For most of human history, and even today, much of our individual identity is heavily tied to our familial identity.

Saying that someone’s mother is especially promiscuous is basically saying that you can’t trust any claims about what their true family tree is, or that it is that way on purpose.

The reason the insulter would use themselves as an example is because they clearly don’t have any romantic interest in her.

It’s less about it being an accomplishment for the insulter, and more about it meaning nothing at all to them. That you may end up with a half-sibling as a consequence of nothing truly significant.

It’s as if to say that your family’s constituency is so carelessly crafted that the entire reason you exist at all may be that someone offered your mom an Oreo for a handjob and she counter-offered with sex for the whole sleeve.

That’s probably the least of your worries, tbh. It’d be like missing the bottom screen of a 3DS.

We probably wouldn’t name them until they had reached a certain age

We know how good they are at combing-over.

Can we please be done with the term “the quiet part”?

I can’t explain why, but it looks like a space ship.

Added some links to my original comment.

It’s not instead of central currency, but in addition to it.

The advantage is that businesses can transact with less conventional liquidity so they don’t have to rely on bank loans. This allows them to charge less to customers who use the local currency.

In the long term, this makes money [in general – both kinds] move slightly faster within the local market, which makes the money [both kinds] more valuable [within the community]. And since the money [again, both kinds] is staying in the local market, the community’s wealth is less likely to be drained by external speculators.

I think Rushkoff’s notion was that new local currencies would be in addition to central currency. It just allows businesses to give a discount to transactions that will keep the wealth inside the community.

It’s a neat idea, I just don’t know how you would protect it from financial services turning it into yet another abstract tradable asset that undermines the original purpose.

Doug Rushkoff had a talk where he called out local currency as a thing he’d like to bring back from the medieval.

Exclusive to the community, and only valid for a short period of time, so you can’t hoard it or siphon the wealth to another community.

Edit:

Found a blog post about it: https://archive.rushkoff.com/articles/local-money.html

It doesn’t say anything about it being temporary, although he does mention that in his talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRWzOdUiqQE

As an able-bodied neurotypical 30-something straight white cis male with a suburban middle class upbringing and an office job, I don’t participate in identity politics.

Constant Comment

I don’t fault him at all. If you’re in the entertainment industry (and want to stay in it), a Twitter presence is pretty much required. Online posting isn’t just a hobby, it’s part of your job, and Twitter is where the audience is.

Or maybe an abbreviated hash of the text of their specifications?

What? This is bullshit. There are a bunch of national parks in Michigan. Pretty significant ones.

Why are you booing them? They’re right!

It’s not even piracy though. I never saw anyone torrent Windows_XP_Home_Cracked.iso and go “Hey guys, check out this operating system I made!”

It’s not that hard.

Fuck the RIAA: The artists should hold the rights to their music, not the publishers.

Fuck AI: The rights-holders (which ought to be the artists) should be able to distribute their work without fear that a bot will be allowed to use it to compete against them.

I just don’t see a healthy creative culture where you don’t push both buttons.

Pirating Windows for your own personal, private use, which will never directly make you a single dollar: HIGHLY ILLEGAL

Scraping your creative works so they can make billions by selling automated processes that compete against your work: Perfectly fine and normal!

Comments here: “Yeah right, I’ll believe it when they explain how.”

Article: literally has a section explaining how

Edit:

Replies: “Yeah, but that’s just a summary. I’ll believe it when they explain in full detail.”

Article: literally has a link to the detailed explanation

Well yeah. I mean, the big companies hire psychologists to conduct user studies to maximize time on device, and they model their user experience after variable reward schedules from slot machines. Seems obvious that they’re nefarious.

I just have no idea how you can effectively regulate big tech.

At every corner, the fundamental dynamic of big tech seems to be: Do the same exploitative, antisocial things that we decided long ago should be illegal… but do it through indirect means that make it difficult or impossible to regulate.

If you change the definition of employment so that gig-work apps like Uber become employers, they’ll just change their model to avoid the new definition.

If you change the definition of copyright infringement so that existing AI systems are open to prosecution, they’ll just add another level of obfuscation to the training data or something.

I’m glad they’re willing to do something, but there has to be a more robust approach than this whack-a-mole game we’re playing.

Edit: And to be clear, I am also concerned about the collateral damage that any regulation might cause to the grassroots independent stuff like Lemmy… but I think that’s pretty unlikely. The political environment in the US is such that it’s way, way more likely that we just do nothing – or a tiny little token effort – and we just let Meta/Google/whoever fully colonize our neurons in the end anyway.