That’s not really being rich, though. The guys on that list could theoretically buy whatever countries they wanted, hell, they could buy multiple, hell, they could just buy owning stock in every country by way of bribery. If you’re the leader of a single country, it’s as though your money is all invested for you already in that single country. You’re mostly locked down to wherever you are. But the Walton family, owning Walmart, last time I checked the third largest economy in the world, they can extract that money and pivot wherever they want, with basically no borders or limits.

Most sensible comment in the thread, thread shoulda probably ended here.

You know it’s kind of funny but at the same time I do think it’s somewhat dystopian to see like, a natural phenomenon, right, a creature, and a creature that we need a name for, named after a brand of toys. Whenever I see this stuff it’s funny but it’s also sad and kind of dystopian, and kind of undignified. It’s like, I dunno. Imagine a kid points to a picture of a spider in a little book and asks their parents what the name of the spider is and instead of being like “that’s a tarantula” they gotta be like “yeah, that’s the hot wheels spider”. It’s a shitpost, it’s funny, it’s existentially hilarious, but it’s also so fucking depressing.

yeah, but why didn’t tom bombadil just teleport them to mount doom, or whatever? or the eagles fly them? huh? checkmate, libtard.

I suppose a third paradigm is cold-blooded, individualist Realpolitik; It’s a dog eat dog world, fuck you, I’m just trying to get mine as hard as everyone else is.

This secret third one is the one that basically everyone has, yeah, it’s pretty depressing.

I dunno, at this point I’m more given to a kind of blade runner, or maybe mad max paradigm, of like. Even if the star trek future is the shit, right, even if they come up with and use terraforming technologies, which we could probably do at least for offsetting carbon emissions if the theoretical short term proposals are anything to go by, we don’t have any real way of understanding what the real knock-on effects of those short term solutions would be. We would probably be just as likely to increase ocean acidification by a couple points in our quest to sequester carbon by dumping a shit ton of iron oxide in the ocean, and then end up killing a bunch of sea life which is connected to everything else. It just becomes a kind of whack a mole style game where you trade one consequence for another at the expense of the environment, and if that ends up happening, I expect pretty quick humanity will attempt to totally shutter off any consequence which might pose a threat to humanity or capitalism, and put them off onto the broader environment instead, and the people who are reliant on those environments to survive. I.E. you get put into a horrible blade runner future, where the survival of humanity isn’t in question, but humanity’s humanity has gone extinct.

Couldn’t we have like greenhouses at some level of scale? Maybe even like, integrate it more easily into normal housing or just larger public spaces? Banana trees get tall, but they don’t get so tall that you couldn’t probably fit them into a lot of places. Beyond that I think maybe the only problem would be, like, humidity, which there’s probably some sort of workaround for, I dunno.

I feel like the solution is probably more local banana

The fuck aren’t we growing these kinds of bananas everywhere in overly exploited republics and then importing them into the US? Fuck the gros michel, fuck these petty banana snack foods, I want a banana that I can eat as a meal.

I dunno, I’m sure there’s a more complicated and interconnected series of events which lead to them truly being popular, not least of which was the movies, but in terms of how they’re structured, it kind of makes sense to me why they were a successful fiction. The various different houses, even though they’re mostly indistinguishable from one another internal to the books, give kids something to identify with and self-categorize into, which is something that teenagers kind of love doing in a struggle for identity. They’re also part of the hidden world subgenre, which means it’s even easier for tweens to self-insert into.

Then, I think it also helps that they’re kind of poorly written, weirdly enough. Every character isn’t usually a real, fleshed out individual, they’re just an archetype, and a shorthand, a common trope. I think this is probably desirable for a tween audience, and I think probably also a simple to follow plot and set of plot elements is also more desirable. There’s no lore to keep up with, it’s just like you’ve taken a bunch of other tropes from other, better works and compressed them into an easily digestible series of books full of melodrama. It’s not super hard to understand. Those other books, they’re like the various PDAs and shit you’d see floating around in the 90’s, they’re explicit works of art constructed for a singular purpose. Harry potter is like an ipod touch, or an iphone, or something, it’s just engineered to have more mass appeal at the expense of complexity and possibly quality.

You know flat earth is kind of a very interesting microcosm of beliefs, specifically because of how it intersects with every other conspiracy theory, but tends to be low-yield in it’s implications. It’s absurd enough to be kind of a foundational belief, it’s absurd enough to be believed in jest, but it also doesn’t, by itself, imply a kind of fully-formed worldview. It’s like believing that the moon is made of cheese, or something, it doesn’t really mean anything, by itself, but it’s also probably one of the more insane things you could postulate. You get a lot of diversity in the flat earth movement because of that.

You get people who are dedicated to JAQing off, basically just trolls, right. Those ones usually rely on the classic arguments about camera lenses warping everything. Then you get people who believe in a kind of extreme libertarian conspiracy theory, old school style, like, the types that really hate NASA and maybe think that CERN is doing some crazy shit, and those types tend to be a step further, and think that the photos are just faked. Then, that group has some overlap with the group of extremist fundamentalist evangelicals, who basically believe in weird warped versions of what medieval peasants believed, about the firmament and shit like that. You also get a good amount of people who believe in wacky shit like an ice wall, or just a big dome or something. Lots of misunderstanding of basic physics shit, and “common sense” solutions.

It’s like an alternative version of science, for the ultra-skeptical, and for the totally faithless, but then we sort of double back to the problem of not having anything to believe, and then the empty space gets filled in by pure-vibes based science shit. Probably a lot of it has to do with people just starting out disagreeing with the aesthetics of science communication and then going from there, I’d imagine.

I dunno, it always kind of reminds me of those stan accounts on twitter that end up quitting after fixing their houses’ collective gas leaks. It makes me wonder if this is just a kind of, horrible social media locus where the mentally ill are confined to their kind of online mental asylums, except instead of guards and people who try to give them medication, you just have malicious bad faith actors who are trying to drag the population around, to their own benefit.

It makes me wonder if mental illness is, in some form, actually contagious, and can be transmitted like more conventional diseases. Overall, it kind of makes me think that the top-down structure of this whole internet thing doesn’t really make any sense, and should probably be governed in a more sensible way, because the libertarian-anarchist free speech for all idealist approach of the early internet seems like it’s just gonna lead to situations like that, where nutters hang around with each other and feed into each other’s illnesses, and kinda get to the point where nobody can really talk them out of it. But then maybe that’s all putting the cart before the horse, and realistically these people just need more intervention in their physical lives, and them shitposting is just kind of a side-effect. I dunno. Probably both approaches would be fine, I’d wager.

Every time it comes up I must lament the switch to screens too tall to watch content, the decision to remove wired 3.5mm jacks in order to drive sales of wireless headphones, the switch to increasingly fewer physical buttons. No more IR blaster.

That’ll be earth-like in 50 years, just give it some time

Yeah, but I’m conscious of it. I’ve kind of thrown out conceptions of unbiased news as being something that even exists in the first place anyways, so I’d rather at least have something that sort of, is given from a perspective I understand, and which conforms to whatever my standards for information are, rather than just having like, unbiased reporting on events.

The decision of what events to cover isn’t necessarily going to be unbiased, the decision of what language to use when covering those events isn’t necessarily unbiased, the decision of which sources the “unbiased” news trusts for their reporting isn’t necessarily unbiased. I would kind of rather just have a news source that I can sort of, trust to do it’s job, and present me with information that I can understand, and know what to do with, rather than a news source where I have to do my own journalism to find out whether or not their story really means anything as a whole.

If you understand and can more thoroughly comprehend the bias of the news you’re given, it’s easier to kind of push it through the framework and turn it into easy to consume gelatinous news paste.

Stupidly, anything that requires too much of a time commitment, which has led me easily to death by a million cuts. I’m conscious of my zoomer mentality in this respect, but it’s much easier to generally piss away all your time on like, 50 tiktoks, that all last 5 seconds, compared to a TV show or a movie or whatever. The secondary effect, understated, I think, of this, and I think this is the kind of, horrible advantage of those platforms, is that you will inevitably spend more time trying to find stuff to look at that interests you, rather than actually watching content, so I think they can skate by a little more with a little less content. More efficient for them, less efficient for you.

I find myself doing the same thing with 10 minute youtube videos, but I also will end up watching multiple hour long video essays on random garbage, so I don’t really know what that’s about. Maybe just easier to convince myself that it’s a “productive” activity, to learn about some random nonsense, as compared to engaging in some sort of probably wholly escapist form of media, that might in reality lend itself towards an easier foothold for conversations with other people? I dunno, maybe the problem is just kind of trying to look at media in terms of its pure utility value, rather than looking at media through some other lens.

Certainly, I think the biggest contributing factor is just environment. I’m on my computer and phone a lot more than on my e-reader or my TV, so I naturally engage with the easier to access forms of media found on those platforms. Regression to the lowest condom domino gator, or whatever.

Also, I feel like I’ve seen enough people answer “anime” that the anime… subs? boards? communities? communities sounds a little too long. Anyways, it should be more popular, but I really haven’t seen any engagement on any of them, the anime holes.

I’ve watched “some more news” a couple of times, I found them pretty alright. They’re pretty clearly biased, they’re just biased in a direction that I tend to like more than others. Still kind of, full of stupid skits though, and for the comedy, ymmv, certainly, it doesn’t really land for me at all. Quality of the information is kind of. Iffy, it would seem like, but I haven’t looked into it that hard.

Whoever keeps throwing in the shit about law enforcement in these stories, which I think was actually a security officer for the embassy, drawing a gun, is doing a pretty good job of distracting from the main issue of what this guy lit himself on fire and died for. Doing a much better job than all the whinging about how he was mentally ill, and how this won’t change anything, and how there’s no clear cause, that mainstream news outlets are doing when they cover this type of stuff, if they cover it at all.

I would also like to kind of point out here, that “this won’t change anything, this guy was mentally ill, he killed himself for nothing”, is really only true if you decide it to be true. We get to decide whether or not this motivates us to do something or not. We get to decide whether or not we let this affect us. Whether or not we do something, to make sure this doesn’t happen again, you know? And that’s mostly, in my mind, the purpose of this kind of protest.

Maybe it makes the institutions think about what they’re doing, probably not, since, if they were gonna think that, they should’ve probably thought that about the 20,000 or so palestinians that have been killed. This protest is mostly engineered to get you mad, and sad, and to make you, the viewer, think about why this is happening, and think about what you can do to stop it. Not just deflecting immediately to whether or not it was effective, because by doing so, you let it not be as effective.

Brings to mind the discourse against, really any form of protest that I’ve seen. You could take the george floyd protests, for example. So, sure, the government throws in agent provocateurs, in order to turn what would otherwise be peaceful protests, which would shut down any traffic into and out of the city, and would choke off any economic activity (puts pressure on businesses, utilities, puts pressure on local government, which needs to please these people who don’t really care about the protest but want things to go back to normal).

But by doing so, right, by causing those passive forms of damage, but also by causing active forms of damage, say, burning a big box store down, right, the public showcases that, if a certain legal decision to, say, let derek chauvin off, occurs, then there will be potentially more protests and more destruction, which provides great incentive against that decision occurring.

Now, in this case, there’s not as clear of a process, because there’s not as clear of repercussions if they decide to do nothing. About the only thing that might happen is that this might happen again, which, might, by some process of media coverage, put enough pressure on politicians to cause this to stop, if it becomes a political issue. The same thing is happening with mass shootings, which aren’t a greatly impacting issue, by the numbers, right, they’re much less than that of road deaths, heart disease, other forms of gun violence.

But they are so horrifying to the american public and to really anyone of moral conscience, that they should serve as a clear marker that something is wrong, and something needs to change. Serial killers create a similar effect. It’s almost like a kind of terrorism, using that word without judgement, here. That’s the power of these protests. We’ve already seen it spread across a bunch of news media, even though it’s being reported about as poorly as you’d expect.

I’m not particularly sure that repeat incidents would do any good, and I think I’d generally be opposed to that, as should anyone, but, an instance of self-immolation is what caused the arab spring. This sort of thing isn’t ineffective, I think it does a disservice to aaron bushnell to say otherwise.

If you want to stop this sort of thing from occurring in the first place, you should really try to understand why it was happening, instead of brushing it aside.

dopamine pump goes brrrr.

But also, I think to some degree, “building meaningful platforms with an abundance of excellent communication options” is kind of just. Investor speak. It’s kind of impossible. Systems are brittle, communication needs to be flexible, to some degree.

Speaking more specifically, right, if we’re looking at reddit and lemmy as examples, we have to think about the kinds of content that these systems are incentivizing. Upvotes float a post to the top of the front page, top of the comments section, right, and then that kind of lends itself to platforms where the top posts are snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely agree with, while the most downvoted posts are going to be snippy little nothings that everyone can kind of vaguely disagree with. And then you’re getting the full range in-between, with really no way to kind of properly find things based on what their substance is. The organization structure, basically, is arranged based on the kind of collective idea of quality, which isn’t really a specific enough kind of organization to be useful to most people.

So, that has drawbacks. What if we just went at it like a classic forum, right? People make accounts, people make posts, maybe you even have a membership fee. Well, now post quality has maybe gone up, but we’ve also created a large barrier to entry, which is a really bad strategy for growth. That’s maybe not a problem, as people tend to kind of, stupidly prioritize rapid expansion over steady growth and the quality of their core product, right, without really understanding the value they are actually looking to create.

Realistically though the biggest problem is just that the insularity of the forum is kind of going to be a snowballing thing, especially depending on subject matter. Jargon and in-jokes can develop that make it basically impossible to interface with as a newcomer, and that’s going to lead to a kind of inertial collapse where forums just slowly come up and then slowly go back down. Also contributing to this is kind of a point at which every discussion has been had before on the server archives, so any time you make a new post, refer to post 1224. If they don’t just die from inflation of basic goods, and can’t afford to keep up hosting costs, which is also a major killer of classic forums.

So, conventional forums also have drawbacks. So maybe we get rid of the accounts, now it’s anonymous, and everything is still going to be organized chronologically, right? Nope, that sucks, because now there’s not really any incentive to keep up post quality and your forum is going to get spammed to death with the maximum amount of possible noise, meaning you need to take on bot filters, which means you need to create more brittle systems to try and sort quality posts away from chaff. You could also just, not do this, and let chaff kind of swim around on your platform, but, that might not be a great idea, I dunno.

If you do end up somehow making a platform that can be, at the very least, popular and desirable for communication, then you’ve basically just ended up making a public good that you’re probably not massively paid for. Queue the platform getting bought out and ruined by an idiot stooge. Not just elon, but also, every other platform on the internet ever.

I think it’s pretty reasonable to look at all that and just think. Man. I want some more dopamine! Turn on the dopamine pump! And then the corporation says, yes sir, here is your dopamine pump, “free” of charge, of course, go to town.

Basically the cynicism is from two ends, is what I’m saying. It’s from the fact that the internet is kind of constantly undergoing a kind of expansion and contraction, where the systems work at the low end, and then rise, and then collapse under their own weight once noise starts to accumulate, right, so an ideal system is somewhat impossible, at least, under the current kind of economic constraints, maybe, but maybe also in general. So there’s a cynicism to that, right. There’s also the cynicism of being conscious of that. And then there’s also the cynicism of like, people just not really wanting communication, and wanting dopamine pumps. Though, I think people might really want both, if they were pressed on it.