volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
Exactly, so my point is that when we're talking about energy use by computing, this is a huge factor in that issue.
Or in other words, computer time is cheap if you don't count the cost of emissions the paper was trying to raise awareness of.
@lightninhopkins @Brendanjones
Computer hardware has gotten much much more efficient.
But software has responded by becoming less efficient with use of the more efficient computers.
For a vague analogy, think of it like cars becoming more fuel efficient, so people spend less per gallon on fuel, so they can afford to and get used to driving more, and they may use more fuel in the end.
As software became less efficient it consumed the hardware increases in efficiency, and in my cases we ended up using more resources to do the same thing.
Wow, you really threw some bombs with that criticism there. I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, it seems to me that you're changing your claims faster than I can address them. It's not that I'm sidestepping, rather I'm having trouble following your points.
At one point it was leisure, another it was equity, or equality, or winners and losers, or the workers being displaced, or workers in general... I think you're all over the place here, and it's hard to follow.
So, when you claim productivity gains are not equally distributed I say YES I COMPLETELY AGREE. Of course they aren't. Why would they be? Different people want different things and value different things differently.
Just as additional production and accessibility of iPhones will favor iPhone users and not Android users... but why would that metric matter?
But this is a brand new front, as far as I can remember in this thread.
Fortunately, we're in agreement there so I guess it's resolved.
@kwheaton again, just factually, mathematically it doesn't.
Both Delaware and Texas have two representatives. They have equal representation.
I really don't think there is room to disagree on this simple fact that two equals two.
@mnutty nothing in your latest comment made my statement untrue.
Yes, it's true that Republicans might have overcome Democrats' decision to actively oppose progress, but that highlights what I said: Democrats actively opposed progress, setting up the opposition that needed to be overcome.
You might even support the Democrats' position. Great! But for better or worse we need to judge them for what they did instead of letting them shift responsibility to others.
We were using an idiom to talk about human relations :)
But one that was particularly relevant considering the historical developments that it referenced.
But no, not everything new is good. There are plenty of new things that fail. You had narrowed in on advancements that increased productivity and had implications for leisure, which I'd say focuses on the new things that work, not the ones that don't.
After all, a failed program--a bad new thing--is likely to harm productivity and intrude into leisure, unlike the ones you seemed to have in mind.
Well I think it often is, as it provides an option that can really help folks without better options.
Like a person who unfairly doesn't have access to banking: being able to pay in cash is pretty important for such a person.
If for whatever reason a person is blocked from traditional forms of electronic money transaction, Bitcoin may provide them a much needed alternative, just like paper notes for the unbanked.
So, growing up I always heard them referred to as I described above, backwards people clinging to the past over fears of the future.
You'd refer to someone as a Luddite because they refused to change to newer things, like a person refusing to get a smartphone even though they'd like it better because they were just used to an old flip phone.
That's the use of the idiom that I've so commonly heard.
volkris
boosted
There is no law stating that the Speaker of the House has to be human. Scientists estimate that 20 quadrillion ants live on Earth. One of them has to have the right stuff.
Careful. The backend of fediverse is designed in a way that makes it pretty much perfect for surveillance capitalism.
It has public broadcast of so much information to receivers that you don't even have to actively reach out to, even unknowingly.
Your web browser might be making a request from one site to an ad provider site once you access the first page, but fediverse doesn't even require you to access the first page.
There are ways to empower users, giving them more control, but fediverse was designed to give instances control, not users.
Again, if I had a winner takes all mentality, Why would I go out of my way to say one of the benefits of increased productivity is that it lets us better help those in need?
If you really want to frame it as winners vs losers, I'm explicitly talking about the loser taking, though I wouldn't frame it that way *because I don't have the mentality you're asking about :)*
I see a lot of replies below that don't realize just how wasteful our computer engineering itself has become.
It's not just that we should decide whether we really need to run some application, but at a deeper level, we're now increasingly wasteful in *the way* we run software anyway.
It's the difference between talking about reducing tailpipe emissions by not taking extra trips to the store vs not using highly emitting vehicles in the first place, for all trips, vital and optional.
Computing resources have become so generous that we run software today that requires far overpowered computers to do even simple tasks. We use inefficient libraries with a ton of overhead, because it's easier or trendier to program them.
Heck, we're even guilty of that here on Fediverse. Have you see how inefficient the design of this platform is?
But... that's just the direction #computing has gone, much to the chagrin of older generations.
So much energy and other resources could be saved without any loss of user value with better #programming practices.
Oh, you're getting that backwards: this IS the market economy principles.
People have invested in the systems as they are because they found them to be more valuable than alternatives and their own costs.
You don't need to ban Bitcoin.
Bitcoin energy consumption is a symptom, a solution to a deeper problem.
If the value of Bitcoin to minors didn't so exceed the price of electricity then they wouldn't bother mining.
So, increase the cost of electricity and/or provide alternatives that outcompete Bitcoin on its value proposition
It's the build up, don't tear down approach.
@Brendanjones
@wjmaggos You do realize that there is use for cash other than hoarding, right?
The analogy between Bitcoin and cash is reasonable, but just like cash, Bitcoin is also quite useful for transacting.
Bitcoin is digital cash for people who've come to realize they can't send paper notes over the internet by stuffing them in the USB drive slot.
As for the inequality problem, why would I go out of my way to state that society needs to address it if I want it to exist?
We ABSOLUTELY need to address peoples' needs, and that's exactly why we need to embrace increases in productivity, as that gives us more resources to do exactly that.
Honest question: Wait, you haven't heard Luddite having a negative connotation?
I thought that was the overwhelmingly common understanding of the term, backwards people clinging to the past out of irrational fear.
I wonder if you'd mind giving a sense of where you grew up because it's genuinely important to know what idioms are used where when trying to converse.
The Republican called for the vote safe in the knowledge that he'd have the backing of Democrats willing to shut down the chamber.
I do doubt that the guy would have called for the vote without that expectation of Democratic support for that nuclear option.
@TheConversationUS
@jimlil I mean, I'm (probably) on your side in saying the more the merrier.
I WANT to see diversity of opinion that new people bring to the table.
But... there are so many who push for instances to not only block such new people, but also to block other instances that allow such new people.
I figure we might as well realize such folks are out there intentionally looking to cut instances off from each other, in part so we can push back against them.
Again, that's just not factually true.
Republicans overwhelmingly voted in favor of proposals that would avoid government shutdown.
It's just that Democrats voted them down in proportions that Republicans couldn't overcome.
The GOP caucus didn't at all need assistance of Democrats to keep government open. They simply needed Democrats to stop voting to block government funding.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
