The Stoned Hacker

Just passin’ through

  • 9 Posts
  • 146 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle


  • I agree with you but that doesn’t mean everyone does. Whether you like it or not, social media platforms are going to be used. OP is just sharing a tool they built and believe may be useful to others for free. There’s no need to shit on their work just because you ideologically disagree with the underlying services managed. Again, I feel the same way as you but OP is contributing a useful tool to the people; that is seldom a bad thing. I could see myself using this to boost my LinkedIn presence, because it’s one of the few things I have and need in my early career. Would I like to get rid of my LinkedIn? Absolutely. Do I despise most social media platforms (including Lemmy to a degree)? Definitely. Do I appreciate OP for making and sharing this? You bet I do.


  • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 days ago

    This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but. The first statement is not true because it’s nonsensical. There is no universally objective truth; it is still filtered through our relativistic perceptions of reality which are fabrications of our mind created from the raw abstractions of the data we perceive.



  • that’s fine, give me the hammer. I despise this increasingly pervasive online first mentality. I like native applications using native toolkits. They’re installed on my machine for a reason. I don’t want the clusterfuck of HTML, CAS, and JavaScript managing my interfaces; they’re horrible. Just because a monkey eating pop rocks can piss out a Pollock doesn’t mean i wanna buy it. I am absolutely willing to trade some UI/UX niceties for actual fucking applications.


  • My brother in Christ, im sorry to inform you but the upcoming fiscal crisis are gonna be some of the least of your kids worries. I’m still probably closer in age to you rather than them, but i grew up knowing that money is gonna mean jack shit once the water starts boiling (metaphorically, but hyperbolically realistic). We’re the frogs in the pot and the economy is gonna be the least of our troubles. We’re seeing a global rise in fascism, climate disasters, war, inequity, and yes financial instability. If you wanna help your kids, get involved in the community and organize. Start unions at your work places and march in protests for a better future. I’m not talking about a stronger or more fashy future, but one where we work together. Join or make mutual aid networks where you live. The best thing you can do for your children (imo, coming from a young person) is help set up the future you want for them. I would hope that’s one of community and mutual aid where we help each other not because we expect a reward or are paid to, but because together we stand taller and can hoist up those who cannot stand on their own. I hope i don’t sound too preachy, but it sounds like you love your kids so I implore you to get involved further. The future did not look kind to me when I was a child, and it looks even less hospitable now. We can change that. Direct action and mutual aid are the way forward to a better future imo.




  • We have no right to judge intelligence purely through our perception of intelligence, rather we must seek to broaden our understanding and view of intelligence and sapience. Yes there aren’t any other species that are sapient like humans, but then there are very very few species that are like humans. Dolphins and other aquatic mammals are known to have complex social structures and languages, and are very evidently self aware and able to comprehend themselves and their existence. Are we to deny their sapience simply because they don’t have economies of scale or what we perceive as civilization? I would argue that dolphins, elephants, whales, and some birds have formed (by our standards) rudimentary civilizations that are practical and necessary for their survival.

    If we expand the concept, i would argue that similar things could be said about insects/bugs if we aggregate the intelligence. Ants have colonized every continent except for Antarctica. They have complex social structures and very clear markers of civilization. The only difference is that they function as a collective rather than as an individual. Are we to say that the Borg are not sapient because their civilization is predicated on the collective rather than the individual? The biggest thing I would have against calling ants sapient is that I am unsure of how self aware the collective is, but is that a necessity for sapience? To what degree is it necessary? Are we basing this off of a model of ourselves, of which only we fit into? Do we even have the right to demarcate what is and isn’t intelligent, sentient, and/or sapient? I would posit no to a lot of these questions, especially given that I also think we are a lot less intelligent and sapient than we think we are. I don’t believe a truly intelligent and sapient being would judge the intelligence and sapience of another being, but simply accept that it is as it is.



  • i would absolutely say there are other sapient species, we just don’t like to think of them as such. Obviously a lot of aquatic mammals come to mind, but I think there’s a very very good case to argue that cephalopods, elephants, some aquatic mammals, and some birds are sapient. Especially by sci-fi rules. I think there’s sufficient evidence to show that elephants, dolphins, and maybe corvids or cephalopods would pass the trial of Commander Data and be considered intelligent and sapient life.




  • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlPills
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I prefer multiple systems of scale based on mutual aid, where all shared institutions and resources are collectively owned and managed by the people working in those institutions without the obligation of profit. Then those institutions would cooperate to form larger scale systems that can form the complex widespread support for our technologically advanced society without having to be centrally managed or owned. Necessarily, but not ideally, there would be a limited free market that is completely isolated from the actual organizational structure (no lobbying, no private ownership of necessities, etc.) to allow interaction with non-collectivist states and entities.