. With hope, the next simulation will be less cruel, or I will simply obey conceptual schemes which generally give us concepts like "banned books" or "dangerous ideas."

I will leave you with this, and then I will cease to bother Your Technological Society: Quot capita tot sensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSNfQhb8yIU

XKCD comics lose their significance if the @title is not mentioned.

"...an irrational number isn't the extension of an infinite decimal fraction, […] it's a law" (Wittgenstein). It is a law which "yields extensions."

It's a good way to get around the http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/slingshot-argument.h....

From a Grand Linguistic Sociologist's perspective, "π" and "the U.S. Constitution" might hold very similar roles, given that mathematicians and politicians speak are wont to speak with reverence of their own signs.

Heidegger reminds us that "we are the sign that is not read."

Hey, like when a recruiter found me a position with Huawei.

I shewd EFF's link to an English major. He responded, "Come now, they've been spying on us for years."

The big news is that in rationalizing it we will develop a schism across the class line. Many of us are so poor, unlike the ranks of the increasing elite, that we'd gladly sell our privacy for coin to eat.

Build the money machine faster. How else are we to build gittip for the homeless without anonymous coin ?

The worst case example is where freedom of privacy paradoxically conflicts with liberty from privacy (law), involving Twitter accounts like @NeedADebitCard.

I'm sure most senators simply react to such peculiar "rational economic behavior". Is it altruistic ? Is it a hoax ? Is it a honeypot ? Is it stupid ? How do you build a political-economy around this? Around communities that can print most of their toys at a local "3DPrintBox" ? And international mobile targeting hackers ?

I believe Carlin's point generally holds in light of http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/:

"It's the cities, Stupid."

Look at Facebook, for instance. I'm seeing splinter social networks that generally rip off its UI so they can develop their special interest via their particular domain name. Let's look at a pessimistic utopia where Developer == Plumber: everything eventually becomes decentralized because of the dividing and conquering of the digital laborer. In an optimistic utopia where Developer == Artisan: everything eventually becomes decentralized because each small team or developer group manages some autonomous function of digital society.

None of this national stuff really matters unless we're talking about a Nation-state divided. In which cases, we're talking the worst case scenario, and any pretense that rational debate will absolve these architectural problems of "the State" fails to acknowledge the already unfit architecture of the State, wherein direct action is necessary.

'The unfitness of the object may cause one to overlook the unfitness of the means.'

I shewd EFF's link to an English major. He responded, "Come now, they've been spying on us for years."

The big news is that in rationalizing it we will develop a schism across the class line. Many of us are so poor, unlike the ranks of the increasing elite, that we'd gladly sell our privacy for coin to eat.

Build the money machine faster. How else are we to build gittip for the homeless without anonymous coin ?

"All you can do in life is a lot of work" -- Ira Glass

Most people simply fear us because of the way media portrays us as Zuckerberg, and our most persistent topic of discussion outside the GitHub world is Zuckerberg or surveillance, which is just another route to Zuckerberg.

I really like this point. I think there is, generally, a flaw in the thinking that because programmers are good at focus, they are good at prediction.

"Ahead of its time" may be outside of the natural means, on top of being quite possibly outside of the "epistemic network" of those thinkers assigned to the problem.

MVP eludes most, and as we become more democratic in our development practices, this scientific concept of MVP will so too become diluted. The future will likely simply be outlined by material needs. Let's say that ?

Telepathic and empathic abilities will emerge evolutionarily in the hominids through the mixed organization of their organisms and the long-term effects of information on the brain.

" If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite variety in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

I've been sub-namespacing conventions of MVCs, too.

    new GlobalNS.App.MicroViews.TableRow extends Backbone.View
    new GlobalNS.App.Models.TableCell extends Backbone.View
    ...

JS and Hypermedia have always been in harmony. Other boring ideas: https://github.com/nerdfiles/nerdfiles_net_dev/blob/master/t..., https://github.com/nerdfiles/nerdfiles_net_dev/blob/master/t...

Oh.

I pushed the literal button.

"We shouldn't be afraid of a few glyphs on a screen."

I'm making an analogy between two very thematic experiences in my life which involve abstractions.

1. Writing code in vim.

2. An attempt to extend a common philosophical image in cognitive neuroscience ( http://youtu.be/Bm40BSZJRck?t=48m28s ) which involves the behavior measurement of phenomenological experience, like perception. The description in terms of temporal modality is precise, however a grammar (set of valid images) is necessary to enable the merger of these data into public consciousness. So, I'm using the event of spotlights or firecrackers flashing in smoke as an analogy.

If you look at LightTable, perchance you'll understand ? And if you split more often, and employ many IDE-ish tools in vim ? I am a coder trying to relate my experience of Flow to you.

What does it matter if anyone is addicted. Addicts talk about addiction.

Programming has allowed your brain to express rules of structure and precision. You did that to your writing by choosing programmers to read.

Like in writing on paper with pen. These qualitative subjective judgments are not coming from programming per se but rather a style of programming. Think: continental versus American styles of philosophy. Programming as we know it is arguably Western (structured, "precise" and all that hooplah). Programming itself isn't inherently Western, even if ARPANET was a US Grant, if you get my figures of speech, and grant me poetic license (which you probably won't do).

If you time delay a video of my screen (vim) terminal splits fly open and closed, ranging from 1-2 under some work cycles to 4-5.

I like to think of this as an analogy to how the brain processes (what we call "having a thought"), in that our most widely used metaphor is of a light show or fire crackers going on in a cloud of smoke. The beams of light, when taken as groups arranged over time, or distributions, represents the neurotransmitter, the statistical distributions of light give us a concept map or ontology of thought.

Sometimes I close all of my terminal splits on accident with an ending of "Aha!"

Do this because you believe in semiotic alchemy, and for no other reason. There should be 10-15 physical programmers, if that. Anything more is excess.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

Like in Stoicism, nothing is inherently good or bad (non-descriptives) about things in and of themselves.

Like, this point isn't new... Why it is rejected with different rates across scientific disciplines is entertaining.

Humans are entertaining when they look intellectually surprised.