Recent comments

takeheart wrote

Reply to That's a Metaphor if I ever saw one by Wahaha

On what? I see capitalism, monopoly of violence, copyright, technocracy, jewish banking cabal, scientific establishment.

But all of those require cat on top to actively harm bottom cat for just being there, until the second platform is destroyed and bottom cat falls to the ground.

2

takeheart wrote

Reply to comment by BlackWinnerYoshi in University Banned From Contributing To Linux Kernel For Intentionally Inserting Bugs by z3d

Yes, that one. Here is less argument more lament wall of text that I liked.

Beginning, automatic computing was created to save human labour and to provide correct answers; this axiom has been forgotten, and people no longer truly understand for what reasons computers exist. A computer is not a series of digital levers, sparing users from flipping them by hand, but ability to have one lever flip activate all or none, or any other pattern the machine can be taught; following, the machine could be taught the meta-patterns of stimuli relating to these patterns, and to activate them automatically, soon running autonomously, until encountering situations so new a human operator must tell it how to proceed. The goal isn't to flip levers, but to be able to entirely forget them. Thus, when a man spends hours flipping digital levers, it's such an obscene act, against the spirit.

My chosen forgotten realms pursued this spirit of decreasing human labour. The fiefdoms, liars, and cults act against it. It would be inappropriate to express this disgust with computing history, and not mention UNIX, brimming with all three groups. It's responsible for teaching countless people to bend themselves to the machine, never daring to customize it in certain trivial ways, and then pride themselves on this obscenity; the liars claim it was the first operating system written in a higher-level language, they claim it had the first hierarchical file system, they claim an operating system panicking is perfectly reasonable behaviour, they claim doing something once in the operating system is worse than doing it in every program that uses it, they claim things must be this way or similar, and they claim yet other vicious lies; and those fiefdoms are built on these foundations, justifying complicated languages by making comparisons to the natural sciences despite there needing be no such complications in a human construct, taking joy in writing incomprehensible programs, and mocking the people with the good sense to look upon them with disgust, amongst other ways these fiefdoms attempt to maintain their social control in spite of evidence. Those who could stop them don't know better.

I'm forced to wonder if all wondrous technology goes through a phase such as computing currently is, in which humans create it, and idiots build a community around needlessly abusing it. Did operators of early printing presses forget what that tool was for, or find it fine to print illegibly given it was good enough; I know none of these incompetent programmers would enjoy it were operators of their water infrastructure behaving so carelessly, retorting that an advanced user always boils his water.

http://verisimilitudes.net/2020-09-24

2

takeheart wrote

Reply to University Banned From Contributing To Linux Kernel For Intentionally Inserting Bugs by z3d

An open-source project is effectively a private venue, capable of banning people and enacting arbitrary rules within the limits of local anti-discrimination statutes.

Nobody has a right to have their patches be considered, just like no magazine or newspaper has an obligation to consider your submission. Your right is to make a fork or patchset if you don't like how the project is being managed.

The Linux kernel is the "Benevolent dictatorship"

The cult shows it's ugly face. jewkipedia also tried "benevolent dictatorship" card, and how did that worked out?

2

BlackWinnerYoshi wrote

Reply to comment by takeheart in Video of YouTube CEO Being Given “Free Expression” Award Sews Wide Hatred by Wahaha

And it looks like the commentators don't bother either. Back when I took a screenshot of the comments c. 2021-04-23T14:50+00:00, it showed one comment that mentioned shadow bans. I just checked both the YouTube video and the reddit post and that was the only comment I found, although I can't find it now.

2

takeheart wrote

Reply to US Postal Service accused of monitoring American social media posts under controversial surveillance project by Rambler

As such, the US Postal Inspection Service has federal law enforcement officers, Postal Inspectors, who enforce approximately 200 federal laws to achieve the agency’s mission:

To make more criminals and fill federal concentration camps. Each new federal law to protect will only produce more criminals to lock in federal concentration camps. Why the fuck would postal service do that with that disgusting glorified pose? It's not controversial, it's evil.

2

dontvisitmyintentions OP wrote

Reply to Automatic hopper fed catapult [wood] by dontvisitmyintentions

He just posted a follow-up on his other channel, with more details: https://v2.incogtube.com/watch?v=hOyGO9wkn4U

An interesting trick is he pre-heats work pieces to help hot glue bind to wood (of course, he's in Canada in a cold workshop).

The other Youtuber he mentions at the end is https://v2.incogtube.com/user/wintergatan2000 with his elaborate crank and marble mechanisms.

1

dontvisitmyintentions wrote

Reply to A 23-Year-Old Coder Kept QAnon Online When No One Else Would by Rambler

“Once you get to the point where you look at whether content is safe or unsafe, as soon as you do that, you’ve opened a can of worms.” At best, his apolitical framing comes across as naive; at worst, as preposterous gaslighting.

So you're telling me that neither of the two authors nor their editor know what gaslighting means? Preposterous.

Lim sees the rising concerns around high-tech censorship as a business opportunity.

How embarrassing for Bloomberg to characterize shocks of supplies of reliable hosting as a he-said quote, instead of the market opportunity itself. It's almost like the authors hate the idea of supply and demand itself.

2