volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@DrewNaylor I know it's an aside, but FWIW, I've really liked functional programming and how it naturally scales to our multicore environment.

I broke up with Python when I realized some functional programming techniques weren't speeding up, and then found out about the Global Interpreter Lock that pretty much binds it to a single core.

That's pretty sinful to me, that we've been living in this multiprocessing future for a generation now, but Python is hamstrung to a single core.

@Azen well, it's more the tradeoff for working in a workplace that's goal oriented, that's doing something great and pushing boundaries, and setting the balance between safety and accomplishment in a different place than other workplaces might.

Those aren't office jobs.

Risk aversion is paralysis to so many organizations. That SpaceX is willing to take more risks is part of why it's been so successful.

I'm jealous of a workplace willing to take more risks to do meet high goals like that.

@ajsadauskas from everything I've seen I get the impression that everyone WANTS Fediverse integration, but when Tumblr started working on the implementation they quickly found that Fediverse was designed in a way that is technically too expensive or unworkable for them.

The biggest benefits of federation come with scale, but unfortunately it was designed in such a way that the resources required to operate it scale even faster.

So as it scales the cost blew up faster than the benefits, if that makes sense.

These are fundamental design decisions made long ago that can't really be changed at this point.

Everyone agrees that integration would be good. It's just that it ended up being too expensive to actually implement.

@darnell

@DrewNaylor I was with you since I've fallen out of love with python and cheer for better languages.

But you lost me with VB transpiled to Rust because that sounds crazy complicated. :)

Surely we can find a solution that's both better than python but also straightforward.

@Vincarsi

It doesn't because in our reality the net worth doesn't really count what you HAVE but what you're OWED.

There's little hoarding with our banking system.

When you deposit money in a bank the bank doesn't just throw the cash in their vault. No, that money is lent out and otherwise used elsewhere.

If you deposit $1T into the bank, so you have a net worth of $1T, you're not sitting on that cash. The cash is gone, with the bank transferring it to other people and institutions.

That's the disconnect between measures of wealth and hoarding. Hoarding represented an opportunity cost, so these days we've broken that connection through banking.

@magitweeter

@magitweeter

But that touches on my point: the million dollars *doesn't* sit in your bank account in modern financial systems.

The bank writes down that it owes that money to the depositor, but then it takes that money and loans it out to others.

That million dollars doesn't just sit there. It goes to help a small company make payroll for the week, or it helps a machine shop buy a lathe, or it helps a middle class couple buy a new car for their commute.

The idea that money is sitting in an account is exactly the misunderstanding people have when they talk about the wealthy that way.

@Vincarsi

@sc_griffith whoever said you should be grateful?

React however you want. I really don't care how you feel about insurance.

But when you form that opinion, it seems to me you should at least be factually informed about the situation, and consider that you'll be paying either way.

The only difference is whether you involve the insurance company as a middleman or not, involving them in your business and having them tack a charge on top as a processing fee.

@swamphox you realize there is viral load in that dampness in your mask?

That's a mask working, that you can see for yourself.

The dampness of a mask after you've worn it is viral material that the mask has trapped.

@maniajack the US system doesn't leave any such choice up to any single individual, though. There are checks and balances.

Thomas didn't act unilaterally.

Rather, Thomas's opinion was joined by most of the members of the Supreme Court and was itself built on rulings going back into the history of the SCOTUS and deep into the history of courts below.

Stories focusing on personalities instead of processes or arguments make for good drama and clickbait, but they don't really inform the public as to what's going on with their governments.

Regardless, I suppose I'm talking about checks and balances in general. The Court refused to grant executive branches powers that they legally don't have, even if the restraints involved a reference to history.

@resuna you said, "something like the Westminster Parliamentary System and transferable votes"

The "and" there meant you weren't suggesting it as good in and of itself. If you didn't mean "and" that's fine, but the "and" did lump the two together.

You really seem to be putting parties ahead of other legislative functions in your comments. You focused on having third parties, and now you're bringing up multi-party environments.

But I'd say that focus on party overlooks the more important role of representing people, ahead of party, that we tend to want in our democratic processes.

@cinnarose @1dalm @brianklaas

@sc_griffith I think it's telling that you're willing to declare something as naive when you don't even care what you're talking about.

Now THAT'S naive.

But no, this just an expression of mathematical reality. A business cannot spend money it doesn't have. Therefore it has to raise revenues to cover higher costs.

Yeah things would be more complicated if insurance companies could print their own money, but they can't, and that really simplifies the reality before us.

@AnthonyFStevens and what if it's really not possible?

What if it really is like trying to grow wings, seriously just not an option on the table?

We can work with such a reality and try to get through it as well as possible, but we can't so long as we're denying that unfortunate reality.

I still don't hear a workable plan here, just vague ideas. I don't know how to get from here to there, and I think it's not possible, but these vague ideas don't bridge the gap.

@Vincarsi where is that wealth?

Again, it's Scrooge McDuck. Do you think they have moneyvaults that they go swimming in? Giant piles of coins? Maybe their driveways are paved with currency?

No, of course not. In a modern society people invest their wealth, making it available for use by others.

Because modern cultures push those with money to share their money with others, and not to hoard it.

There's a good chance your paycheck is in part made possible by some rich guy sharing his wealth with your employer, even if indirectly.

Now I'm not saying anything about whether this is good or bad or whether rich people are good people. I figure most of them aren't. BUT the reality is that wealthy people don't tend to hoard their wealth.

Even if such stories make for compelling clickbait and political messaging.

@swamphox have you ever worn a mask and noticed that it gets a little damp?

Guess, what, that's it doing shit.

If you've ever worn a mask you've been able to see for yourself that masks do shit, and if not, well most of the rest of us have.

The claim that masks don't do shit is just as obviously wrong as a claim that masks provide 100% protection. Both extremes are clearly wrong.

@AnthonyFStevens

But that's circling back to, what's the plan? :)

Or what's the plan to get agreement on a plan, I suppose.

This is the problem. I don't think it's possible to have a workable plan, just as I don't think it's possible to grow wings.

I don't think there is a whole united nation that just wants peace and an end to war, and I see no plan to get there.

@Vincarsi I'm not talking about altruism, though. You brought that up, but it's not necessary to highlight that our culture doesn't value hoarding wealth.

Wealth hoarding is already not considered a virtue. It has nothing to do with altruism but rather alignment of interests, people being rewarded for working in common interests.

It's fine to prefer altruism and think that's panacea to all of society's ills, but in the mean time we can recognize the way the institutions we have now work for the common good.

And in particular, the way the institutions we have now punish the hoarding of wealth, if that's something you care about.

@AnthonyFStevens

How do you plan to cut extremists off from their support base and isolate them?

@AnthonyFStevens

Ok, so what's your plan?

Because people have executed plans time and time again that haven't lead to peace. It sounds like you'd be saying, "But this time is different," which is what was always said before.

So what's your plan that really will make this time different?

I'm especially interested in what your plan is for removing Hamas since that strikes me as particularly thorny.

@Vincarsi

But we're already there.

People working in the context of modern financial systems are discouraged from hoarding wealth and rewarded for spreading it around as society pays them returns on their investments.

There are no Scrooge McDucks with money pools in places with modern banking.

Such hoarding represents a tremendous opportunity cost, so people don't.

@forteller

When it comes to Fediverse, the answer to such questions is generally no.

That's just how federation works.

Without a central system there's no single point that knows everything, so nobody knows what everyone else is posting.

@mobilizon