Welcome to the magic of federation! This is how I’m seeing your posts: https://lemmy.ml/post/38812210/22162387

Basically, the Fediverse are lots of different sites that all use the same language (protocol), and some are able to talk to each other. So a Mastodon site (instance) like mastodon.world

• can talk to another Mastodon instance (like mastodon.art, or techhub.social)
• can talk to some other twitter-like platforms like Pleroma and Akkoma
• can talk to instances of some other platforms including Lemmy and Mbin (reddit-like), Pixelfed (Instagram-like), Friendica (Facebook-like) and more
• I’m not sure but I think you can like, comment and subscribe on PeerTube instances

I haven’t kept up-to-date with what’s possible and what isn’t working yet, so I might have missed something.

I wouldn’t even call it purity testing, they’re just testing. I’ve seen obsession over purity taken to a counterproductive extent, and I maintain that it can be a problem when dealing with a complex unideal reality, but what BadEmpanada is talking about here is fine. That’s a healthy level of testing, and important in preventing recuperation or sanewashing. Democrats are a bourgeois-controlled party and don’t share our class interests.

To give an example of the kind that is counterproductive, I know of a (small) socialist organisation in my country which has been banned from worker strikes after counterprotesting one, insisting that since industrial unions are bureaucratic, the workers should all just boycott the strike and make their own union. This group claims all other socialist organisations are impure and pseudo-leftist whenever they compromise with material reality and present conditions.

And, obviously, that’s a whole other world of purity testing to what you’re talking about. The problems are when it reaches no-true-Scotsman levels.

It’s also interesting to see how many game creators and tools (material creation) are being made in Godot.

Pingbert’s Snow Ride

I’m a little surprised to see old Tux Racer wasn’t listed as an influence.

My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government

The finer details will always change depending who you ask, but yes, it’s generally either the elimination of government, or of all ‘unjust hierarchies’ (which includes state government).

As someone else mentioned, ideological anarchists tend to be socialists, and in this context ‘anarchism’ is assumed to be that socialist strain, but not everyone calling themselves an anarchist is also a socialist. It’s a broad school of thought.

That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.

Capitalism isn’t organic. I can’t think of a case where it has developed outside of a revolution (like the anti-monarchist revolutions) and/or imperial suppression. It requires the enclosure of the commons and development of private property security forces like a police, neither of those are an organic phenomenon.

If anything, I would assume anarchism is more organic, since it could be found in many hunter-gatherer gift economies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

Now, I’m personally not convinced that this makes anarchism appropriate for our industrial/post-industrial societies, but it’s not inorganic.

I play sport near-daily but I don’t follow professional sports, and I honestly think ideally it should be abolished. It’s exploitative entertainment.

• Athletes often end up with horrible overwork injuries. I remember an interview where a range of former Olympians were asked “Was it worth it?” and the overwhelming answer was no, they now had life-long injury from training.
• Sport doesn’t need to be professional to be enjoyable to play and watch at a high-level.
• Like OP has said, it’s a business. They are parasocial and don’t care to truly involve you. They will platform advertisers who foster addiction, to make money. And I feel disgust every time I see a stadium absolutely covered with ads and uniforms covered in sponsorships. It might as well be a billboard with a patch of grass on it.

I’m obviously not against either sports or high-level competition, but as a profession? No way.

While many existing sports develop some useful life skills (physical skills, communication, decision making, strategy, … ) I have an interest in alternative games that emphasise these. Two of my favorites at the moment are Firefigher’s Olympics and Three-Sided Football.

A happy ending!

U.N. Resolutions: a brief summary

Since you mentioned them, I respect that some have been life sentenced and a couple put to death for serious crimes. There is a billionaire problem but at least they’re more controlled by the government than the Western ones controlling their governments.

And not to mention they were one of the other receivers of Hbomberguy’s famous plagarism video.

So I tried to find DJ Stryker voice clips and it turns out a couple of years ago plenty of people made AI-gen parodies. Some of them are a good laugh.

[removed my post: someone else already mentioned Captain Crunch]

Money going online really changed the mood.

I recall a conference talk mentioning that the speaker (from a nordic country) told their friend to look at their online banking account, and then transferred them $-10. Either they were spotted or they disclosed it, I forget which, and luckily they were hired instead of jailed.

Some people on Reddit were talking about how only dictators would want to disarm people

“I don’t know why any individual should ever have a right to have a revolver in his house […] people should not have handguns.”

• Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan and the NRA advocated for gun control once the Black Panthers started arming black communities. See: Mulford Act

Banning weapons is a problem if the government needs to be overthrown by its people. In places like the USA, this is increasingly obvious that traditional systems of government regulation are rapidly dissolving.

I think another important point to add is, I assume that your pro-socialism economic position is not independent of all those social positions. For an example, our economic structure affects whether we can fight climate change, or whether wealthy industries (including oil, mining, dairy) can maintain disproportionate political power and continue driving politics.

Terms like “left” and “right” are subjective, and frankly, not a useful way to understand politics due to its idealistic nature. Ask ten people what “left” even means and you’ll get several answers.

This video is a useful overview.

They also won the 1999 prize, and are famously the peace prize winner who were bombed by another peace prize winner in 2015 (Barack Obama).

“as bad”… not quite, and not in the same way. As other people have said, there’s no conscience to AI and I doubt there will be any financial incentive to develop one capable of “being evil” or doing some doomsday takeover. It’s a tool, it will continue to be abused by malicious actors, idiots will continue to trust it for things it can’t do properly, but this isn’t like the movies where it is malicious or murderous.

It’s perfectly capable of, say, being used to push people into personalized hyperrealities (consider how political advertising was microtargeted in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and consider how convincing fake AI imagery can be at a glance). It’s a more boring dystopia, but a powerful bad one nonetheless, capable of deconstructing societies to a large degree.

Hey, actually reading the article is cheating!

As far as financial scams go, my parents and uncles handled my grandparents’ finances for their last decade. If they were targeted then there would be an upper limit to how much money they could lose in one scam. They also weren’t paying for things online.

As for younger elderly people, if they’re still smart enough for it then I’d try educating them. Practically, not just talking about it. There are plenty of good public interactive resources for phishing training, so I’d be surprised if there weren’t any for AI. Also simple things like “never pay for anything in gift cards, ever” are some easy wins.