shadowsonawall @shadowsonawall@qoto.org

@Tinu @complexmath I went back and re-read the NFIC link that you'd posted which was my first introduction to this entire concept. I got a lot more out of it the second time. I like to think that's because I just started exploring a concept with you and others but it could also just be that you usually get more out of the second pass.

In any event, I didn't realize there was a specific problem to be solved. It sounded more like a general cultural issue. I'm all about helping with specific problems. The general cultural issue is well beyond my abilities though, other than just trying to learn and grow personally.

@mohtashimnizamani at some point the world needs to shift from the failed idea of preventing this catastrophe to strategies for surviving it.

@complexmath @Tinu oooo - I hadn't considered that perspective (an individual not wanting to hear vs an ask that you not be heard). Thank you! That makes a lot of sense. I'm not directly affected but I appreciate the effort to educate me anyway!

@Tinu @complexmath yeah, there is a lot of conversation floating around and it's quite possible I missed the right thread for what I was saying (I'm sorry).

With regards to the extra work necessary to exist as a Black person, I have no direct experience (you just died of shock, I'm sure ). It would be cool if there were a space where that extra lift wasn't necessary.

I have absolutely no idea if this was the case. It may be, for the CW specific part of the discussion, a person asking for a CW was hoping to find a space where they weren't reminded about how much *extra* is necessary in the real world. Good reason to attack someone/force something on them? Of course not. But it's possible the goal wasn't silencing so much as trying to get away from something. Same unfortunate lift on your end, and certainly not an acceptable mandate, but possibly not a malicious request either.

@Wayne_Murillo @pixelatedfist Efficiency varies by what resource you're measuring (compute, RAM, hard drive, network, or wall clock) but to give you an example (the most wasteful example) it takes the most powerful distributed super computer ever imagined, running at maximum resource utilization, a full 10 minutes to write 1MB of data. That's um.. not great.

@pixelatedfist @Wayne_Murillo Of course!

My position is that there is always a superior technical solution. Not just more efficient or better decentralized but better in every way, across every metric. The easiest shorthand for that, in my experience, is technical complexity but I'm open to any measurement that takes into consideration actual implementation. Not a use case if people can't ever use it

@complexmath @Tinu Absolutely. Language in particular is a very powerful mechanism for identifying who is "part of the tribe" and who isn't. Lots of other things, particularly skin color, are obviously used that way as well. The hard part, from my perspective, is that doing this is a fundamental part of being a human, or mammal for that matter.

I don't have any exact way forward but it seems to me that acknowledging tribes, and tribalism, as a necessary part of the human experience is needed for any kind of meaningful cross-community discussions and growth.

CWs, and the discussions around them, seem like a really good example of tribes building up identities around something. Open question is whether the tribes can come to understand each other and work together to figure out a good way forward or not. It'll be interesting!

@pixelatedfist @Wayne_Murillo if you're game, I'd love to hear of an application of blockchain that couldn't be more efficiently done with non-blockchain technologies.

@tripu I strongly agree "There's no way of escaping the fallibility of a moral system, no matter which one you pick."

would this not imply that moral systems are themselves ill-suited to the real world? Their justifications and hedging necessarily too broad to be applicable to any given unique and/or complex situation?

it seems a defense of "I did it because this moral system said it was a good idea" would always be flimsy, at best.

@skanman where there's a will..

@ajsadauskas @molly0xfff to be fair to IBM, OS/2 was way ahead of its time. It took over a decade before its best features finally made it to Windows.

@tripu apologies but I'm still not sure I understand what you were originally saying. It sounded like you were saying behavior can be justified so long as the ends justify the means. "earning to give", "utilitarian", and "risk-neutral" are all just constraints for what would constitute acceptable ends in this hypothetical.

the problem with this line of reasoning is that you can justify any means simply by imagining a sufficiently positive end. Offering a veneer of legitimacy to as horrific an act as you want.

@skanman it's easy to imagine "if they did this then that would overcome it" scenarios. They are significantly harder to implement from a practical perspective. Take a look at the version numbers for fedi servers. Even if a new protocol was agreed upon (no easy feat), implemented, and everyone upgraded to the newest version, implementations would still be open source and trivial to "detect".

going through the protocol definitions it looks like you'd need two firewall rules to effectively disable the activitypub protocol. Denying anything with content matching either "/\/@\w+\/inbox/" or "/\/@\w+\/outbox/" regex. That'd disable inbound and outbound messaging across whatever network boundaries you controlled