

You’d be surprised how many people don’t. It’s a good fun fact, and I stand by supporting arms reduction regardless. :)


You’d be surprised how many people don’t. It’s a good fun fact, and I stand by supporting arms reduction regardless. :)


Math.
Our typical warhead (100kt) leaves a 200m radius crater if used to maximize the crater size. (Experiment in using nukes for mining and terrain shaping).
We have less than 6000. 6000 π (0.2 km)2 ~ 6000(0.125km2 ) ~ 754km2 < 2,586 km2.
Nukes are dangerous because (other than the obvious) of what they do to the air, not the ground.


“fun” fact: we could never actually glass the earth, but with the success of disarmament work we’re at the point where, with perfect geometry, ideal yields, and a generous definition of “glass” the biggest country we could do that to is Luxembourg.
The moral of the story: strategic arms reduction treaties work, they’re just very slow.


You may be conflating the quakers with a different religious group.
While still a religious group, the quakers are largely one of the most accepting. They were initially given trouble by the Dutch. Their numbers have never really been high enough to have the type of social sway that you’re thinking.
Maybe you’re thinking the puritans or pilgrims? They’re the ones who kinda took over. Shame, inherent sin and all that.
The quakers are the pacifist abolitionists who think church should be a group of people quietly thinking in someone’s home until someone feels moved to share an idea.
While it would be better if our country was less religiously locked in, I’m pretty sure if it was the quakers that rose to prevalence we’d be way better off, even if only from the “not my job to enforce your morality” part.


Conservatives seem to oscillate between isolationism and aggressive intervention. They’re both from the stance of American primacy, either using our military for our benefit and to enforce our wishes or saying the world has nothing to offer us we need and that we’re better off not extending effort or energy on the rest of the world.
Currently our conservatives are swinging towards isolationism, which is why the anti immigration rhetoric and pulling out of international organizations was very popular. That’s not compatible with a plan to forcibly annex another country.
So for the first part, I don’t disagree at all. I just don’t think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn’t shake hands with someone I considered evil.
I don’t see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.
There’s a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there’s no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it’s a real reason.
As for the use of the word “service”, sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey “those who develop and control the mastodon license”. Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can’t support an ideology in that sense.
I’m not of the opinion either supports them in a way that’s worth getting angry over.
We also aren’t talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.
Says the fact that it’s come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren’t used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been “in progress” for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it’s not compatible.
Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.
No, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.
If you’re mad at one and not the other, you’re applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.
Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I’m neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it’s hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.
So the mastodon service supports Nazis.
nobody owns it and anyone can run it
They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put “free software” and “open source” above blocking hate speech.
They’re providing software to Nazis, and I don’t really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.


I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying that the people who are saying that they’ve lost all faith in Americans because we haven’t full actualized a revolution in less than a year are being shitty for no good reason. Armchair revolutionaries who think that it should be done now because it’s supposed to be as simple as “organize, kick them out, make a new government and they all just say shucks while we arrest them”.
As you said, people are getting organized. But to some people outside the US, that’s not enough and we should be done deposing the government by now. That’s what I’m saying is unreasonable.
Based on the finish dude in your icon and finish instance name, I’m assuming you’re in Finland.
Organization takes longer here than it would there based purely on population. I’m in an average sized state. Our population is twice that of Finland. The state is about the same size as the country.
Even if we were all on board even for a strike, it’s still gonna take longer than so many people seem to expect us to be able to do it in.
It costs a company money to process mail at their place if business. Not like, crazy amounts but someone has to open the box, see what’s in it and figure out why it’s there. It’s probably going to cost them at least $2-$3 in time.
It’s far from an effective way to cost them money, but it’s $2 more than throwing a book away at your house.


Alright. How do I make that happen? I’m assuming since you’re answering so confidently that you actually have an answer and have done something like this before.
You certainly couldn’t just be another armchair revolutionary who handwaved the entire “plan a nationwide general strike and risk execution for insurrection” based purely on what you think sounds straightforward, right?
Most revolutions have outside partisans who come and lend a hand. Why don’t you come over and do that?
Maybe it’s a bit trickier to organize hundreds of millions of people to have at least passive support for something and interrupt the social momentum of hundreds of years of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power than can be accomplished in less than a year and being shitty towards the people who are upset and don’t know what to do is just … Being shitty.


Yes, that’s what I’m asking for the details of how you do it. I don’t know how to do a revolution. My assumption is that the people who confidently and definitely know that we’re doing it wrong must have some idea how to do it right.
So again, how do I overthrow the US government?
You people dicked around so long
“So long”? What’s your threshold for a reasonable timeline for a revolution to start? he hasn’t even been in office a full year.


I think they gave it two wireless adapters for basically that purpose. That way it and the computer can form a dedicated channel where they don’t need an intermediary for better performance.


Walk me through your plan to depose the American government in less than a year. Don’t forget that if you fail or are caught planning they don’t just kill you, they kill you by injecting you with poison that feels like being set on fire from the inside while you suffocate, take everything you or your family possess leaving your survivors homeless and destitute, shoot your dog and probably a couple of family members too.
Like, if you’ve lost all faith we’ll “do what needs to be done”… What needs to be done?


It’s slightly more complicated than that. Still doesn’t make him look good but it’s more nuanced.
He was a Nazi and flagrant racist before Nazi was the unequivocally negative descriptor we think of it as today.
He thought Nazism was right for America the same way he thought square dancing would keep away the blacks and that the Jews would be undercut if he did car financing without banks.
He was awful and a patriot, so when Germany went to war with America he was unequivocally in favor of destroying the Germans.
He still agreed with them on everything else.


I agree that it’s artificial scarcity, but I don’t think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.
It’s the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.
As a user and contributer to open source, I’m loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn’t as much ability to make a living in it.
Software patents can fuck off though.
I would recommend it. It can take a minute your first time through to get to some of the intense optimization stuff, but a lot of it’s there really early.
The dominant gameplay loop by far is “you have tools. There’s a new problem to solve with those tools that’s hard/tedious. Solving it means you can make tools that make the problem easier. Goto step one”.
That fits. I think games where you need to care for a dumb little creature hit a couple buttons in our psychology. You want to make it do the right thing because you want to succeed at the game and get that reward of “it did good”. It’s struggling, which means you’re paying attention to it, and it’s doing so with enough charm that you’re not just entirely indifferent. Most importantly, it needs to succeed often enough to make sure you know it can, and slowly get better so you have the long term satisfaction of having improved it. Extra bonus points if you can give a bit of wish fulfillment fantasy. “My sim who regularly eats old fish out of the trash is somehow a self employed artist who lives in a great house I got distracted and built to my dream specification. I would totally play pool until I wet myself and fell asleep crying on the floor.”
I think there’s actually a lot of truth to fun being related to frustration. If something is too easy you don’t get the dopamine hit, because why would your brain reward you for learning something trivial? If it’s too hard the path to most joy is giving up. At the sweet spot it’s obviously possible, but you struggle enough that you get a dash of dopamine for succeeding. The trick is keeping the struggle varied or infrequent enough that you’re brain doesn’t declare it a source of diminishing returns.
Shitty mobile games are the king of it, since they have a standard/easy ramp that quickly moves to just above most people’s threshold with the “out” of a loot box that has a chance to give you a bonus labeled as just a small boost. And they’re normally $10/10, but the 50 packs is $15 for the moment, and since you’re new you get $10 off…
Not-those types of games tend to just try for “balanced difficulty scaling”.
First, you’re assuming that most successful assassins are the unstable nutcases. It could just be that it’s more memorable when the motivation is “make jodi foster love me” than “stop an expansionist imperialist who’s destroying the lives of the common man”.
You’re also more likely to be a lone assassin if you don’t conform to social norms because social norms say not to kill people.
The most prolific assassins are just common soldiers whose names we don’t even record.