We’d have less instance politics

How is “defederat[ing] from everyone but lemmygrad and hexbear” not instance politics? Politics, at its core, is the way we distribute political goods, such as physical goods, access to information (including instance posts), and legitimacy, to name a few of the options. What is your definition of politics?

It’s about time Instagram enshittifies in a grotesque way, grotesque enough for people to realize it’s shit (because it’s enshittified).

How about global supply chains for food and clothes? How about the social systems such as healthcare and education? How about infrastructure like the internet or roads? Does each “independent” man do it all on their own?

How about global supply chains for food and clothes? How about the social systems such as healthcare and education? How about infrastructure like the internet or roads? Does each “independent” man do it all on their own?

Interesting. Based on the definition “conditions and practices that help to maintain health and prevent the spread of diseases”, I’m guessing that you’re implying a beard categorized as unkempt can lead to disease.

Just because I’m trying to understand, is the issue hair’s length? If so, shampoo and conditioner can be used in larger amounts. The shampoo would pick up the dead skin cells, remove excess grease, and pick up all kinds of germs. The conditioner would reapply grease so that the hair is healthy and strong.

Is the issue the fact that this hair is so close to the mouth that, when eating, it could have sauces or stuff like that falling onto it? If so, shampoo or regular soap can clean it all up for it to be hygienic again.

Am I missing something?

What does the word hygiene mean?

… and in a particular culture, and for people who care about what others think

1. I am scared of the amount of data that they hoard without being transparent with their code.

2. I am also scared of their contribution to hacker honey-pots by giving our data to American mass surveillance systems, something we learned with the Snowden leaks. I mention the honey pot because I assume you trust politicians and bureaucracies more than hackers. Right now there are NSA employees that can look at all of your Google data. While you may trust them, the fact is, they created a honey-pot for hackers. This is Bruce Schneier’s point.

3. I am scared of Google’s capacity to shape public opinion, usually to favor whoever pays the most money. This is Jaron Lanier’s point.

4. I am frustrated at how large they are, stifling competition. This is the point of the antitrust suits that have come up.

Sure, I like that there are cool people there working on Android and open standards for pictures and video. But I do not want to support a publicly owned company that will ultimately serve its investors. I do want to support institutions that are incentivized to care about something other than investors, institutions that are incentivized to care about where the world is going, about you and I.

Why do you say so?

Out of curiosity, what makes you say so?

Edit: Oh. Did a “Wooosh” happen to me right now? Are you being ironic and referring to the XKCD thing about how to make a secure password using words in phrases?

This makes me think that malware will be able to be in an iPhone even before it is taken out of the box. I wonder if this will become an issue in the future. I suppose time, good research, and effective journalism will let us know.

Wow. I didn’t know this. Are there GUIs to convert images with mozjpeg?

The way string of any material is woven should be durable. But plastic can be a magical material. It doesn’t cool when wet, regardless of whether it’s got fat on it (unlike wool, which requires lanolin). And its cheapness makes it readily available to billions of people.

To be clear, yes, we should avoid overproduction and overconsumption of plastic. Yes, we should research cheap ways of making durable and waterproof/still-warm-when-wet clothes that are biodegradable. Yes, we should require good filters in every washing machine and dryer so that we don’t get full of microplastics.

Sometimes I don’t either…

I think most of the criticism on Telegraph regarding how Matrix handles rooms and events are addressed by the work behind linearized matrix: https://www.qwant.com/?l=en&q=linearized+matrix+messaging&t=web

EDIT BEINGS HERE

So I actually watched a talk by the person who coinded “enshittification”, Cory Doctorow, recently, and I have changed my perspective about Kagi. I no longer think Kagi is doomed to enshittify.

Enshittification requires advertisers. As long as Kagi finances itself with money that does not come from advertisers, it will not enshittify.

This does not mean that it’s not problematic that their code is closed-source.

EDIT ENDS HERE

I like what I hear about the user experience, but there are many problems I see with the service.

For one, it’s based in the USA, so it is legally subject to the insane, antidemocratic, and awful state surveillance there.

It is also a corporation, so it is subject to enshittification. Currently, it is giving users loads of stuff so that users use it, but sooner or later investors will want their money back and Kagi will enshittify.

Finally, these two problems would be mitigated by open-sourcing and making libre their software. With that, alternatives in more sensible legislatures could open. Users could migrate to instances that are still libre and not enshittified.

It is really unfortunate that Kagi is doing so many things well while doing some fundamental things terribly. As it stands, Kagi is doomed to enshittify.

?

No one here has acknowledged the difference between classical economics and neoclassical economics (or even the difference with post-keynesian economics). Classical economics makes descriptions and predictions that can be falsified.

It also takes into account social context by understanding the social forces that come into play in a society at a given point. For example, the profit motive is understood as a historical force reinforced by capitalism itself.

All of this is modeled in a stochastic manner, which reflects both the variation in human behavior and the strong tendencies in human behavior. Once again, these models are testable.

All of this contrasts with the idealized and unscientific notion of economics that was cooked up at the end of the 18th century: neoclassical economics. This is what is taught to most people.

Neoclassical economics doesn’t seek to describe the forces that motivate human beings as much as assume that people are utility maximizers. Therefore, social context is explained reductively. Predictions are harder, because what leads the way isn’t evidence, but assumptions. Of course, there’s a political component to not show capitalism as a historical reality as much as both a reflection of universal truths of human nature and a desirable social arrangement.

It’s sad to confirm that neoclassical economics has dominated the economics departments and school curricula of the world. However, many scholars fortunate enough to be given a stable job despite not believing in the contemporary doctrine are doing amazing work. For example, Shaikh.

With this in mind, classical economics has to resemble physics to the extent that physics describes stochastic processes. In fact, Shaikh explicitly recognizes that pressure as a measure is a stochastic measure because, even though you can’t predict the trajectory of a single atom, you can predict how many atoms will interact on an aggregate level. The same happens with humans.

In case you don’t know about it and its effectiveness, you could read about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. You could watch Steven Hayes Ted Talk (or other talks) or read his Liberated Mind book.

Stance: Progressive global taxation of all wealth

Social issue in the future: If the planet’s ecosystems and the capitalist trends permit it, the vast majority of humans will demand global taxation of all wealth. Some extractive and regressive pockets will fight to the death for that not to happen.