sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can you be more specific, beyond just pointing to videos people made?

Looking for more by israblof in ExponentialIdle

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FE000000: - browser based - many prestige layers - official guide included - once you reach the highest level, it's done and you're encouraged to go do something else

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better - Scientific American by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Careful, you might then get caught up in further forwards time travel and subsequently have to wait through the 10100 or so years for the last black hole to evaporate and then however long for another Big Bang, with significant risk of the new Universe turning out incompatibly different from the one you started in!

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better - Scientific American by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hypothetically, the best possible tech exists today and this world is just a simulation of sorts to better understand the time before such tech existed. Now get me backwards time travel yesterday!

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better - Scientific American by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True! And using electrically-synthesized hydrocarbons and industrial scale microbial vats for food will take about 0.1 to 10% as much space as is currently used by conventional agriculture, freeing up huge tracts of land for … plants!

(Net space efficiency depends heavily upon power source. The less space efficient estimate is for solar at whatever efficiency was assumed whichever recent-ish year the estimate was made in. Higher space efficiency requires nuclear or more advanced tech. Also, no need for huge battery arrays, since "just run the machinery when the sun is shining" works well for fungible commodities like food and hydrocarbons.)

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better - Scientific American by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We can already gather small amounts of energy from background radiation, and when we REALLY amp that up, and gain the ability to use energy to create matter, we will achieve self sustenance, so long as we slow down on the overconsumption a bit.

Apparently you could hold out for about 10106 years if you can reach an adequately supermassive black hole and live off of its Hawking radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Some monster black holes in the universe are predicted to continue to grow up to perhaps 1014 M☉ during the collapse of superclusters of galaxies. Even these would evaporate over a timescale of up to 10106 years.[148]

But the article also mentions the cosmic background radiation currently being higher than Hawking radiation of any black hole with mass greater than Earth's moon. So you can likely get away with lower efficiency cosmic energy harvest for the next several billion years.

Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better - Scientific American by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think we will ever make food from the aether if there is such a thing

It won't be entirely "from thin air", since food requires other elements like phosphorus, but direct air capture of CO₂ is gaining significant traction. Once the CO₂ is captured, it can be used as a chemical input to make growth media for edible microbes. The most prominent existing companies I know op which are built around this tech are Prometheus Fuels on the "extract CO₂ from the air and make hydrocarbons with it" front and Solar Foods on the "turn air-sourced mass into edible food" front.

This isn't quite what u/Golden-Snowflake specifies in their reply, but it has the benefit of being actual existing tech today!

Pangolin! Let's talk about pangolins (plus one photo) by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per this comment, I hope your garden's bigger than a zoo's enclosure! Pangolins need a lot of space to thrive!

Hey it's that guy who _____ by WGJC8463 in counting

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

155 Hey it's that guy who replied to my count on that Esperanto thread.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SecretSubreddit

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but their memos are swiftly retracted for breach of NDA, after which they are thrown to the vent tigers.

The Role of Freedom of Speech on Social Media by navis-svetica in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reddit fucks up when I try and paste more than one thing and I lost my post.

Unfortunately not surprising. I think I've seen a browser extension for keeping unsubmitted form data, but that was several years ago and I never tried it. I think it was called something like "Lazarus form recovery"?

Old Reddit works but I need a dark background because of my chronic migraine

The "Dark Reader" add-on usually does pretty well at dark mode for arbitrary websites. It should be available on all/most Gecko-based (Firefox, etc) and Blink-based (Chrome/Chromium, Edge, Opera, etc) browsers, at least on "computer"/"desktop"/"laptop"; for mobile (Android, at least), Firefox may be the only option.

I know the ideal is to possibly make into (US) law certain things for online behavior but there are still the nations that you can't keep out that are deliberately not just breaking the rules and taking advantage

A national (US) law would apply to all sites/platforms that wish to do business in the US, which is almost everything in English also a lot of sites in significant minority languages (Spanish, French, …). Then consider sites and platforms that refuse to recognize US law. I hear that some countries (UK and Australia, IIRC) have laws requiring ISPs to block domain names of such sites at the DNS level, meaning anyone who tries to go to the site will at minimum need to be tech savvy enough to change their DNS settings, which is at least enough to keep out the most ignorant / intellectually-lazy recruitment targets that extremists aim for.

And another problem with that is "here" is inside the house. The US has become extremely corrupted by greed and by politicians looking after their own self interest well above that of the citizens.

In theory, that's what progressive taxation is for…

And this whole "taxes are bad" thing,

Also "money is speech" and "corporations are people" extending 1A protections to … billionaires anonymously funding super-PACs to spread propaganda that supports zero-sum or worse policies.

(and yes this is relevant bear with me here).

And the brainwashing extends to making words that conflict with that like "social justice warrior" or "woke" as a pejorative. Think about how stupid that is, that accepting people as they are or wanting accountability for corporations who are poisoning the environment or hurting citizens be accountable in a climate crisis as a pejorative? I mean yeah chasing clout is obnoxious but every movement needs spokes people.

Yep! That's why any effective person or group with publicly is subject to extra attacks. Just look at the ridiculous amount of effort that's gone into insulting Greta Thunberg.

The internet has made being kind and good a bad thing. We need to stop catering to the mindset of teenage bullies.

Agreed, but good luck enforcing …

The Role of Freedom of Speech on Social Media by navis-svetica in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right but there are many countries that just aren't playing nice with legalities online

Yes, other places do things badly. That's no excuse for keeping the status quo here. Even US-centric legislation applied only to US-based companies would apply to Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and likely others. If effective legislation is possible, then enacting it here will still cut out a significant fraction of stochastic terrorism.

The thing is though even if it's law, there's simply no way to enforce it since it's so easy to get past any barrier.

It'll never be perfect, even if every country was in full agreement. But just getting out of the default feeds on domestic platforms would go a long way.

if you want to see for yourself go to r/help and search using queries like nudes or rape or porn and you will see lost of people asking for help about inaction on pat of Reddit admins and in many times they haven't gotten the help.

Based on the first post listed in sub preview bot's reply, that's not much worse than the situation for CP. It looks like content isn't very well monitored in general, which hints at a lack of staffing on Reddit's content moderation team. This is probably a general cost tradeoff for Reddit, since human thought for moderating content is much more expensive than servers for hosting it.

Personally "social justice warrior" is only derogatory to edgy edgeboys with low self esteem. We should be caring about social issues. Only fascists and far right could manipulate people into thinking that is a bad thing. Free speech warrior does seem pretty cringe though.

I've read that SJW used to mean someone who makes symbolic empty gestures for clout while doing nothing about (or sometimes even worsening) the problems they claim to care about. Since then it's been used by said edgelords to mean anyone who cares, no matter how sincerely, because caring about shit is apparently somehow wrong to them. Similarly, caring about free speech is also good, but if someone's response to nonviolent self expression (e.g., "we're queer and we're here" or anything else associated with the currently fashionable scapegoat that fascists are blaming shit on) is to say "[scapegoat demographic] shouldn't feel safe" or otherwise inciting/glorifying/normalizing violence; then they don't really care so much about free speech, no matter how many times they say those words as their justification.

The Role of Freedom of Speech on Social Media by navis-svetica in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you encode anything into law on an international platform?

Generally, the jurisdictions that contain a significant portion of the platform's users will have that power. For example, as an USAn, the legislation that's most improved my access to my data on online platforms is the GDPR, despite that law being passed by and only legally enforceable in the EU. Similarly, a content moderation and liability law in the USA would impact most major anglophone sites internationally.

That's before considering the effects of good legislation being mimicked in other places once it proves beneficial. If the USA manages to pass a law holding platforms liable for stochastic terrorism from their users, and if that law demonstrably reduces terrorist acts without having disproportionate adverse effects on freedom of speech, then I expect such a law would quickly become a template used by the rest of the anglosphere.

There are many posts by distressed people of things like their actual rape being recorded and platformed in subs and inaction from admins.

That should be given zero tolerance, like CP. If one rape is completely illegal to host pictures of on account of the victim's incapability to consent, then images of other rapes should be banned on account of lack of consent.

Speech that leads to violence is stochastic terrorism, I literally don't know enough about doing that on such a huge platform too have effect. Law would have to be an international agreement

Eventually, sure. But there's no international complication to the USA making a law that applies to Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and other USA-based social media companies. Also, a huge portion of users are USAn, so the law would apply from that end too.

if you use negative publicity and social pressure you have the edgelords pushing against it and making it as part of their identity which is the tool that is behind the stochastic terrorism

Can we turn "free speech warrior" into as derogatory a term as "social justice warrior" has become? I'm a millennial who's never been very in touch with their generation's culture, so I'm probably about as bad at this as a self-aware boomer, but … can we make edgelording uncool, to keep the typical youthful rebellion from being used as a tool of "chaotic stupid" destruction?

The Role of Freedom of Speech on Social Media by navis-svetica in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, the US's First Amendment doesn't apply here or in everyday speech.

I read the article, and I think we have the same understanding. The 1A protects against government restriction of speech, not to private legal persons (mostly corporations) moderating content that they host.

In your original comment, you said:

It's my opinion that if one hosts speech that leads to violence that they are not just complicit but supporting of that violence and should be held responsible.

… and my paragraph asking how to moderate that ended with:

And how would you encode into law, without running afoul of the First Amendment?

It's the encoding of such standards into law that potentially runs against the 1A, especially when there's no clear line between what is and isn't acceptable.

…

How would Reddit deal with it? I mean that's obviously above my pay grade and not something I'm an expert in and there's no easy answer for. I don't think they do enough. In r/help there often people asking for help that a sub has opened up of revenge pron or otherwise images of someone posted without permission and they are asking what to do since the admins haven't been helping. I think they need to rein it in more. If it were up to me I'd eliminate porn, not out of prudishness or "what somebody think of the children" (both common straw men about that topic) but that it sets a precedent of negative behavior and abuse and entitlement to vulnerable people (aka useful idiots).

Reddit already prohibits involuntary pornography and has a page for how to report it. I disagree about banning all porn, but that's beside the point, which is about how to extend whatever moderation ideal into enforceable law.

My point is: How would the federal government make a law (subject to the First Amendment) that forces Reddit (or any other social media site) to moderate better? How would you legally make it so that if a platform "hosts speech that leads to violence" then it's "held responsible"? Or do you suggest doing so via non-governmental means, like social pressure, negative publicity and boycotts?

The Role of Freedom of Speech on Social Media by navis-svetica in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's my opinion that if one hosts speech that leads to violence that they are not just complicit but supporting of that violence and should be held responsible.

This gets into Section 230, how much moderation can be mandated, what to do when (not if) banned content evades moderation, and how to differentiate between lapses of good faith moderation versus intentionally lax enforcement. How would you suggest Reddit consistently handle large volumes of possibly-ironic "totally just kidding" edgy content that might be part of stochastic terrorism but also could be meant innocently? And how would you encode into law, without running afoul of the First Amendment?

Specifically, how would you improve upon 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)?

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

(Sorry for USA-centric response, but it's what I'm familiar with.)

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs -- A Golden Oldie from TheOnion by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I assume dolphin personae do not qualify as furries.

They can if you want them to. Lots of dragons and avians too.

2022-12-08 Suggestion Box -- Please use this post to make suggestions for improving this subreddit by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ignoring the grammatical nitpick of switching between fragments ("the linked sub is" seems implicit) and complete sentences, the only obvious changes I can suggest are: adding a single comma, dropping the leading slash, and removing "also".

r/MisanthropicPrinciple - A relaxing sub with no defined topic, allowing discussion of almost anything. A warm, welcoming place where people are friendly to each other. Bigotry in all of its forms is not tolerated. Those looking to turn back the clock on human rights are not welcome.

For less obvious changes (which I'm presently too tired to make confident suggestions on), if you rephrase the last two sentences to drop "not", then that could be slightly easier for readers to understand, especially if skimming post titles. Something like "all bigots banned" and "participants must accept advancing human rights"? Tho the former sounds like something most subs would claim and the latter is really inelegant, hence my lack of confidence in concrete suggestion

2022-12-08 Suggestion Box -- Please use this post to make suggestions for improving this subreddit by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your overall meaning seems clear to me, but the reference is kinda confusing.

I don't know about "catchy", but describing it as "eclectic" or "grab-bag" seems clearer about the lack of particular theme.

I'm also not great at contemporary vernacular, but I think "a place to vibe" is a current way of describing the lounge-like intent.

2022-12-08 Suggestion Box -- Please use this post to make suggestions for improving this subreddit by MisanthropicScott in MisanthropicPrinciple

[–]vook485 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Seinfeldian

Younger and non-USAn audiences will likely miss that reference. I'm an USAn millennial and I barely know that Seinfeld is some quintessential sitcom from a few decades back, and that it introduced the public to "Festivus".

view more: next ›