closedloop129

I think this is only a way to avoid creating things because we don't focus on collaborative note taking systems. Once people start sharing notes, they will start making friends by discovering the people who care about the same topics and create things together. Tweets and blogging are a bit like that but they are curated for a public image.

Add some diffusion models that take over the creative part, and knowledge management systems become a tool to act. Of course, the risk of getting lost in knowledge not only remains but increases.

How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?

> And so, for the record, if I may, disrespectfully, unkindly, repeat myself once more: fuck this con, fuck this exploitation and lazy hustle, and fuck this enormous Jenga of grifts.

Does this aggressive mindset help when the hustling targets the very core of human nature? Instead of bringing back the old, why not start looking for something new that thrives in that environment?

If everything is wholesome, it's meaningless. All that hustling gives value to 'the other' internet. Now, people who participate have chosen to do so.

That doesn't explain why the community didn't step up much much more and brought the development to new heights.

What is holding back Java developers from using their Java language to adapt the IDE written in Java that they daily use? If their boss told them to implement a feature, they would do that. But they don't implement the feature when they need it.

Would it be an option to embrace that development? Instead of assimilating everybody the Borg way, it would also be possible to tag snarky people and allow each user to choose if their comments should be included.

The front page could be an example of good behavior, but people don't have to adapt instantly. They can be snarky, are flagged, and get the signal that the expectations are higher. With some resources for personal development, depending on the flagged transgressions, there could be a form of assimilation that scales.

I still don't understand why Eclipse as an open source project couldn't adapt. Unlike emacs, which is written in elisp, Eclipse is written in Java, the language in which its users are fluent. Why do developers move instead of adapting their IDE?

With a withdrawn self, how can there be a personal failing? My point is that people don't attack her specifically, it's just the way society is. Criticism works for society because people with a self choose which criticism they accept and which they ignore.

People cannot imagine her withdrawn self and thus cannot adjust their criticism and she cannot imagine a self or bring back her self for now and thus doesn't understand most people.

>which is: they cannot hear me, and i cannot hear them. and funnily enough i’m trying to hear them and i’m trying to listen but no one’s trying to listen to me, so why should i keep trying?

Question remains: How can a withdrawn self be brought back?

>what is creating this boundary? is it merely the withdrawing of the self

My armchair answer is that this is creating the boundary. There is no 'merely'. People want to interact with a self.

>within your sense of self, as it’s building, you are being told to take apart, to dismantle, as it is being inappropriately build to their standards.

That's how society works. People have adjusted their self to fit in, they expect the same from everybody else.

By that logic we also don't use an alphabet because we have started using symbols like the smiley. Which non-phonemic symbol have they used that couldn't be replaced by a phonemically created word?

The world could also improve if the readers of fiction would increase their engagement in research, business and knowledge.

Why do publishers not offer end-users the right to transfer games from one service to another? That would allow new platforms to compete.

I can understand that established services like Steam oppose the transfer of licenses. But why don't the less established services remove the fear of losing access by making the licenses transferable among themselves? This must be prevented by the publishers. What's their benefit?

The infrastructure problem is funny because this wouldn't be a problem if Google would use GCP by themselves. They should also be smart enough to create an export function for google3.

Some standard about unified chargers.