Adrasteianix @Adrasteianix@qoto.org

@angelobottone It may not be as much of stretch as you think, especially when we are discussing informed consent, which was the original topic. Pregnant people are routinely required to have compulsory surgery for someone else's benefit. Most of the time, pressure is enough to get them to acquiesce, but at least in my country, there are examples of court-ordered surgery.

@angelobottone Interesting. It is not the recipient who is usually demanding use of the organs, it is often, including in your missive, the 'state' who, in the interest of preserving life, that is intervening on behalf of the person who needs use of the organs.

Why would it make a tangible difference who needs your organs to survive? Isn't the question the same? Can the state compel the use of your organs without your consent to save someone's life?

@seedyh @garmark93 Also, the thing about clones is that what you get when you clone something is an infant of that something. Epigenetics says that the way you raise a child not only has an impact on how they turn out, but also the actual expression of the genes they do have. The marginal benefits you may get from standardization genetically could likely largely be explained by the fact that you raised them all collectively from infants, which is a massively expensive endeavor which takes nearly two decades to pay off. Standardization also helps significantly more at lower ranks. You likely want diversity of thoughts and opinions at leadership levels, which you are much more likely to get from emotionally healthy human beings raised in a wider variety of circumstances. The benefits of standardization then arguably attenuate over time, and you become a more ideologically inflexible institution, lacking the circumstances that foster creativity to adapt to change and come up with new creative solutions to novel problems over time.

@Biggles @toiletpaper @freemo @LouisIngenthron I don't know that is both universal and true throughout human history. I think it becomes a lot easier when we live in larger and larger social groups. Then you can ignore the humanity of the people you are scamming, because you never have to see the consequences. Few people aggressively and voluntarily screw over their family members, for example. A huge part of humans' evolutionary fitness, with our soft hides, lack of claws, and totally helpless offspring, is our cooperativeness. Without it, our brains could never have grown so large in the first place.

@chrism Not an astrophysicist, but I think about this a lot. The idea of a cyclical universe conceptually makes a lot of sense, but it seems that the entities and forces that could make it happen are already known. If the Big Bang originated from a singularity, could it be a singularity at the center of a particularly massive black hole? Is it possible that black holes consolidate material until the Hawking radiation is not enough of a pressure release valve and then they explode? Would a large enough version of this obliterate anything nearby, making it appear as if the explosion was the beginning of everything? Could that process repeat again and again and again? These are just thought experiments my brain keeps me awake with at 4am, but I would love to have someone walk me through the evidence that invalidates that theory.

@angelobottone Is this also an argument why abortion should be permitted without restriction at any time, because no one has the right to demand use of your organs without your consent, even if they need them to survive?

Personally, I want a trusted third party to mediate disputes. If transactions are completely non- reversible, and there is no, dispute, mediation, or remediation possible, the need for trust does NOT go away, it just shifts so that you must trust every entity you transact with.

"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes." https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

@groundie @obi Wow, if reading put me to sleep, I wouldn't be an insomniac! But reading to learn doesn't hold a candle to lively debates, in my experience. I read up on something to get started, but I don't really know something until I have to explain it to someone else. And have them pick apart and question my explanation, of course. Which tends to lead to more reading/research. It's what all my closest relationships are built on.

This. If you can't spot obvious logical fallacies, and repeat them uncritically, then why should I trust you? Cryptocurrency evangelists tend to set up straw man arguments then claim to present solutions that don't even solve those problems!
QT: https://berlin.social/@ainmosni/109348624846277708

@kjoo And we are going to do it by NOT changing the underlying interconnected infrastructure at all! Just running new applications on top of the existing infrastructure, which we don't actually have to ask permission for, because there very literally exists no centralized authority to tell us not to!

@kjoo Considering that pretty much every explanation for web3 I have ever heard starts with we are going to decentralize the (most famous and successful distributed/decentralized system of systems which is operated by a completely voluntary cooperative consortium of geographically and ideologically diverse organizations who come to a consensus for also completely voluntary standards and has no centralized controlling authority governing it) internet

@iramjohn @JackFromWisconsin @fuzheado Every single time I have read anything about crypto and Web3.0 in general, it starts by setting up an easily-disprovable straw man argument and then presents solutions that do not, nay, could not even solve the problems described.

@knottedthreads @InvincibleMoose I *almost* learned that, then I decided my new goal was to always be the least intelligent person in the room. In order to maintain that, I've had to keep changing rooms. I'd rather be uncomfortable, pushed, intimidated, or even inferior, than be stagnant.

@torq I tend to find praise offensive. As if I can't evaluate my own performance, and I was just waiting for someone to tell me how they think I did? Psshhhh. Specific criticism is infinitely more valuable.