Even a cursory glance at the legal code should convince you that "free speech" is a convenient fantasy mostly used to hoodwink liberals into supporting the KKK. Why not call it a "speech" issue?
Well, sure. But it sure as hell aint't diplomacy and peace that built this society we live in now. Or at least, not a good sort of peace. That's especially true for the US and Canada. What went on before europeans made an appearance doesn't change this observation. I'll leave defending that to the people whose world we destroyed.
I'm quite the introvert. I just am flummoxed why you would build around something so much less substantial than equitable distribution of resources, which necessarily implies our bothering each other to enforce.
If you want to be left alone above all else, you can always turn into ted kaczynski.
But reaping the benefits of society comes with costs. one of them is accepting annoying neighbors and other social contracts that might not specifically cater to your desires.
Isn't this a wittgensteinian problem? ie how you interpret language is inherently subjective. But regardless of what language you use, or how you intend to bind the terms to reality semantically, apriori truth is still apriori truth. It's the only basis of objective "truth" we have access to. Throwing that out the window feels like tossing the baby out with the bath water.
Imo, this just comes down to the fact that most people would consider "standard" to be a floating signifier. I don't think the idea that mathematical concepts changing definitions when you change axioms is at all controversial in itself.
Back? This country was built on taking and retaining land with violence. We just call it "property" now and act like everyone thinks this is fine. we now refer to human sacrifices as "essential workers" and "terrorists". Same fundamental dynamic tho—we just replaced the gods with the economy; but either way, people gotta die to keep it running.
Well we have plenty of records of people who did pay attention. (American?) Society as a whole isn't very good at focusing on what will care about in the future.
Anyway, it's not easy to turn oral history into speculation about the literal past. There's a reason such work focuses so much on geology! It's likely oral traditions encode a lot more literal history than we realize, but the ability to verify or interpret this as "history" in the western sense of "historiography" may be fundamentally impossible for large swathes of it.
I mean you could, but we're inherently dependent on each other. I'm not sure I see the value of building a society around personal liberty. It wouldn't make much of a society, would it?
> The use of the word 'insane' is a bit strong of you don't mean disrespect.
I'm insane, too. All the best people are.
> But your argument seems to be: the authors didn't pay much respect to the science, in favor of clickbait; they should've read work of fiction instead.
I am definitely not making an argument for anything. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'd rather have my teeth ripped out than get roped into a good-faith argument with a stranger from VC culture.
> I cannot asses how scientifically accurate Kim Stanley Robinsons' writing is, but he's a doctor of literature rather than a astrobotanist.
> Also, it’s quite boring that these people say the same thing for decades now. It’s quite simple nowadays to predict how these “unlike me” people will “think” on every single topic on social media. Usually, it’s not even their thoughts. Almost all of them are baseless parroting.
You could say this about any forum on the internet, including this one. But the diversity of thought and interest here is quite small in comparison to twitter just by sheer numbers and the necessity of this forum circling the shared interest of VC culture.
Hey, I understand why people left twitter. I just don't see how bluesky improves on the actual culture of the site—the best posters never transitioned.
Everything I've heard from word of mouth has been absolutely negative. Of course this has to be taken with a large rock of salt—who knows how reliable or representative this is—but five very negative reviews feels like it's on the unpopular side of the employer market in tech.
I get the sense they're slightly less disliked than Meta or Amazon.
> My interpretation of the ending is not optimistic - they had to go to the stars to try again, but they did persevere in a way on Mars.
Humans managed to avoid the collapse of human society into hobbesian violence or "dystopian" fantasy while being tethered to our very real society and cultural conflicts, so that seems pretty optimistic to me. There's also star trek, but that depicts in a post-scarcity world that seems further away than ever. Utopian (in the imaginative, hopeful meaning and not the pejorative sense) sci-fi feels like slim pickings to me.
But yes, the automation depicted is certainly many decades ahead of us. Particularly in a world of enshittified, rented everything.
I would argue the interesting part is that these shapes are nearly impossible to find outside of human society. Sure you can find quasi-crystals and straight lines occasionally, but either this is reused functionality (abstract thought?!) or they have a special relationship with things humans see as human.
"No, Radio on the Internet."