rootedbox

In mass the US has only done it with Iran.. but during the past 2 administrations.. Russia, Venezuela, Afghanistan..and we've also disconnected Russia from the banking network.. This has really spooked markets and governments. Because this means at any time the US could just be like.. you are out of the banking system and we hold your money now.

Which is why if you hold Russian bonds you are screwed.. which caused a cascading long term effect and why now all bond markets are affected. And all countries are bringing there gold home from the USA.. they now know in a total collapse of the system they need their gold in their vaults.

that being said crypto currency traders are not trading a currency but some weird version of Pokemon cards so who knows what's good or bad for them.

This might sound good.. but freezing currencies is bad. It evaporates trust of liquidity from whoever is doing governance. It's part of the reason why the bond market is doing what its doing lately and why countries are on-shoring gold reserves.

Just a reminder.. Hilbert space is just a tool/abstraction/map... and the map is not the territory..

Do you want your desktop to feel like a 90s adventure mystery game by Sierra.. Well boy do I have the desktop for you!

I really don't like FAFO science.

You seem to be forgetting the most important word in FOSS..

The proposition that one should “almost never use AI to write” contains a fascinating little neurological trap: it assumes that the activity we call writing has one essential function.

But does it?

Writing certainly can be thinking. Anyone who has wrestled with a paragraph at three in the morning knows the peculiar phenomenon: you begin with an idea, and somewhere around the third comma you discover that you didn't actually have an idea. You had a mood wearing an idea costume.

Excellent. Writing caught the bug.

But why assume the biological hand that pushes words through a keyboard possesses some sacred monopoly on this process?

For thousands of years, human beings have externalized cognition. We invented counting stones, writing tablets, books, maps, diagrams, calculators, libraries, laboratories, and—eventually—computers. Every one of these inventions moved some cognitive operation outside the skull.

Nobody argues that using a calculator prevents mathematics because “the multiplication process is part of thinking.”

Sometimes it does.

Sometimes the calculator merely prevents you from wasting twelve minutes multiplying 487 by 36.

The interesting question is therefore not Who typed the sentence? but Who did the thinking?

And here the anti-AI argument becomes rather less certain.

Suppose I write an argument and give it to an AI with instructions:

Find every assumption I have smuggled in. Tell me where my argument contradicts itself. Give me the strongest argument against my position. Identify every sentence that sounds impressive while saying nothing.

Have I stopped thinking?

Or have I acquired a rather peculiar intellectual sparring partner who never gets tired, never needs coffee, and is perfectly happy to tell me that my brilliant insight is actually three clichés in a trench coat?

The answer depends entirely on what I do with its response.

If I obediently paste the machine's prose into an essay and call it my thinking, then yes, something important has been lost. But if I use the machine to attack my assumptions, generate alternatives, expose blind spots, and force me to make distinctions I had previously avoided, then the machine is not replacing the thinking process. It is perturbing it.

And perturbation is where interesting things happen.

Every nervous system operates through feedback. We don't think in isolation; we think through interactions with environments, symbols, other people, books, arguments, mistakes, and increasingly, machines.

The human mind has never been a sealed container.

The more interesting danger, therefore, isn't that AI will “write for us.” The danger is that we will stop noticing when we have handed over our judgment along with the prose.

That distinction matters enormously.

A calculator does not tell you what you should calculate. A spellchecker does not decide what you believe. A search engine does not automatically determine whether the evidence supports your conclusion. And an AI should not be granted the authority to do any of those things merely because it can produce a remarkably confident paragraph about them.

But neither should we fetishize the struggle of producing every sentence manually.

There is a strange technological superstition hiding here: the belief that cognitive labor becomes more intellectually authentic as it becomes more tedious.

I don't buy it.

The question isn't whether the machine touched the sentence.

The question is whether you touched the idea.

If an AI writes a paragraph that you blindly accept, you have delegated your thinking.

If an AI writes a paragraph that makes you say, “Wait, that's bullshit,” and forces you to figure out exactly why it is bullshit, the machine has just helped you think.

And perhaps that is the real reality tunnel worth examining.

We have spent centuries confusing the tools of thought with thought itself.

The printing press didn't kill thinking. The calculator didn't kill mathematics. The word processor didn't kill writing.

Perhaps the genuinely dangerous technology is not the one that writes sentences.

Perhaps it is the one that convinces us we no longer need to ask what the sentences mean.

At other frequencies, sound can actually intensify flames, depending on the surrounding environment. Standing waves and the frequency of the sound (FM) are likely factors in this phenomenon. However, it’s not advisable to use sound as a method for extinguishing fires.

I work on ADA a lot for my company. Please put on some headphones, turn on the voice assistant of your OS, put on some blinders, and run your app or website… no mouse, just keyboard.

1. Democracy is about access; make sure everyone has access to your software. 2. The keyboard allows folks with disabilities and power users to fly through your website/app… that being said… the second a tab is off, the person with a disability flies into a wall.

This made me feel old and nastalgic. RIP BBS's

Love it.. too bad MLB will probably send you a C&D over it.

Before we look all high and mighty on this.. Just a reminder "gay panic defense." is still used in court today in the USA to justify killing of gays.

The most famous case was when Lucien Carr killed David Kammerer. The just called it an honor slaying.

No person should ever be killed, and it should never be justified because its the social norm.

I fixed it.

It appears inconsiderate—perhaps even dismissive—to present me, a human being with unique thoughts, humor, contradictions, and experiences, with content that reads as though it were assembled by a lexical randomizer. When you rely on automation instead of your own creativity, you deny both of us the richness of genuine human expression.

Isn’t there pride in creating something that is authentically yours? In writing, even imperfectly, and knowing the result carries your voice? That pride is irreplaceable.

Please, do not use artificial systems merely to correct your grammar, translate your ideas, or “improve” what you believe you cannot. Make errors. Feel discomfort. Learn from those experiences. That is, in essence, the human condition. Human beings are inherently empathetic. We want to help one another. But when you interpose a sterile, mechanized intermediary between yourself and your readers, you block that natural empathy.

Here’s something to remember: most people genuinely want you to succeed. Fear often stops you from seeking help, convincing you that competence means solitude. It doesn’t. Intelligent people know when to ask, when to listen, and when to contribute. They build meaningful, reciprocal relationships. So, from one human to another—from one consciousness of love, fear, humor, and curiosity to another—I ask: if you must use AI, keep it to the quantitative, to the mundane. Let your thoughts meet the world unfiltered. Let them be challenged, shaped, and strengthened by experience.

After all, the truest ideas are not the ones perfectly written. They’re the ones that have been felt.

The salesperson had no idea what mDNS or the frameworks was.. and rubber stamped it.