|
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1372510594969010190 I like Bad Faith but never enough to subscribe, but drat, a Bri Hedges convo would be nice to hear. Edit: Opps, I'm dumb and Bad Faith is very, very cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6VQJjvNxj4 Mostly Lurking has issued a correction as of 14:22 on Mar 18, 2021 |
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Mostly Lurking posted:https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1372510594969010190 he wasn’t as doomer as he usually is which is nice, also he had some nice things to say about AOC which i’m sure will rile a few people
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
every market in boston is a 'boston market'
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Matt is a utopian socialist. He has nearly said as much by saying electoralism and direct action are dead ends. No wonder he's doomed to disappointment I was almost immediately taken out of today's What A Hell of a Way to Die enen their guest days it doesn't look like we're getting austerity, like what loving planet are you on. It was an okay episode but I think they were giving Biden too much of the benefit of the doubt. Though do any of these have the Hell of a Way to Die pateron episodes, I do want to hear them talk about the Bradley because I do have fond memories of Pentagon Wars KomradeX has issued a correction as of 19:19 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Matt is a utopian socialist. He has nearly said as much by saying electoralism and direct action are dead ends. Depends on his definition of direct action I guess. I'd argue he's not a utopian if he still believes there's a level of despair our material conditions could sink to that would give socialism a foot in the door, which as far as I know he still believes
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I was almost immediately taken out of today's What A Hell of a Way to Die enen their guest days it doesn't look like we're getting austerity, like what loving planet are you on. It was an okay episode but I think they were giving Biden too much of the benefit of the doubt. Their episodes are so hit or miss. The ones where they just talk about goofy troop stuff or whatever military thing went viral are great, but the rest are kind of trashy. Iirc one of the hosts is also a landlord.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
The newest QAA about Ali Alexander is some primo WTF, but the most WTF moment was when Travis and Julian said Lenin was evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I do want to hear them talk about the Bradley because I do have fond memories of Pentagon Wars as an unbiased and objective commenter i want to say it was a good episode
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
virgil looks like he's aged a decade in those bad faith clips i hope some day he'll talk about wtf he did when he disappeared between bernie losing and recently
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
he has the wonk's curse
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:The newest QAA about Ali Alexander is some primo WTF, but the most WTF moment was when Travis and Julian said Lenin was evil. Lol I missed that. The guest they had on definitely felt like he was overstating how dangerous someone like Ali is. Based on his article is just seems like Ali is someone funded by a lot of dark money and connections to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:The newest QAA about Ali Alexander is some primo WTF, but the most WTF moment was when Travis and Julian said Lenin was evil. I don't think they actually said that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don't think they actually said that. They made a comment that could be uncharitably read that way. I dont really care one way or the other im not listening to them for their opinions on the russian revolution. I listen to Mike Duncan and Matt Christman for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Mostly Lurking posted:https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1372510594969010190 Yeah, great interview. I like his big overall point, which is that the left needs to be more willing to act as a spoiler and earn the disapproving glances and tut-tutting of liberals. I also like that he doesn't seem to have time to declare politicians allies or enemies. That's good; that poo poo's a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, great interview. I like his big overall point, which is that the left needs to be more willing to act as a spoiler and earn the disapproving glances and tut-tutting of liberals. I also like that he doesn't seem to have time to declare politicians allies or enemies. That's good; that poo poo's a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
chris hedges owns ill listen to that
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
is it particularly insightful? what would playing spoiler or wielding power actually mean for the sliver of the left that considers someone like AOC a failure. beyond a certain point, you give up on electoralism and there's not much left looking at the dynamic of the past four years, i expect a repeat of the left making some noise then during election season falling behind a Bernie-like figure
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:he wasn’t as doomer as he usually is which is nice, also he had some nice things to say about AOC which i’m sure will rile a few people Hedges seems to match his hosts' vibe when he is a guest, at least in my perspective... always a great guest. Good interview. I think he's right about AOC
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
to my understanding, a direct example of what Hedges could mean is that Bernie and/or the Squad should have been willing to blow up the COVID relief bill if it didn't have the minimum wage amendment on it (or something similarly radical)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
but isn't the implication that anyone getting into office would already have been co-opted (or corrupted)? bernie or AOC would not be willing to detonate bills in that fashion
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
not listened to the interview beyond that clip but i think the problem with that strategy is that ther ereally isnt a political left that anyone knows about outside of a few elected politicians so who is going to notice if you dont participate. at best youll piss off some freaks who watch msnbc
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:but isn't the implication that anyone getting into office would already have been co-opted (or corrupted)? I suppose I don't disagree with the take that "anyone who makes it into Congress would never be willing to go as hard on the paint as necessary"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
Shipon posted:I've been waiting for the Trueanon crypto ep for a while hell yeah i wish i understood the underlying technology better, and i don't think i learned anything from their summary of it. liz, whose analyses are normally extremely good, gave a way too simplistic overview of what the smart contracts can do, technically. it's a turing complete language iirc so a contract is literally a program that executes. this is why the first people to set up a Distributed Autonomous Corporation got hosed: they programmed their contract wrong, and went bust. at least that's how i remember it. the problem with the contracts is that they're programs, which are too hard to formally specify so that no mathematical proof can be offered prior to them being executed. therefore, this whole attempt to ground law in code (see: legal formalism, lessig, etc)--the utopian, ideological horizon these ethereum people are reaching for--is, currently, too difficult to do safely. so the smart contracts are bad, but for very, very different reasons than those offered in the episode. they gave the example of a guy being locked out of his apartment because he didn't pay the rent, and said the problem was that the contracts are simply "if x, y; else, z". the contracts are turing complete, they are supposed to be programming languages, so the problem is that you're going to have these crazy computational algorithms that are not only asking "did the rent come in? if not x" but "did the rent come in? if not, what is the person's credit score and rent history" etc. and programming something like that with 0 errors is not going to happen, so even in Ethereum Land where all law is a smart contract, there would be a loose relationship between the law's (the program's) decision, and what was intended. the problem is not that the ethereum contracts are too simplistic and therefore lacking nuance. the problem is that they're so bewilderingly complex that no one can safely write the contracts. this matters because these crypto-enthusiasts' ideology—which is what is what's motivating all of this poo poo—is built on sand, from a technical perspective quote:Ethereum, on the other hand, is built as a Turing Complete blockchain. This is important because it needs to understand the agreements which make up smart contracts. By being Turing Complete, Ethereum has the capability to understand and implement any future agreement, even those that have not been thought of yet. In other words, Ethereum’s Turing Completeness means that it is able to use its code base to perform virtually any task, as long as it has the correct instructions, enough time and processing power. tl;dr: this poo poo doesn't work, yes, but is way more insane than they're letting on. crypto technology is a symptom of a weird form of late 20thC/early 21stC libertarianism, and springs from that ideology's fetishism of contracts and the resolution of disputes in the legal (rather than political) realm. they're trying to code their way out of an ideological error; it will never work. lmao Finicums Wake has issued a correction as of 06:36 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
the world's old fiat currencies are swept away by the new light of bitcoin; right before it's proved that p=np
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
what if social relations, but the blockchain? trust as a commodity value exchange with parabolically increasing energy usage
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:what if social relations, but the blockchain? part of cryptocurrencies' value—in the minds of their supporters at least—is that they are, somehow, 'trustless.' it's not that they want to sell trust as a commodity, but that they want to do without trust whatsoever. this, obviously, doesn't work. most of the crypto hype is based on myths which rest atop myths
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:i wish i understood the underlying technology better, and i don't think i learned anything from their summary of it. liz, whose analyses are normally extremely good, gave a way too simplistic overview of what the smart contracts can do, technically. it's a turing complete language iirc so a contract is literally a program that executes. this is why the first people to set up a Distributed Autonomous Corporation got hosed: they programmed their contract wrong, and went bust. at least that's how i remember it. Adam Curtis was right, the only group of people left in this world who have any sort of "positive" optimistic vision for the future are the tech libertarian maximalists. Of course their vision of the world is completely alienating to humanity but hey, they aren't scaremongering about anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
there is no central banking or centralized financial institution for crypto currencies, so the crypto crowd has basically had to reinvent financial and banking regulation but now with computers and even more stupid. i hope trueanon does more episodes on the crypto nonsense. it is a deep well. and for precisely that reason, i wish they had addressed crypto as the subject of one of their more deeply researched episodes, rather than crammed their explanation into an episode that, due to being shoehorned into the news cycle, is forced by concision to be inadequate, and in a way the podcast normally isn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
Shipon posted:They were arguing against the awful nature of the system on ideological grounds - even if the complexity could be handled, it's holding up the worst sort of ideology that represents pure power of capital and might-makes-right, without any sort of real democratic or egalitarian component. Even if you did have the best programmers on the case writing NASA-level solid code that has error checks and tests built in, the very thing it's trying to do is abhorrent. You cannot have a "trustless" system pinning an economy which must be built on some sort of trust to even function, even if your fancy-rear end hash functions and smart contract programs can be robust enough to "enforce" some sort of law. that's what i'm saying: the system can't work, and this is obvious because a "trustless" system does not and will never exist. it is a myth. but, if you told that to a technolibertarian cryptodweeb, they'd scoff at you. the other thing i'm trying to say is that, for purely technical reasons their dream is unachievable as well. for reasons that even these technolobertarian dweebs would be forced to reckon with, their ideology is flawed on the myth of trustlessness https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=mttlr
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:53
|
|
|
there's so much money flowing into everything these days, i'm not sure whether it's worth your while trying to decipher the rules of a given financialized abstraction talking about the novelty of smart contracts being turing complete is as meaningless as traders talking about derivative greeks
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:i wish i understood the underlying technology better, and i don't think i learned anything from their summary of it. liz, whose analyses are normally extremely good, gave a way too simplistic overview of what the smart contracts can do, technically. it's a turing complete language iirc so a contract is literally a program that executes. this is why the first people to set up a Distributed Autonomous Corporation got hosed: they programmed their contract wrong, and went bust. at least that's how i remember it. Smart contracts could theoretically exist if they used sound programming concepts, but they made every wrong decision when designing ethereum. See this famous post from a lovely website: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14691212 Ethereum would be a million times better just if they used an existing programming language that had formal verification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:that's what i'm saying: the system can't work, and this is obvious because a "trustless" system does not and will never exist. it is a myth. sounds like it would be a waste of time for them to devote any more time to that since it’s a myth and hulkshit
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
Linking to law schools in CSPAM unironically 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:02
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:part of cryptocurrencies' value—in the minds of their supporters at least—is that they are, somehow, 'trustless.' it's not that they want to sell trust as a commodity, but that they want to do without trust whatsoever. this, obviously, doesn't work. most of the crypto hype is based on myths which rest atop myths yes, the “trust” is encoded onto the layers and layers of technobabble that no single individual is qualified to assess
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:06
|
|
|
Every single post on this page is making me agree more with Brace's desire to never hear another loving word about crypto
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Every single post on this page is making me agree more with Brace's desire to never hear another loving word about crypto
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:22
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Every single post on this page is making me agree more with Brace's desire to never hear another loving word about crypto it all doesn't exist, so the best we can do it make it not exist is by never talking about fake poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:24
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:yes, the “trust” is encoded onto the layers and layers of technobabble that no single individual is qualified to assess no, the opposite is the case: it's not that the "trust" is obfuscated by a bunch of talk about it; rather, the problem is that the "trust" is supposed to be replaced by code, but due to technological reasons this can't be done with ethereum. the libertarians think trust can be reduced to something that's computable, and this isn't going to work, because, as the other dude said, there's no formal verification
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Tis more a dig on goons but it really is honestly loving exhausting, and that goes for all big media, reddit, NPR, whatever, that's constantly talking about crypto I only just learned about NFT, what's NPR?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
if youxtal posted:I only just learned about NFT, what's NPR? techno talk credit ballot major babble
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 07:26
|
|
