|
SedanChair posted:How do you contribute to a paper with math you don't understand? Maybe the math says "grind babies up for fuel." Did you ever consider that? Impossible! Eriosa already did a ctrl+F search for "grind" and it's nowhere to be found.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Caros posted:I get a kick out of the fact that "Its over fifty pages of math, by actual mathematicians!" In software, I generally find the length of the white paper inversely correlates with the coherence of the actual subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:07
|
|
archangelwar posted:In software, I generally find the length of the white paper inversely correlates with the coherence of the actual subject matter. Being unable to explain something briefly is an almost unfailing sign you haven't got a solid grip on what you're talking about, regardless of subject matter.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
You progressitards are just too dim-witted to understand the appeal of a future where the rich are given immortal life by being allowed to feed freely on the blood of the poor
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
I look forward to another digital currency bubble that re inflates and crashes weekly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Dehumanize and face to Bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Decentralize and face to Bitcoin Fixed
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How do you contribute to a paper with math you don't understand? Maybe the math says "grind babies up for fuel." Did you ever consider that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg Rhjamiz posted:Have you tried 'raise VAT and Kill All The Poor?' 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
50 pages of math are only useful if you can convince anyone that the implications of your theorem are actually important and desirable. e: Math is cool for its own sake, though, so I hope the proofs are interesting even though they will probably be meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:50 pages of math are only useful if you can convince anyone that the implications of your theorem are actually important and desirable. Its the reverse laffer curve of networks where we are always without enough networks. If everything was just connected like we really are all one maaaaan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Wait wait wait. This is a joke right? Non automatic updating news feed, cumbersome overwrought sharing mechanism, and I have to pay to do something I can already do for free. I'm not paying anyone anything to like something, fullstop. If I like something enough, I'll just buy the loving product.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Wait wait wait. I think you pay with attention. Which is both infinitely valuable and worthless in a schrodinger's cat fashion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Not going to lie, I'm sorta looking forward to whatever new directions Eripsa's messianic delusions and technofetishism take this time, especially since apparently Paranomal/Conspiracy has vanished again and taken its bitcoin thread with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not going to lie, I'm sorta looking forward to whatever new directions Eripsa's messianic delusions and technofetishism take this time, especially since apparently Paranomal/Conspiracy has vanished again and taken its bitcoin thread with it. The thread is still there, its just... uh.. hidden, along with the Paranormal/Conspiracy forum. Which is pretty funny. And you aren't the only one. Whenever god closes a door he opens a window. Jrod may be gone forever, but now we get to hear about a strange new world of coins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
While he'll likely not be back to this thread, I very much doubt we've seen the end of Jrod forever. He just can't resist preaching his religion, particularly to heretics like us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While he'll likely not be back to this thread, I very much doubt we've seen the end of Jrod forever. He just can't resist preaching his religion, particularly to heretics like us. Now I'm just imagining Jrodefeld as like... Cobra Commander. Or Dr.Claw. I'll get you next time statism! Next time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
For the heck of it I googled "jrodefeld," and wow, his MO hasn't changed, and the reactions he gets here are completely typical no matter where he posts. But somehow having basically everyone he interacts with online have the same (negative) reaction doesn't deter him the tiniest bit. Also the sheer number of forums he's been willing to register for is kind of amazing. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=578281 http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/03/most-important-libertarian-argument http://www.revleft.com/vb/am-libertarian-t189560/index.html?s=594551c9dee43db505839b47bcf99a4b& http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-nut-house/i-am-a-libertarian-market-anarchist/
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:For the heck of it I googled "jrodefeld," and wow, his MO hasn't changed, and the reactions he gets here are completely typical no matter where he posts. But somehow having basically everyone he interacts with online have the same (negative) reaction doesn't deter him the tiniest bit. Also the sheer number of forums he's been willing to register for is kind of amazing. I especially enjoy watching right wing lunatics tell him he's wrong. People thinking he is wrong about things is a bipartisan effort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:I especially enjoy watching right wing lunatics tell him he's wrong. People thinking he is wrong about things is a bipartisan effort. What I find really enjoyable are the libertarians who post here responding to our Jrodefeld related posts and going "That's not libertarianism, only a crazy person would think that"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:What I find really enjoyable are the libertarians who post here responding to our Jrodefeld related posts and going "That's not libertarianism, only a crazy person would think that" Libertarianism is like Marxism. Everyone who follows it has their own preferred variety. It comes with being a rump ideology, because you don't have any real chance of being in power there is no drive to formalize the ideology into something that is workable in day to day, which is why if you put any two libertarians in a room, the only thing they'd agree is that neither is a 'true' libertarian. To their credit they tend to ideologically eat one another less often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:Libertarianism is like Marxism. Everyone who follows it has their own preferred variety. It comes with being a rump ideology, because you don't have any real chance of being in power there is no drive to formalize the ideology into something that is workable in day to day, which is why if you put any two libertarians in a room, the only thing they'd agree is that neither is a 'true' libertarian. If it's not a circlejerk it's a circular firing squad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
I think as long as we keep calling libertarian thinkers racist (as they all are, without exception, black libertarians included) he'll be compelled to return soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think as long as we keep calling libertarian thinkers racist (as they all are, without exception, black libertarians included) he'll be compelled to return soon enough. The thing is, an-caps claim to reason axiomatically from first principles; when HHH or Rothbard says something outrageously racist, jrod ought to be able to dismiss it as human error arising from reasoning independent of the an-cap axioms. He ought to be able to. Too bad he's too invested in fetishizing these guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:50 pages of math are only useful if you can convince anyone that the implications of your theorem are actually important and desirable. There's about ten pages at the front about design theory, which is the part that I contributed to. The math describes the technology used for distributed consensus measures, proof of work, and proof of identity. I don't understand the math entirely, but they are using an implementation of the pi-calculus to do everything ethereum does, but without the blockchain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:There's about ten pages at the front about design theory, which is the part that I contributed to. The math describes the technology used for distributed consensus measures, proof of work, and proof of identity. I don't understand the math entirely, but they are using an implementation of the pi-calculus to do everything ethereum does, but without the blockchain. Oh good, you ditched the idea of basing it off of Prosecution Futures! Also I think we've now come full circle in cryptonerdery where we're discussing "Its like X but without bitcoin" rather than "X but with bitcoin!" Edit: Its worth noting that if you continue on your realm of trying to make this into some kind of currency (Still waiting on your answer on how it has intrinsic value btw) that Bitcoin has set the standard for how a lot of this stuff is going to be treated in the future. They call bitcoin Prosecution Futures because you're basically begging to be taken to court for some form of tax evasion/money laundering/money processing etc. Do you have any plans on how implementation of your system is going to work when the US eventually declares your currency to be just that and starts slamming down on people for being Money Transfer companies without proper certification? Caros fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
I'd like to give it a go and try to have a discussion about libertarianism with you all. But, to reiterate on what I said before my hiatus, the race talk has to stop. It is not that I have an issue with discussing the subject, it is only that such talk lends itself to people to use partisan demagoguery and hurl insults at one another. I am disheartened though by SedanChair's post a few replies above this one where he claims that ALL libertarians, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, are racist. Such comments are not worthy of a serious response. In fact, people who make such sweeping generalizations and slanderous accusations should be ignored not just by me, but by everyone who is interested in any sort of productive discussion. As a follow up to my request to drop the non-productive accusations of racism, I furthermore am going to request that if I cite an argument made by, say, Rothbard or Ron Paul that the discussion remains on the argument itself not on some other view he may or may not have. You might think that I am reflexively defending libertarian intellectuals because I am blinded by my adulation towards my "heroes" and am unable to admit their failings. At least the more respectful among you (like Caros) grant me that courtesy, those who don't irresponsibly claim I am an overt bigot personally despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is not at all the case. I have no problem whatsoever in pointing out statements that I consider to be racist or insensitive. Yet given the breadth of the material I have read from Rothbard, Woods, Paul and the others that have been accused of harboring ill will towards minorities, I cannot put any of them into the category of "racist". I too read certain articles authored by Rothbard and I am offended or I feel he has used the most untactful language to describe a social problem. Yet then I read articles where he is praising certain civil rights figures and decrying Jim Crow and I cannot believe that he holds any ill will towards any racial group. The most one could say against Rothbardian libertarians is that they hold to their First Principles and their abstract theory to such a degree that they are blind to certain utilitarian effects that those principles can sometimes lead. I could accept this criticism as fair (though I don't necessarily agree). What I can't accept is ascribing racial bigotry as a driving force for libertarian ideology. I am personally invested in the positive utilitarian effects that I believe would come for minorities if libertarian reforms are enacted. It's just a passion of mine. I will be outspoken in situations where libertarians say or do racist things. I'll point and say "that is racist and offensive". For example, I'll say the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters were racist and offensive, no caveats necessary. In fact, I think the entire Paleo-conservative coalition that Rothbard supported late in his life was a tactical mistake and saddled some libertarians with unnecessary social baggage. If we disagree on who's racist and who isn't, then we should drop the discussion and focus on the policies, the utilitarian effects of said policies. I'll even be extra charitable and say plainly that I think most of you are genuine people with good motivations who want the best for others. It would be nice if you could reciprocate that courtesy and deal with me as if I am a decent person who honestly believes everyone would be better off in a libertarian society. Motives are hard to prove anyway so it is best to take the high road and assume the best of intentions from your opponents. Now, what IS on the table for discussion are the utilitarian outcomes of libertarian policies for minorities. That is a fine topic for discussion. But accusing your opposition of sinister motives forestalls any real discussion of what SHOULD be a far more important debate. IF you are willing to agree to the above, then I'd be happy to talk about some specific substantive issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Boom! You're welcome folks. And it's not gonna stop jrod. It's never gonna stop, whether you stay or leave we are still gonna be here calling every libertarian a racist, because the outcome of libertarian belief is supporting racism. A qualification: you can be an unwitting or a passive racist like jrodefeld is. That's the most creditable form of libertarian you can be (still not too creditable, alas). Or you can be a gleeful, muscular racist like Murray Rothbard. But you don't get to not be a racist! e: When I was a libertarian, I was a racist because I supported racism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Jrod, what are your thoughts on this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I want to ask how many of you are genuine Marxists or Socialists? Just so I'm clear, I don't mean a moderately regulated free market with a social safety net, but one who is committed to the idea that private ownership of the means of production and income inequality are inherent evils that must be combated through nationalization of industry and/or workers taking control of the means of production? I am assuming that their are more than a few who post here. I don't recall if I've asked this question explicitly before. For those that feel Capitalism is inherently immoral, how can you explain the worldwide failure of Socialism and Marxism? As I previously mentioned, Communism is said to be responsible for nearly 100 million deaths making it by far the largest ideological cause of death in the 20th century. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of worldwide Communism as a real threat, most everyone was forced to concede that the free market had been proven superior to socialism on utilitarian grounds. As a secondary question, how can a true Marxist or Socialist ever criticize a libertarian for being Utopian or impractical? Is the irony not readily apparent? I'll leave this post brief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:the race talk has to stop. THEN SHUT THE gently caress UP ABOUT IT and actually make one of these substantive arguments you're supposedly sitting on. When we last discussed healthcare, I believe you were trying to deny the fact that more advanced techniques are more expensive. You attempted to pin the increase in healthcare cost since the 60s, not on the development of new techniques, but on government regulation and oversight. How, then, do you explain that countries with much higher government involvement in the healthcare than the US, like Canada or the UK, also have much lower healthcare costs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Why don't you address some of the healthcare posts instead of proclaiming the same idiotic statements you always make when you come back? I'll even ignore that you're still a racist!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Jrod, what are your thoughts on this? I don't really have an opinion on that. Since it is in the "Comedy Goldmine" subforum, why don't you provide some back story to fill me in on who Eripsa is and why you'd care about my comments on this article?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't really have an opinion on that. Since it is in the "Comedy Goldmine" subforum, why don't you provide some back story to fill me in on who Eripsa is and why you'd care about my comments on this article? No. Do not comment on this bullshit. Instead, explain why healthcare costs in the relatively-free United States are so vastly higher than corresponding costs in countries with socialist healthcare, like Canada or the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't really have an opinion on that. Since it is in the "Comedy Goldmine" subforum, why don't you provide some back story to fill me in on who Eripsa is and why you'd care about my comments on this article? I just think it would be interesting to hear a libertarian opinion regarding the attention economy and I think Erpisa would be interested in hearing your opinion as well. Maybe you two could have a discussion about it? It's not a gotcha question, I'm just genuinely curious and I understand if you don't want to delve into such a large piece of writing like that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to ask how many of you are genuine Marxists or Socialists? Just so I'm clear, I don't mean a moderately regulated free market with a social safety net, but one who is committed to the idea that private ownership of the means of production and income inequality are inherent evils that must be combated through nationalization of industry and/or workers taking control of the means of production? If we're getting all autobiographical: I'm a straight up anarcho-syndicalist, I definitely believe in confiscating the wealth of capitalists and ending capitalism. However, I also believe that day may never come, so I suppose in terms of the policies I end up advocating for in a way that could be seen as remotely practical I guess I'm kind of a Christian Socialist. I think you'll find that many of us are just as idealistic as you are, at heart. It's just if you're going to sign up for an idealistic belief system, how about not picking one that enshrines debt peonage as a sacrosanct principle which flows from the quintessence of being itself?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
I advocate for the shedding of blood in service to my lord, Khorne. Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
fwiw libertarians are racist as gently caress. Anyone who thinks their choices are "free" and somehow escape the institutionalized racism and sexism inherent in state capitalism is delusional. I've never ranted about fiat currency or any of this libertarian garbage and I feel bile in my throat just posting in this thread. Y'all pin it on me because y'all are lazy bastards that can't keep your personality cult straight. I'll stop posting in this thread; I'll be back when the whitepaper drops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:fwiw libertarians are racist as gently caress. Anyone who thinks their choices are "free" and somehow escape the institutionalized racism and sexism inherent in state capitalism is delusional. I've never ranted about fiat currency or any of this libertarian garbage and I feel bile in my throat just posting in this thread. Eripsa you're a cool dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:
Real talk, I like what you're doing and I hope you succeed even if I don't think it has a chance in hell of working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to ask how many of you are genuine Marxists or Socialists? Just so I'm clear, I don't mean a moderately regulated free market with a social safety net, but one who is committed to the idea that private ownership of the means of production and income inequality are inherent evils that must be combated through nationalization of industry and/or workers taking control of the means of production? I'm kind of confused why you're putting Marxists and Socialists in the same camp, that would be kind of like using anarcho-capitalists and Austrian economists interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:54
|
|