fluffernutter

> The Future is Decentralized

tHE fUTURE IS qUANTIZED

The most exciting discovery in our lifetime. Zero conversations about it on some lame social news platform owned and operated by a bunch of dogmatic capitalists.

Clueless to innovation outside their realm of control.

I had an FBI agent tell me they were at capacity for investigating new fraud and that, unless someone was going to die, they couldn't take on new cases. This was 2 years ago.

It's not an unanswered question. It's a meme that the government figured they could use to make people imagine the trash they leave being mailed to them by the government, which then implies the government knows where they live and who they are, whenever they leave trash.

Why does there have to be a means for the government to mail the trash back to the people, if just imagining the trash being mailed to them causes them to stop leaving trash?

I doubt you are going to leave trash, and the reason why is because you are asking hard questions of an illusion.

Isn't it they retell and embellish them to the point they sound believable, like GPT-3?

There is no such thing as cancel culture, just like there is no such thing as the Q behind Qanon. The reason why is because these concepts are memes held in the collective consciousness of humans (and now AI because we trained them on our crap).

No one person or organization exists to "cancel" things. It's a thing that happens, like nuns all meowing together at the same time. It's a phenomenon of nature, or mind, but not at an individual organization or at a personal belief level.

In other words, people may be "for" "cancel culture", but the growth and life of the phenomenon itself is empty of meaning in the individualist sense. Also, because things like Facebook enable these memes to form, your statement could easily be rewritten:

> Facebook is being targeted by mass thinking on their platform because of their refusal to entirely ban republicans off their platform.

Now we see the truth of the matter, which is that Republicans support the Tragedy of the Commons for their own gain.

Maybe you like things simple.

That question is a setup. A leading question. A question with intent. This is why you ask it, so you can reply the way you do when you answer it for us.

Who cares if any of those companies can operate in China freely? It's really their problem, not ours here on the forum to discuss on a post that removes our options and choices. What is important to discuss is whether or not portions of the US Government are acting illegally in blocking or interfering with freedom of action and speech BY INDIVIDUALS. Fuck the companies. They caused this problem.

Do I not have a right to buy a product and use it? Do I not have a right to use an application with which I best communicate with the people who are important to me? Is it not the US Government's job to oversee the communications coming in from outside our borders and protect us from the harm that may be leveled against us by a nation state's transmissions? Why is it the state insists on making illogical choices that place us in a double bind?

Why is it that our actions are now being very clearly limited? Why is it that we continue to allow our liberties to be removed, one sliver at a time, because of big business greed?

Patents are really the stupidest things ever.

The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money.

Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all.

Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion.

Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next?

If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.

I think, given the damage Facebook has done to our civilization, that nothing that guy does is worth discussing, other than how to undo what he has done.

I really don't care what book he thinks is good, or not. He's a bad source of data.