|
Who What Now posted:Adding more Oughts does not make the Is not exist. I need to move from Point A (the Is) to Point B (the Ought). If I move along Path C (additional Data Points) that doesn't change Point A. Likewise 2 cannot ever equal 5. But 2+3 does. Adding additional data points bridges the gap. quote:And even if all of this is wrong, how does your description not fit with Eripsa's proposal? He's saying that if he has the proper Is (his perfect social network) that it will lead to a certain Ought (social change). And all he's doing is adding more Is statements, IE how the social network operates. So how has he not set himself up with an Is-Ought problem? I think I have identified your confusion. The is-ought gap is not talking about the usage of "ought" where people say things like "If I do X it ought to lead to conclusion Y". It is talking about the usage of "ought" where people say things like "People ought not be hungry". If you are talking about the first usage, and you are invoking the is-ought gap, you are doing it wrong. edit: And I'm trying to help you by telling you that you are using these words incorrectly.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Eripsa I have a very real and valid criticism for you, so please don't ignore this. I don't even insult you at all. Well put. This is basically what I said, except you were thorough, polite, and elucidated the subject. The sad thing is that your kind, reasonable approach will have no more success with Eripsa than my contemptuous dismissal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? If the gap you are describing is the is-ought gap, then no, additional data points do not bridge it. I know it doesn't. He needs it to become an Ought-Ought proposal rather than an Is-Ought. I understand now that this was a big hangup and a failure of clarity on my part. twodot posted:"X will lead to social change" is not an Ought as described in the is-ought gap. It's not even a disguised ought. It's a direct claim about the factual state of reality. I do understand that but let me phrase it this way, he's saying "If there Is my perfect social network then people Ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change". That is a maximally accurate representation of his proposal. I thought that my first post was clear about that, but I can see that I was wrong and why I was wrong and why it was unclear. I'll be more exact in the future to avoid this. I also should have never used the phrase "bridge the Is-Ought gap" in the first place. I do appreciate you pointing this out to me. See, Eripsa, this is why clear communication is important and why you should strive to communicate as clearly as possible, and try to improve yourself. It's not hard and can be rewarding. e:clarity (it's important!) Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I do understand that but let me phrase it this way, he's saying "If there Is my perfect social network then people Ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I'm (arbitrarily close to) 100% sure you are wrong. They would argue that "people ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change" independently of whether it exists. "People ought not be hungry" is something I believe regardless of whether there is a mechanism to make them not hungry. You can't use something that doesn't exist. The analogy would be "People ought to not be hungry by eating the manna that falls from heaven."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I'm (arbitrarily close to) 100% sure you are wrong. They would argue that "people ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change" independently of whether it exists. "People ought not be hungry" is something I believe regardless of whether there is a mechanism to make them not hungry. "People ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change" doesn't make sense unless it exists, and I'm not going to consider non-sensical positions. He presents the idea as something he wants to be a reality, and so I'm going to treat it as such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You can't use something that doesn't exist. Who What Now posted:"People ought to use it for the purpose of bringing about social change" doesn't make sense unless it exists, and I'm not going to consider non-sensical positions. He presents the idea as something he wants to be a reality, and so I'm going to treat it as such. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:It is correct you can't use something that doesn't exist. However, I can believe that is moral and just for people to use something that doesn't exist. Sure, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't exist. It's brave of you to compete with Erpisa in crappy arguments though. quote:If you showed me someone trapped in an impossible to open box I would say "That's terrible! He ought be free! He ought have his needs provided for!" It doesn't matter whether those goals are achievable, I still desire to achieve them. Who gives a poo poo? What are you talking about? Why is it important?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Who gives a poo poo? What are you talking about? Why is it important?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:You really don't 'get' bitcoin, do you? I've been mining it for three and a half years and I'm considered one of the top experts in my community. Not everyone has to hold all of the data and not all of the data has to be on the blockchain. I direct you to the MaidSafe article I posted last page. Paul MaudDib posted:Fundamental question: why would I use this? It basically combines the slowness and unreliability of Freenet with the identifiability of Bitcoin. That's how Bitcoin works, but a social network based on aspects of different decentralized technologies will not. With Bitcoin, you want to know that the Bitcoin you have just received truly originated from someone who owned it and only sent it to you. In a social network, you don't care about anything like that at all. All you need is for your friend to send you the key to viewing the data that he has stored on the decentralized storage network and a mechanism taking care of the logic functions of the system that can be verified in a consensual manner using principles similar to those of the blockchain. No one who is not part of your social network cares who sent you a cat picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-07/andreessen-on-finance-we-can-reinvent-the-entire-thing-.htmlMark Andreessen posted:‘‘In a bitcoin world, things like the Target hack are not possible. The way a digital currency works is that it lines up the incentives to protect yourself with the consequences of failing to protect yourself. Bitcoin is a digital-bearer instrument: If you have the numbers on the coins, you own the coins. You can make payments without having to give any information about yourself, and everyone can double-check their transactions. If someone hacked into Target, they would be able to steal all of Target’s money -- but they wouldn’t be able to steal your money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm talking about how Who What Now doesn't understand the is-ought gap and was applying it wrong. They appear to have acknowledged that is true, so I'm unsure why they are still posting though. Also about how your posts are irrelevant to what I was saying. It's important because the is-ought gap is a pretty basic concept, and if it can't be agreed on or understood there's a serious defect in the conversation. I honestly didn't even realize you were addressing Hume's law because: quote:This is stupid. Going from this logic (which is wrong and broken), literally all solutions have an is-ought problem. "If we had the money, we ought to fund public education", et cetera. All solutions do have an is-ought problem. These problems are solved in various ways by various philosophical approaches. Or not solved, if you don't actually think that 'oughts' exist. I don't think he was originally stating this in terms of Hume's Law from Hume's point of view, but rather saying that, once you've got some sort of system going on, like universalization or whatever, you still need to bridge between the is and the ought. You seem to think there's only one way to understand the is-ought gap. There isn't. It is also perfectly common-sense obvious what Who What Now meant, especially after he clarified himself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Kane posted:No one who is not part of your social network cares who sent you a cat picture. Guess all that fuss over phone metadata was for nothing then, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:A digitally-enhanced population, properly organized, should be able to steamroll it's paper ballot competition, the way Deep Blue can beat an abacus at chess. Instead we have a generation of people dumping ice water on their heads and feeling proud of themselves for doing something worthwhile. Whether or not they are entertained, they are letting the digital age pass them by. The vast majority of people always have, are currently, and most likely will continue to let grand world changing opportunities pass them by. Facebook is merely a more effective way of visualising this fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Obdicut posted:All solutions do have an is-ought problem. quote:You seem to think there's only one way to understand the is-ought gap. There isn't. It is also perfectly common-sense obvious what Who What Now meant, especially after he clarified himself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:In what sense is it even possible for a solution to have an is-ought problem? I realize all solutions have oughts in them (at the very least, we ought solve the problem), but that in itself doesn't constitute any sort of problem. What the Is-ought problem says is that the existence of oughts is problematic. That is what the is-ought problem is, that you can go skipping merrily along descriptively, but when you start getting prescriptive it's a leap that's enormously hard to solve. Are you not talking about Hume's Law? It's really hard to tell at this point. quote:What Who What Now meant was obvious which is why in my first post I told them that what they were describing was something like a cause-effect gap. What they have been describing isn't an is-ought gap. It makes fine sense to call it an is-ought gap, that's not, like, copyrighted by Hume or anything. Especially with the context of words he put around it, it was fine. This is like objecting because someone presented something they called a hedonistic calculus and it wasn't Bentham's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is stupid. Going from this logic (which is wrong and broken), literally all solutions have an is-ought problem. "If we had the money, we ought to fund public education", et cetera. (edit: more generally: "if we had the means, we ought use the means to solve a problem" describes all solutions, and doesn't have an is-ought gap problem) What the hell are you talking about? I know I didn't say anything like that. But you are right, saying "If we had the money, we ought to fund public education" does have an Is-Ought problem, which is why we don't say that; also because it gets us nowhere. We say "We ought to tax the rich to fund public education" or "We ought to take this budget surplus and fund education with it". Ought to Ought. Look, Eripsa presents his idea and I treat the idea as if hypothetically it is real and it works so that we can actually talk about it. I'm not saying that it actually has to exist, just that we pretend like it does for the sake of discussion. I've told you that I'm treating this as a hypothetical like half a dozen times now. That's how these things work, man. You can talk about all sorts of things that do not and can not exist all day, but that kind of navel gazing doesn't get you anywhere. But Eripsa is talking about something that can theoretically happen and it's something he wants to make happen. twodot posted:I'm talking about how Who What Now doesn't understand the is-ought gap and was applying it wrong. They appear to have acknowledged that is true, so I'm unsure why they are still posting though. Also about how your posts are irrelevant to what I was saying. It's important because the is-ought gap is a pretty basic concept, and if it can't be agreed on or understood there's a serious defect in the conversation. I was wrong to say that Eripsa needs to bridge the Is-Ought gap, but I'm not wrong to say that the idea as presented suffers from the Is-Ought problem. He's not saying "social media ought to be used like this so as to bring about social change and here's how" he's saying "If/when my social network goes online people ought to use it to bring about social change". That's pretty drat obvious from his own posts, I don't understand why you're so dead set on denying that's what he said. Here, I'll even quote him. Eripsa posted:So from a design philosophy perspective, the concrete suggestion is this: build networks that allow identities and communities to develop with as few constraints as possible, and with as much local variation as can possibly be tolerated, because that'll allow humans to constructively socialize. And when we do that, we'll be able to organize the network into functionally productive cultural units that can do real social work. Not because the internet is some great miracle, but because the work of socialization is literally what our brains evolved to do. Give us the tools to do it and we'll build great things. Keeping the tools in the hands of a few central authorities to dole out as they deem best for their own interests has always been a losing strategy, but we're actually coming to the point where we're in a position to do something about it. "If people have the tools then that ought to lead to 'real social work' happening." Like you said, the Is statement is objective, that people "have to tools" and "constructively socialize". That is what he wants to be made into reality. And he then says that people will (Ought to) use those to "lead to real social work". One of the most repeated criticisms of Eripsa has been that he can't show why one leads to the other and it's because it's impossible to do so unless he changes the way his idea is presented. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
quote:There will be technical challenges, and people are of course stubborn and resistant to change. But we're also an endlessly adaptable species, and we're smart enough to jump at opportunities when they arise. So I don't think my job here is to offer THE ONE FINAL SOLUTION, but instead to try and offer up some opportunities, and to explain to others what I'm doing in case they can do a better job than me. As Who What Now said, you really shouldn't be. Because my wife had some spare time this afternoon, I asked her to go through your article and give me some impressions and suggestions to send back to you. For perspective, my wife graduated summa cum laude with her doctorate in english. She is WAY smarter than I am at this sort of thing, and I consider myself pretty drat smart when it comes to editing. quote:Our social networks are broken. Here's how to fix them. Bad title. There are almost no prescriptions made on how to fix networks in your work. quote:1. Numbered breaks are both pointless and arbitrary. #1 and #1 are about a page in length each, while #3 is the entire rest of the document. Either remove the numbers, or add additional breaks. quote:You can't really blame us for building Facebook the way we have. By “we” I mean we billion-plus Facebook users, because of course we are the ones who built Facebook. Zuckerberg Inc. might take all the credit (and profit) from Facebook's success, but all the content and contacts on Facebook-- you know, the part of the service we users actually find valuable-- was produced, curated, and distributed by us: by you, and me, and our vast network of friends. So You can’t blame us for how things turned out. We really had no idea what we were doing when we built this thing. None of us had ever built a network this big and important before. The digital age is still mostly uncharted territory. Zuckerberg Inc. is not a real thing. Zuckerberg et al, or Facebook Inc. would be more proper. Facebook, Facebook, Facebook, Facebook, FACEBOOK. You used the proper noun five times in one paragraph and it is really noticeable. I'd personally eliminate the section talking about profit. It makes you seem petty, and there are a lot of facebook users who rightly or wrongly believe they 'owe' Facebook something. Eliminate a lot of the extraneous filler words. For example: "but all the content and contacts on Facebook-- you know, the part of the service we users actually find valuable-- was produced, curated, and distributed by us: by you, and me, and our vast network of friends" can be cut down to "but all the content and contacts on Facebook, the stuff of actual value, was produced, curated and distributed by us." Everything in the latter half of the paragraph is totally at odds with the earlier part of the paragraph. We made all of this, content, but you can't blame us for how it turned out? Why not? It is a key point but there is no lead in and no relation to the existing paragraph. The latter half of the paragraph attempts to make it seem as though 'we' built the network infrastructure for Facebook, which is blatantly untrue. quote:To be fair, we've done a genuinely impressive job given what we had to work with. Facebook is already the digital home to a significant fraction of the global human population. Whatever you think of the service, its size is nothing to scoff at. The population of Facebook users today is about the same as the global human population just 200 years ago. Human communities of this scale are more than just rare: they are historically unprecedented. We have accomplished something truly amazing. Good work, people. We have every right to be proud of ourselves. Rather than stating a "Significant Fraction", state an actual number. It takes no more effort and it drives your point home far more clearly. Also you don't need to say 'human', we get that you are talking about humans. Eliminate the extra line about global population from 200 years ago, or use it in lieu of earlier numbers. We already get that it is big, redundancy simply bores your reader. Likewise everything past the word amazing is pointless. quote:But pride shouldn't prevent us from being honest about these things we build--it shouldn’t make us complacent, or turn us blind to the flaws in our creation. Our digital social networks are broken. They don't work the way we had hoped they would; they don't work for us. This problem isn't unique to Facebook, so throwing stones at only the biggest of silicon giants won’t solve it. The problem is with the way we are thinking about the task of social networking itself. To use a very American analogy, our existing social networking tools suffer from the equivalence of a transmission failure: we can get the engine running, but we are struggling to put that power to work. We see the potential of the internet, but we're at a loss as to how we can direct all this activity into a genuinely positive social change. What little social organization the internet has made possible is fleeting and unreliable, more likely to raise money for potato salad than it is to confront (much less solve) any serious social problem. Arguably, our biggest coordinated online success to date has been the Ice Bucket Challenge; even if we grant the meme has had a positive impact, what change to the social order has come with it? What new infrastructure or social conscience was left in its wake? In terms of social utility, the IBC was like a twitching finger from an otherwise comatose patient: it may give us some hope, but who knows what else. Sweet Zombie Jesus. This isn't even your largest paragraph, but it is already unpleasantly large. Split it up. Adam's final version of this same paragraph, with content excised for brevity is three fricking paragraphs. The first sentence should end with "build". Everything afterwards is extraneous, flowery language that ads to word count but not content. The word digital does not need to be included before social networks, because the phrase social networks is commonly understood to mean digital. Moreover, it is in the title of the essay, and we have been talking about social networks for two paragraphs already. While I am slightly swayed by "They don't work the way we had hoped", the issue is that people have differing ideas on how they might hope they work. Saying Facebook doesn't 'work for us' however, is good because most people would agree with that sentiment. Consider namedropping other networks rather than just Facebook. Don't call social networking a "task" since it makes it feel like work. Why is a transmission failure an American analogy? Sure  and all that, but I'm Canadian and I get it just fine, as would pretty much anyone.I personally think you need to set up your thesis that social networking exists to solve social problems a lot earlier or a lot differently. You just drop it in the middle of a paragraph, and honestly I don't really agree with the implied assumption, which means that the whole paragraph bitching about it falls utterly flat for me and any readers like me. The end section of this paragraph is surprisingly okay. Except the "Who knows what else" seems really... weird. Is the internet going to rise up as a zombie? quote:Of course, many opportunists have found clever ways to capitalize on the existing network structure, and a few have made a lot of money in the process. The economy is certainly not blind to the latent power of the internet. But as a rule, these digital opportunities are leveraged for purely private gain. The best the public can hope for is that successful digital businesses will turn out cheap services that we can shackle ourselves to like domesticated animals. There have been enough major successes of this model that in the year 2014 we’ve come to accept our fate as unpaid digital domestic labor. There is no longer any hope of using the internet to reorganize the people from post-capitalist consumers into fully empowered digital citizens, because it has become clear that our digital tools have simply been used to standardize the post-capitalist consumer lifestyle on a global scale. Paragraphs. Sing it with me now! You have too many words in this paragraph! It's difficult for anyone to follow! Paragraphs! Halfway through reading this my eyes go blurred and I want to skip it! Pare.....aa.... graphs!!! Thank you folks! The section about the economy not being blind is really odd, pointless and breaks up the flow. You've already told us that people made money, no need to say it again. I wouldn't suggest equating anyone who uses Facebook to a domesticated animal. It will alienate your reader. Again, you don't need to use the word digital when talking about 'unpaid labor'. It is implied. I don't know if I'm supposed to have some background in your other writing, but since when are we post-capitalist? Looking it up on wikipedia Post-capitalist refers to forms of socialism, not what you are talking about. This whole paragraph feels like it is marketed towards people who already agree with you, and I'm not sure what anyone else is going to take away from it. You use a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, and make a bunch of assertions that you haven't really backed up. quote:We need to realize that a half a million human bodies walking down a street with cell phones and hand written signs still have more political power than 10+ million strong Facebook groups or Twitter streams. We still live in an age where an afternoon walk with a few like-minded people can outrun the social influence of a digital collective an order of magnitude larger. You might have expected a digital population to overwhelm our naked ancestors, but if anything the opposite has proven true. When TwitchPlaysPokemon rallied 1.16 million people to beat Pokemon in 16 days, everyone who participated recognized that we accomplished an amazing thing. But we also had to acknowledge, without any cognitive dissonance, that each of us could beat the game ourselves in about a day and a half. Paraparaparagraph. Don't say "human bodies" say "people". You keep strangely slipping between jargon where you are talking to your reader in a familiar tone, and then throwing out almost clinical terms. The words "Human Bodies" are rarely associated with good thoughts, and having people get morbid while reading your work is not helpful. Word choice is really important. The metaphor about walking feels really weird to me but I can't give you a reason why. Maybe just rephrase it or write something else in its place? The whole naked ancestors bit is redundant and should get the axe. What the hell is TwitchPlaysPokemon? I mean, I personally know, but my mom? My dad? My crazy Uncle Pants? Anyone who reads this who isn't tech savvy? quote:Okay, okay, so our social networks are broken, and we haven’t even begun to count the ways. There are niche digital communities accomplishing amazing feats of cooperation, but all of us with all our gadgets are not yet as strong as some of us plain old boring people, doing the things we've been doing for centuries like voting and assembling. Why not? I'd ditch the start of this. Saying Okay, Okay makes it feel like some teenager's whiny blog post. Name some of these niche digital communities. An example here would be helpful because I personally can't think of an example of what you're discussing. Just in general I feel you need an extra chunk in this opening section to explain your thoughts on what you envision social networks to be. To me it feels like you are beating around the bush. So yeah, she got to the end of section 1 before giving up in frustration/for a snack. Having gone over her suggested edits, this is what I came up with for a functional version of what you wrote: quote:Our social networks are broken. Vs. quote:Our social networks are broken. Here's how to fix them. Bit of a giant rambling post, and I can't 'really' fix it without making massive changes to the content, but I feel it sort of necessary to try and show Eripsa his faults and how to fix them since he is coming here for feedback. A glance at his social network shows that it is pretty much an echo chamber of 'what a great idea' 'so good' etc, meaning that no one else is willing to tell him that his method of communicating is not good. On that note, Eripsa, my wife is curious. Do you have an outside editor? Or do you only do your own work. Because a lot of these errors are blatant and basic to anyone with a background in communication, english, or just anyone who writes a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been mining it for three and a half years and I'm considered one of the top experts in my community. What's it like knowing you've wasted three years of your life on something that will soon be utterly worthless (not that it ever had worth)? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What the Is-ought problem says is that the existence of oughts is problematic. That is what the is-ought problem is, that you can go skipping merrily along descriptively, but when you start getting prescriptive it's a leap that's enormously hard to solve. B) Even accepting your definition, if all solutions have an is-ought problem, a particular solution having an is-ought problem is not a criticism, but a tautology. quote:Are you not talking about Hume's Law? It's really hard to tell at this point. quote:It makes fine sense to call it an is-ought gap, that's not, like, copyrighted by Hume or anything. Especially with the context of words he put around it, it was fine. This is like objecting because someone presented something they called a hedonistic calculus and it wasn't Bentham's. Who What Now posted:But you are right, saying "If we had the money, we ought to fund public education" does have an Is-Ought problem, which is why we don't say that; also because it gets us nowhere. We say "We ought to tax the rich to fund public education" quote:but I'm not wrong to say that the idea as presented suffers from the Is-Ought problem. quote:"If people have the tools then that ought to lead to 'real social work' happening." Like you said, the Is statement is objective, that people "have to tools" and "constructively socialize". That is what he wants to be made into reality. And he then says that people will (Ought to) use those to "lead to real social work". One of the most repeated criticisms of Eripsa has been that he can't show why one leads to the other and it's because it's impossible to do so unless he changes the way his idea is presented. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:A) I do not believe this to be a correct understanding of the is-ought problem. The existence of oughts is only problematic if you want them to be based on what is. After you accept they can't be based on what is, there is no problem. There is no way to think about any oughts without admitting some 'is'es. If you think there is, then please present such a philosophy which is entirely free from any 'is' that is used in the formation of 'oughts'. quote:B) Even accepting your definition, if all solutions have an is-ought problem, a particular solution having an is-ought problem is not a criticism, but a tautology. The way he was using it, it was clear what he meant, so this isn't actually a criticism of what he said. quote:To my knowledge there doesn't exist a precise formulation of Hume's Law, and it's just another word for the is-ought problem/gap. If I'm missing something please feel free to fill me in. I don't know what you mean by 'precise', it's a really easy enough concept. And the reason I think it's smarter to refer to it as Hume's Law when you're actually talking about the formal problem he talked about is that it's combined with Hume's Fork, which does indeed say that all ways of deriving 'oughts' are problematic. Are you unfamiliar with Hume's Fork? quote:Words mean things. If I tell someone their word is reserved and offer a different unreserved word, that shouldn't be a big deal. In stunning news, the same word, or phrase, can also mean different things. This is especially common in philosophy. We use context when reading an author to figure out what they mean when they use a phrase we've seen somewhere else, if they're using it in the same formal sense or a new ay. It's nifty!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
God shut the gently caress up, we're here to make fun of strangecoin 2.0 not listen to stubborn posters talk over each others heads
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been mining it for three and a half years and I'm considered one of the top experts in my community. Oh dear. You are going to be way more entertaining to me than Eripsa if you stick around.  I haven't seen a bitcoiner in the wild for years.So I suppose my first question is why I should be impressed by the credentials of someone who is a top expert in a community that can charitably be described as "The dumbest people on the loving planet." The fact that you are a bitcoin miner in TTYOL 2014, a practice that is almost universally wasteful is not exactly impressive. You either run a large mining pool, or you are losing money, possibly both. You know who else is apparently a top expert in the bitcoin community? Tibanne the Cat. She(?) is a lifetime voting member of the Bitcoin Foundation. Really makes you think about how proud you should be, doesn't it? Secondly, the tech behind Maidsafe seems rather too good to be true. While I do not even remotely claim to be a techwiz, I do know how to smell bullshit. What do I mean? Well frankly I think MaidSafe is a pump and dump scheme. MaidSafe issued an IPO for Safecoins in april of this year, pulling in roughly $7 Million in mastercoin and bitcoin (that hilariously declined to 5.5 million). Thus far they have provided no functional proof to show that the system will work as intended, and one of their fundamental concepts, Proof of Resources, is completely absent and opaque. It is possible that their end result software will work, but I have no reason to believe that anything the bitcoin sphere will actually work as intended. quote:You would use it because it is going to be faster, cheaper and, unlike dropbox, unhackable. The technology is getting there very fast. Drophack is only 'hackable' in the same way as most things are hackable, which is human error. Bitcoin and its ilk have shown massive issues with human error related foibles, which I have no reason to suspect will change. Caros fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:God shut the gently caress up, we're here to make fun of strangecoin 2.0 not listen to stubborn posters talk over each others heads I'll shut up if you can prove I ought to. And frankly, this is just exactly like what Eripsa does every time, the comedy is getting a bit stale, the stench of sadness and failure and wasted life is pervasive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:This doesn't solve the problem, unless you believe we ought to tax the rich independently of anything else, you are just disguising an is statement "We could fund public education if we did tax the rich" combined with an actual ought statement "We ought fund public education". I actually do believe we should tax the rich independent of anything else. But I think your wrong, and that wasn't what I was saying. "Education is expensive" or "Education needs to be funded" is the Is statement. We ought to tax the rich and we ought to use some of that money to fund public education is an Ought to an Ought. quote:Your conflating usages of ought again. "people will use those" is an objective claim about the future, not a moral claim about what people ought to do. The hell it is. It is not an objective claim about what will happen, it's what he thinks should happen. The fact that he is naively confident about it doesn't make it a forgone conclusion. It is obviously an Ought statement and I don't understand why you won't admit it. Obdicut is right, I've been consistent with what I meant and I clearly defined how I was using the terms. It's the same problem as what Hume describe except it's not focusing on morality; that one observation doesn't necessarily lead to a conclusion about it. If you don't like my word choice, oh well! I used them correctly and I'm not going to argue this anymore because -EDIT- VVVVVV Haha, you ungrateful self-absorbed rear end in a top hat. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because my wife had some spare time this afternoon Your wife's edit is undoubtedly better, clearer, and more readable than my draft. I desperately need an editor, but that would mean paying me AND someone else to write this stuff, and I have always only written alone, for free. I had friends look at the essay, but they were friends, not editors. There are a few things that are aesthetic/propagandistic-- I like the clinical coldness of "human bodies", and the repetitive drilling of "digital" as the clear marker of generational distinction. The transmission failure is an American joke both because cars are the symbol of a working America and America is currently a joke that doesn't work. There's a bunch of other allusions and politics and jargon and pun buried in the essay your wife cut out. Some of it is precious to me and I feel the desire to defend, but she was obviously completely right to cut it out. I'm writing alone, but I'm writing with my other writing in mind, where I've done a lot of work to develop terminology in technical and precise ways. I fully understand that it makes it hard to read, but as a philosopher it helps me keep track of where I am in the conceptual space. Since no one is paying me to write, I'll continue writing for me. My core motivation is to get the analysis right, not to popularize it. The right analysis will popularize itself, and the analysis is hard enough as it is. Tell your wife thank you, sincerely. A repaired essay almost looks like something that could get put in print somewhere, if she's interested in finishing the rest in exchange for a coauthor credit and a bottle of wine in the mail on publication =)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Your wife's edit is undoubtedly better, clearer, and more readable than my draft. I desperately need an editor, but that would mean paying me AND someone else to write this stuff, and I have always only written alone, for free. I had friends look at the essay, but they were friends, not editors. If you don't write unspeakable garbage people will actually edit stuff for free. I'm editing something of a friend of mine's right now, it's an awesome piece on neurolinguistics and contributes about ten million times more to philosophy than you ever will unless you stop this stupid self-aggrandizing fantasy of being the philosopher equivalent of a chemist in the age of alchemists. quote:I'm writing alone, but I'm writing with my other writing in mind, where I've done a lot of work to develop terminology in technical and precise ways. One of the most irritating things about your writing is that you are incredibly sloppy with your definitions when you even bother to give them, which is almost never.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's it like knowing you've wasted three years of your life on something that will soon be utterly worthless (not that it ever had worth)? I've been hearing that for three years now, but still this thing that started as a nice little hobby is keeping me fed while I am free to create the things that I like in the world. Caros posted:Oh dear. You are going to be way more entertaining to me than Eripsa if you stick around. Bring it on. quote:
You shouldn't. Ask me anything. I stopped mining a few months ago. quote:You know who else is apparently a top expert in the bitcoin community? Tibanne the Cat. She(?) is a lifetime voting member of the Bitcoin Foundation. Really makes you think about how proud you should be, doesn't it? I don't know or care about who this n=1 sample is. quote:Secondly, the tech behind Maidsafe seems rather too good to be true. While I do not even remotely claim to be a techwiz, Stopped reading at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There is no way to think about any oughts without admitting some 'is'es. If you think there is, then please present such a philosophy which is entirely free from any 'is' that is used in the formation of 'oughts'. Obdicut posted:I don't know what you mean by 'precise', it's a really easy enough concept. And the reason I think it's smarter to refer to it as Hume's Law when you're actually talking about the formal problem he talked about is that it's combined with Hume's Fork, which does indeed say that all ways of deriving 'oughts' are problematic. Are you unfamiliar with Hume's Fork? quote:This is especially common in philosophy. We use context when reading an author to figure out what they mean when they use a phrase we've seen somewhere else, if they're using it in the same formal sense or a new ay. It's nifty! Who What Now posted:I actually do believe we should tax the rich independent of anything else. quote:But I think your wrong, and that wasn't what I was saying. "Education is expensive" or "Education needs to be funded" is the Is statement. We ought to tax the rich and we ought to use some of that money to fund public education is an Ought to an Ought. quote:The hell it is. It is not an objective claim about what will happen, it's what he thinks should happen. The fact that he is naively confident about it doesn't make it a forgone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait, I didn't say oughts can be constructed without is statements, I said oughts need not be derived from is statements, they can exist axiomatically. How? Give me an example. quote:I'm not familiar with it, but if someone is going to claim that there is somehow a problem with me declaring whatever moral axioms I want, then I'm going to disagree with them. It's fine to think that those axioms are unconvincing to other people if that's the problem. Go read up on it, Hume was a pretty cool dude, and he did come up with this is-ought thing that you're being all emphatic about doesn't it make sense to pay attention to the guy? quote:If I were reading a book with Who What Now's post I would of course just thought "Oh, they're using that word wrong, but I understand what they meant". Since this is the Internet, and not only Who What Now but other people who might be confused about the meaning of that phrase are reading my words, I decided to explain to them that they aren't use the phrase correctly. There is no 'correct' usage of that phrase. His usage was, at worst, confusing, not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been hearing that for three years now, but still this thing that started as a nice little hobby is keeping me fed while I am free to create the things that I like in the world. Congratulations, you are a grifter! You are one of the few people who has successfully siphoned money away from idiots. That does not however, mean bitcoin has actually created anything of real value. quote:You shouldn't. Ask me anything.[quote] So when you said "I've been mining for three years" what you actually meant to say is "I mined for about three years." quote:I don't know or care about who this n=1 sample is. She is a cat. An actual Cat is a voting member of the board of directors of the bitcoin foundation. The cat was owned by Mark Karpales, The guy who ran Magic the Gathering Online: eXchange, the top Bitcoin marketplace. Before it quote:Stopped reading at this point. Whew, good to see that you have an open mind about criticism. Caros fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been hearing that for three years now, but still this thing that started as a nice little hobby is keeping me fed while I am free to create the things that I like in the world. That a few people are on top is not an endorsement of Pyramid Schemes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Your wife's edit is undoubtedly better, clearer, and more readable than my draft. I desperately need an editor, but that would mean paying me AND someone else to write this stuff, and I have always only written alone, for free. I had friends look at the essay, but they were friends, not editors. Why do you believe people using a social network like the one you've (kind of) outlined would act the way you describe? I could say a UI composed of medium-rare steak textures would do all the same things and that claim would be as well-founded as yours appears to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
twodot is right about the is-ought problem. The issue is "This is how things are" and "this is how things ought to be". Someone who closes the is-ought gap is trying to argue that the way things are is the way things ought to be. So when I tell my dad that he shouldn't call things "gay" as an insult, and he responds "Why not? People use gay as an insult all the time", then he's assuming an is implies an ought: the fact people do something implies that they are ought to do it, that it is in line with the norm. Usually the ought is an ethical ought, but the issue is about normativity more generally. So there's a kernel of truth in Who What Now's questions, because it appears as if I'm arguing that there's some "natural state" of human community, and that if we return to that state then everything will be great. This is not the is-ought problem, but it is a kind of naive naturalism so the two aren't unrelated. WWN is also correct in his diagnosis of the problem with libertarian/an-caps who advocate for a free market as if that will solve our problems. That's not an example of is-ought either, but it is an example of a kind of naturalistic fallacy. I am arguing for social network freedom, so there's a superficial similarity here. But I'm not making an appeal to the free (social) market; I'm not only arguing that free agents will tend to decide what is best. To distinguish myself from the libertarian, I'm emphasizing the role of the community as another participant in the system, developing alongside the agents. My claim is not that only free agents make the best decisions, but rather that individuals and communities develop in tandem through a dynamic interplay, and that social networks have severed the feedback loop that typically binds the two. Libertarians typically argue against government because they think no agents over and above individuals should have a say in how the system develops. Therefore, they argue against any constraints on individual actions, especially from the government. I deny this explicitly; I think communities (at all scales) have a say in how the system develops, and therefore put constraints on individual action; individuals aren't the only agents on the map. So my argument against centralized Facebook isn't only that it constrains individual agents, but that it also constrains communities, and it does so in a way that prevents them from developing in the way they would normally. So the "ought" in my argument is a functional ought. It is the ought of "you shouldn't do it that way", as in "you shouldn't get toast out of the toaster with a knife." A functional ought differs from the naturalistic ought in an important sense: it is hypothetical. "If you're trying to do X, then Y is the way you do it." That doesn't commit any naturalistic fallacies, because it makes no assumptions about what you are trying to do. In my essay, I appeal to the evidence: people are trying to share themselves and their stories to their friends in a way that appears to be trying to build a home: setting up focal objects and arranging themselves and their communities around it. So I'm pointing out: this process only works if the feedback between identity and community is in tact. But on social networks today, it isn't. Ie, you're doing it wrong. I don't think memes are a waste of time, at all. Quite the opposite, I think memes are the evidence that we are trying to establish culture: common reference points that we can share over time to simplify communication across the herd. Making and sharing memes is incredibly important, it's a sign that this stuff actually works for the development of human culture. My problem is that it doesn't really let us do anything but make memes; in other words, my problem is that meme generation is as sophisticated as that culture has become. It the equivalent of toddler-culture in terms of the positive social work it is capable of. It should be capable of a lot more, in the sense of should that means if it were working properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been mining it for three and a half years and I'm considered one of the top experts in my community. Okay, let me stop you right there. If you were an expert in this subject, I would have expected you to be aware that, ever since the popular spread of information technology, there has been a cottage industry of "unhackable" protocols and tools, who were only so because the people presenting them could not come up with a way of hacking them. This lead to a lot of embarrassment, the weaknesses in DES being a prominent case. Since then, the industry standard has become that one only puts upper bounds on cryptographic attacks, and that "unhackable" is not even used; if anything, you may try and formally prove that a certain protocol is secure up to a certain level, which is highly difficult and touchy, because the smallest change in a protocol can make the former proof moot. It is not just a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of protocols, various levels of attack, etc. Have the leading people in the field of cryptography attempted to hack Bitcoin and failed? How is the already serious weakness that resulted in the disappearance of money with exchanges dealt with? I would expect a soi-disant expert to express much more humility in the face of a history full of "perfection" of this nature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Kane posted:I've been mining it for three and a half years and I'm considered one of the top experts in my community. Which is probably the most solid proof we could ask for that you don't understand bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:twodot is right about the is-ought problem. The issue is "This is how things are" and "this is how things ought to be". Someone who closes the is-ought gap is trying to argue that the way things are is the way things ought to be. See, now we have a new definition of the is-ought gap. Language is fun! P.s. Erpisa do you realize that this is a new definition, not what anyone else has been talking about? You have to have read Hume, right? quote:My claim is not that only free agents make the best decisions, but rather that individuals and communities develop in tandem through a dynamic interplay, and that social networks have severed the feedback loop that typically binds the two. What is a 'free agent', and what is a 'best decision'?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Your wife's edit is undoubtedly better, clearer, and more readable than my draft. I desperately need an editor, but that would mean paying me AND someone else to write this stuff, and I have always only written alone, for free. I had friends look at the essay, but they were friends, not editors. The section I've bolded is wrong. 100% provably, utterly loving wrong, and its what I was trying to get across to you in the first place. This is not Atlas Shrugged, it is not Ender's Game and you are not Plato. No one is going to look at your work and be so blown away by your pure logic that they fall to their knees in tears, crying out to the heaven for the salvation they found that they did not even know that they needed. People do not work like that, not at all. A poor idea or product can, will and does frequently beat out something that is superior from a technical sense, and the same applies to ideas. You can have the best goddamned ideas on the face of the planet, but if you are conveying them in a way that people cannot understand, or that actively alienates people, your ideas are going to end up in the dustbin of history. Frankly I am a little shocked that someone who has gone through that much of academia failed to make any contacts that could edit work. I have about ten people I could call on at any moment to edit something if I needed it. You really should find one. Hell, there are a number of places that will edit essays free of charge if you are that hard up. Even if you don't want to do that, going through your work with a critical eye would help. Here, I'll give you a quick rundown on the single biggest errors in your work as I see them: Spacing - You are writing in a way similar to an academic paper, which is frankly poo poo for actually conveying ideas. You need to give a reader who is unfamiliar with your work and the topic a chance to breath and gather themselves, which you simply can't do when you've got a paragraph that fills half the screen. Limit yourself to no more than five lines per paragraph in copy format. Repetition - Look for repeated words certainly, but more than that, look for repeated ideas. I slashed out about 5 sentences that added absolutely nothing to the work, sentences that simply reiterated something that had been said either earlier in the work that didn't need to be restated, or were a repetition of something that you had literally just said. Content - Divorce yourself from things that feel precious to you. This one is the hardest and the one that benefits most from having someone else take a fresh look at it. Simply put, if people cannot follow your argument from scratch, then they can't be assed to care. When my wife was going over this she had to read it start to finish twice, then ask me some questions to get a general idea of what you were talking about and suggestions. A typical person is not going to put in 1/5th of that effort, so you need to make sure that if you reference something, or talk about a concept that it is something the reader can be familiar with. You can't assume the reader knows what you are talking about, or that they agree with you. I could go on and on, but I don't think its really helpful to continue this train of discussion for the time being since there are more interesting discussions to be had and I'm sure some other posters are getting annoyed that its getting all english 203 up in this thread. That said, Jen will never say no to wine, but she is busy. I'll mention it to her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:I don't think memes are a waste of time, at all. Quite the opposite, I think memes are the evidence that we are trying to establish culture: common reference points that we can share over time to simplify communication across the herd. Making and sharing memes is incredibly important, it's a sign that this stuff actually works for the development of human culture. So what are your reasons for believing that people using your network will evolve beyond meme-posting Eripsa posted:domesticated consumers who have no idea they are alive and become the activists or whatever you believe they should be. You've shown no reason for believing your reputation system would lead to such a dramatic shift in behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Okay, let me stop you right there. If you were an expert in this subject, I would have expected you to be aware that, ever since the popular spread of information technology, there has been a cottage industry of "unhackable" protocols and tools, who were only so because the people presenting them could not come up with a way of hacking them. This lead to a lot of embarrassment, the weaknesses in DES being a prominent case. Frankly I think that the word unhackable is hilarious because anything is hackable via rubber hose cryptography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:49
|
|