Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
NihilCredo
Jun 6, 2011

iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

have a palate cleanser with some OG purestrain Econ 101 libertarianism. i think i hadn't heard the phrase 'negative rights' since the last ron paul campaign


on the poor little oppressed trillion-dollar corps:

thegrimmest posted:

If we're talking about how things ought to be, I think the power that "we the people" can have over peaceful transactions between private entities ought to be much more limited than it is now. The sledgehammer of government intervention should simply not be used to mediate private, voluntary interactions.

Apple basically created the entire idea of a mobile app marketplace, transforming the entire industry with sheer innovation. They did this in an environment where they were not protected by regulation from market incumbents (anyone heard of RIM lately?) the way it is proposed to do now. Where is the justice in taking this thing that Apple has built, to all our benefit, and forcing our terms on it. The App Store is Apple's. It should be allowed to charge whatever it wants, set whatever terms it pleases, and burn it to the ground if it sees fit. Seeing Apple's creation as somehow collective when we have done nothing but queue to pay for the privilege of using it is monstrously entitled and unjust.

thegrimmest posted:

It's a line of reasoning that follows the original intended definition of liberty. Anything I should be free to do in my basement and sell to my neighbours I should be free to do at massive scale. There's no avoiding competition. If someone out there innovates the next generation of personal computing, they will eat Apple's lunch, just like Apple ate RIM's.

thegrimmest posted:

It's ideological because this whole idea of forcing terms onto Apple to open it's store is basically socializing parts of Apple infrastructure and parts of its workforce. To me this is totally unacceptable. Apple's innovation has advanced the state of the art a great deal. This company literally invented the concepts that we're now seeking to rob it of. Why can't we just be grateful that the free market was able to produce such a marvel, be glad for the nice devices we all carry around, and leave the org and its investors well enough alone?

Also which economic theory am I ignoring? Didn't Apple itself enter the smartphone market by massively disrupting the existing players and forcing the entire industry to play catchup for over a decade? Didn't they do this without any regulatory intervention to weaken the market incumbents at the time? Why can't we expect that the next smartphone-level innovation to personal computing will come without similar intervention on our parts?

thegrimmest posted:

colinmhayes posted:

Unfortunately iOS and Android have incredible lock in in addition to more than a decade head start. Just like Oracle is able to continue making $40 billion a year even though their product is rear end.
That can be rephrased as "Oracle is continuing to see a return on its investment and innovation in RDBMS from the 80's into the 2000s". Why is this a bad thing?




on the housing market:

thegrimmest posted:

Housing doesn't just grow on trees. It's capital-intensive to produce. Capital that needs to see a return on investment, since it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are a certain class of people that simply cannot be relied on to pay a mortgage. These people still demand housing, so are served by the renters market. If you force every landlord to sell their housing, you're basically punishing them for investing. Since your heavy-handed regulation has now scared off all the capital from housing, how will you build new houses?

thegrimmest posted:

So are you saying that people should not be allowed to.. accumulate capital? It's a bit of a radical thing to suggest. How did the landlord get the money to afford the building in the first place? Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?

thegrimmest posted:

maxmamis posted:

it’s only “radical” from the narrow perspective of the last few hundred years of western capitalism.
> Say he was a high-ranking professional or a successful entrepreneur and he used the capital he earned to buy a building - what's immoral here exactly?

he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself. (that’s also how he accumulated the capital in the first place — but that’s another conversation.)

> last few hundred years of western capitalism.
"Capitalism" is just liberty + private property. The idea of a free class of citizens has been around for millenia, and the idea of private ownership of property has been around for longer. Property owners and tenants have existed since the dawn of agrarian civilization.

The radical innovation of the last few centuries was the private, limited liability corporation, but that's not really the problem here is it?

> he’s using his capital to extract more wealth from those with fewer resources than himself.

As every living thing competing with other living things in an environment of material scarcity has done since life began.





on how CEOs will starve to death if we implement UBI:

thegrimmest posted:

The "So what" is that if pay for waiters and labourers has to compete with UBI, the cost of service, food, and housing increases significantly, putting it out of reach of more people, and contracting the entire economy as a result.
You can postulate about how much we should value these jobs, but the reality is that most people wouldn't be able to afford a meal at a restaurant where all the staff make 50k, or a packet of strawberries picked by pickers who make the same.

thegrimmest posted:

CraigJPerry posted:

Who would pay the multi-million dollar salary of the top footballers if that came to pass? If people were suddenly paying a LOT more for strawberries and garbage collection, would they have disposable left over for footballers?
There’d still be footballers - the person who was picking fruit left that role to follow their UBI funded dream of being a footballer. They’re just not going to make the same amount of money.

Same goes for CEOs and other roles with comparatively enjoyable execution vs high pay. Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company when you take all the risk out of the system by giving everyone a safety net.

Enjoyable jobs will pay less, hard jobs will pay more.
Believe it or not, poor people generally don't buy football tickets. If their TVs were made by UBI workers, then they wouldn't be able to afford those either. Material things would become scarce again due to the artificially inflated cost of labour. You're basically rewinding all of the gains in productivity we've made by imposing a high floor.

CEOs aren't paid a lot because the assume risk, they're paid a lot because business leadership is hard, and good leaders are scarce. I also don't know of many CEOs at large companies whose job I would classify as "enjoyable".

> Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company

Then we'll need a new word for "company" as it's meant today. Also no one is stopping anyone from being an independent contractor, which is basically this. I'm not sure I'm following.

thegrimmest posted:

> There would be a lot more work happening on material things, not less
Who will do all the hard, unpleasant work then? Who will pick strawberries, work retail, or do hard labour, for anything less than a fortune? What substitute to the current "don't starve/end up homeless" incentive structure will motivate people to do these jobs?

Productivity improvements aren't universal, they're specific. We've not improved productivity for strawberry pickers because we've not come up with a way to automate the picking of strawberries. The least productive work tends to pay minimum wage.

thegrimmest posted:

CraigJPerry posted:

>> everybody poorer
The people who are currently not able to make ends meet are suddenly succeeding. So not everyone is poorer.

You’re confusing “things will be vastly different” - which is not disputed. The richest today will be relatively less rich.

> are suddenly succeeding
How are you quantifying this success? If people have "more money" but are suddenly unable to afford things they previously could (those same strawberries), wouldn't they be worse off?

> The richest today will be relatively less rich.

Isn't this just communism with extra steps? Why do you think these things have always worked out poorly, economically speaking, triggering runaway inflation and material scarcity?

My thesis is that the the threat of abject poverty is the only thing keeping much of our economy functioning. If we remove this threat, then the economy shrinks significantly and we all end up in poverty anyways.



on a healthy society:

thegrimmest posted:

I'd start by questioning why you think addicts should discontinue their habits? Why do you think you know what's good for someone more than they do? If an addict says "I like my addiction, thank you very much", what gives you the right to intervene?

thegrimmest posted:

I'd say "choice" in the conventional sense - the exercise of voluntary control over one's body. If sheer willpower can overcome this on an individual level then it can overcome it on a societal level, society being nothing more than a collection of individuals.
It seems as though you're suggesting that we use authority to "solve" these "systemic" issues - which really are just individual issues for a subset of the population. This suggests that you are comfortable deciding what's good for others. How would you respond to obese or social-media-obsessed people who are content with their lives and not interested in your "solutions"?



aaand the grand finale:

thegrimmest posted:

> as all human beings should be cared for under modern society
Why on earth would you conclude that? What's wrong with Darwinian processes? Why must people be protected from the cost of their own misfortune, failure or inadequacy? Why must this cost be born by others?

thegrimmest posted:

germinalphrase posted:

He clearly indicated that he believes it leads to societal instability, violence, and collapse.

Basically that people cannot be expected to accept their own fates with dignity? I would make the case that overwhelming violence is an appropriate consequence for violating the peace. Good policing techniques are very effective in maintaining social order, in spite of economic inequality - see Japan.

NihilCredo fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Feb 15, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

josh04
Oct 19, 2008


"THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"

This title contains sponsored content.

apple simply walked out into the pristine, unregulated wilderness of the mobile phone market and started digging, as is their natural right

Sapozhnik
Jan 2, 2005

Nap Ghost
interesting

i wonder if this person has any particular views on the age of consent

kitten emergency
Jan 13, 2008

get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

fritz posted:

collegeburner 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]

1930s machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and AOWs got a $200 tax, cost prohibative at the time for most people. 1960s more restrictions on FFLs and on types of guns especially imports, both raise prices and reduce availability more. 1980s new transferrable machineguns banned so now existing ones cost more than a car. 1990s handgun age raised to 21. And you steppers keep saying "it's not enough". If the cost of freedom is school shootings then so be it. We could cut down lots of other crime with a police state but don't because it's wrong.
You may as well support banning E2EE because nobody needs it.
reply

that dude has some hella opinions but I appreciated this post from him

quote:

2 points by collegeburner 11 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 14 comments
I run a small page that provides services to customers. The ads are not unreasonable but I notice an increasing fraction of users blocking ads. I do not want to serve users who block my ads because I lose money. Are there any solutions for inserting ads on the server-side instead so they can't be blocked easily? I can find references only for doing this in video. Failing that, recommendations tools to block users who use ad blocking so they do not take up my resources. Thank you.

tracecomplete
Feb 26, 2017

quote:

CEOs aren't paid a lot because the assume risk, they're paid a lot because business leadership is hard

this is

ow my brain it HURTS

jesus WEP
Oct 17, 2004


business leadership must be very hard because even ceos frequently fail at it, and ceos are the smartest people in the world because they’re doing business leadership which is very hard

Armitag3
Mar 15, 2020

Forget it Jake, it's cybertown.


jesus WEP posted:

business leadership must be very hard because even ceos frequently fail at it, and ceos are the smartest people in the world because they’re doing business leadership which is very hard

Nice ceorcular logic

Agile Vector
May 21, 2007

scrum bored



the best market space move

alexandriao
Jul 20, 2019


https://kg.dev/thoughts/i-love-you-hn-but-youre-toxic

lol

mystes
May 31, 2006

I don't know why I even opened that because obviously if the person who wrote it wasn't a idiot it would be titled something more like "I loving hate the toxic cesspool that is HN so much it makes me want to quit my job and move to the woods so I never have to see another computer toucher ever again"

ultrafilter
Aug 23, 2007

It's okay if you have any questions.


quote:

This is the problem with HN: The community is too smart for its own good.
:thunk:

Hunter2 Thompson
Feb 3, 2005

Ramrod XTreme
wow, claiming to be a free market libertarian while stanning apple's app store is some cosmos-brain poo poo

is there a word for people like this, who hold capital and its consequent power, as sacrosanct? i'm not joking when i say sacrosanct, this mindset sounds like money worship

Armitag3
Mar 15, 2020

Forget it Jake, it's cybertown.


Hunter2 Thompson posted:

wow, claiming to be a free market libertarian while stanning apple's app store is some cosmos-brain poo poo

is there a word for people like this, who hold capital and its consequent power, as sacrosanct? i'm not joking when i say sacrosanct, this mindset sounds like money worship

Temporarily embarrassed millionaire

mystes
May 31, 2006

Hunter2 Thompson posted:

wow, claiming to be a free market libertarian while stanning apple's app store is some cosmos-brain poo poo

is there a word for people like this, who hold capital and its consequent power, as sacrosanct? i'm not joking when i say sacrosanct, this mindset sounds like money worship
You could call them "fake libertarians" but that would be redundant

ultrafilter
Aug 23, 2007

It's okay if you have any questions.


Silicon Valley libertarians. Someone proposed "ubertarian" as a name but I don't think it caught on.

mystes
May 31, 2006

Actual libertarian ideas are dumb in themselves but libertarians who apply those ideas to everything rather than selectively applying them to things based on whether they like or don't like those things literally don't exist. It's like "states' rights".

chaosbreather
Dec 9, 2001

Wry and wise,
but also very sexual.

Hunter2 Thompson posted:

wow, claiming to be a free market libertarian while stanning apple's app store is some cosmos-brain poo poo

is there a word for people like this, who hold capital and its consequent power, as sacrosanct? i'm not joking when i say sacrosanct, this mindset sounds like money worship

yeah, 'capitalist' bro

it was founded as an epithet for describing people who worship money above any morality, principle, religion or community, exactly how you're describing.

and it's real bad

fritz
Jul 26, 2003

mystes posted:

You could call them "fake libertarians" but that would be redundant

you can't call them fake without knowing their views on age of consent

fritz
Jul 26, 2003

KevinThax 4 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

I've seen a trend in porno games development. Digging around their communities I found their main source of income is crowd funding during the development stage. They drag this period out for years and some are currently making $100k a month going by patreon statistics.
Maybe the gaming industry needs to change the way funding is managed?
reply

mystes
May 31, 2006

fritz posted:

KevinThax 4 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

I've seen a trend in porno games development. Digging around their communities I found their main source of income is crowd funding during the development stage. They drag this period out for years and some are currently making $100k a month going by patreon statistics.
Maybe the gaming industry needs to change the way funding is managed?
reply
He's going to be so disappointed when he finds out that Star Citizen already thought of this.

mystes
May 31, 2006

This is only one part of a long post so maybe it's unfair but gently caress it:

The big mistake Babbage seems to have done (IMO), after coming up with this idea for the Difference Engine, is to have grand visions of it (it can do all the tables!), think it will be super useful, and present it to the government. Instead of taking private funding, he thought his great invention should be the property of the country and partly funded by government.

Hunter2 Thompson
Feb 3, 2005

Ramrod XTreme

chaosbreather posted:

yeah, 'capitalist' bro

it was founded as an epithet for describing people who worship money above any morality, principle, religion or community, exactly how you're describing.

and it's real bad

dang that's interesting. i didn't know the history of the term so i went to the oed and wikipedia and learned myself some things

you are 99% correct so i apologize for splitting hairs, but it's 'capitalism', not 'capitalist', that's was likely first used a pejorative (the word 'capitalist' already existed and meant a person with investments). wikipedia says some frenchies, first blanc and then proudhon, used it in 1850 and 1861 in that way. however the oed's earliest source is earlier, an english newspaper from 1833 saying

The Standard 23 Apr. 1833 posted:

Whatever tended to paralyse British industry could not but produce corresponding injury to France; when the same tyranny of capitalism which first produced the disease would be at hand to inflame the symptoms by holding out promises of loans, &c.

interestingly, marx used 'capitalist' and 'capitalist means of production' a lot in his book capital, but only twice used 'capitalism' (according to wikipedia). it wasn't until afterwards did the word capitalist start to mean a practitioner or supporter of capitalism in the pejorative sense. maybe 'capitalist means of production' was just too many syllables?

anyway, thanks for sending me off on this bit of reading, it was fun

Hunter2 Thompson
Feb 3, 2005

Ramrod XTreme
one thing i meant to say is that it's very cool to learn these etymologies but also somewhat defeating because the overwhelming majority of people don't use that definition

basically i wish there were a more clear-cut vernacular word since capitalist/capitalism is already so mushy and hard to define

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



"guillotine food"

Chris Knight
Jun 5, 2002

me @ ur posts


Fun Shoe
" a deepy-burried reply"

chaosbreather
Dec 9, 2001

Wry and wise,
but also very sexual.

Hunter2 Thompson posted:

one thing i meant to say is that it's very cool to learn these etymologies but also somewhat defeating because the overwhelming majority of people don't use that definition

basically i wish there were a more clear-cut vernacular word since capitalist/capitalism is already so mushy and hard to define

to the romans, etymology was like a science {{from skey, to separate, same root as schism and poo poo}} that uncovered the true spirit of a word that has perhaps drifted, to truly understand the present or the future, and if you understood that root meaning you had a mystical power over the uninformed users of the word

they were right

just because when people proclaim their love of capitalism that they don't think they're saying that they care about money over the world burning, that is what they are saying, from both an etymological and also logical perspective, they're benefiting from their ignorance that prevents them from confronting the truth and consequences of what they're saying. words are tokens that include their legacies and futures.

so when someone says 'i love capitalism', that's what i hear, and that's what a lot of people hear, that they're either a gross bootlicker, or worse, someone who actually understands and benefits from the exploitation of billions, a true monster

Nomnom Cookie
Aug 30, 2009



anyone who thinks that liberty includes the freedom to starve does not care at all about whether humans are free. dig a little and you'll find that most "libertarians" are social darwinists. they champion freedom as a means to enable plutocracy, which in their minds is equivalent to aristocracy in its literal meaning--rule by the best. you cant find the ubermensch by measuring wealth but that wont stop hn from trying

eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?
well in fairness they keep trying other ways but people won’t sit still to have their skulls measured

Mr.Radar
Nov 5, 2005

You guys aren't going to believe this, but that guy is our games teacher.
baxuz 0 minutes ago | next [–]

The article almost exclusively talks about the US.

One reason that isn't mentioned in the article is because the USA is fundamentally based on puritanism. The "All American" OJ and corn flakes breakfast and circumcision is still practiced to this day. In the US, sex is heavily politicized.

On one hand, everything is hypersexualized, but there is nothing genuine about any of it. Sex is wrong. "Look, but don't touch". Everything is relegated to the sphere of fantasy and imagination.

Especially teenage sexuality is something that's vilified to no end. You can't expect adults to have a healthy sex life if everything they know about sex so far is that it's some sort of forbidden fruit.

reply


hiran88 17 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

From my perspective and direct experience, it’s widespread porn use, which has extremely detrimental effects on your dopamine system, which leads to something you might term ‘lack of charisma, confidence and vital energy’, which leads to less people having sex due to confidence/charisma issues and lack of any drive.

By my experience and observation, porn is really bad for oneself, and it’s really addicting. I’m a millennial male, and at some point, all four of us in my friend group realized and mentioned we are addicted to porn.

I still have addiction issues, but I’ve managed to reduce my use on average to once every 2-4 weeks from 4-5+ times a week, and the benefits to my entire life and being have been immense immense immense.

reply


caeril 2 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

It's burying the lede to suggest that young people are having less sex. The salient fact is that it's young men who are skewing this average down.

Women, on average, are doing perfectly fine in the sexual marketplace, along with the top 10-15% of men.

reply


noduerme 44 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

Lack of eye contact. That's what I see among both sexes under the age of 30. Almost to the level of autism. An inability to have basic conversation. And the boys are totally ineffectual and terrified of trying to kiss a girl; it's been made faux pas to show any inclination. It's hard enough as a teenager to get up the courage to kiss a girl. Imagine if you think there's a 50/50 chance she'll completely destroy your life on social media, rather than just say "no thanks".

In my mid-30s I ran through a spate of recent divorcees who all had almost exactly the same complaint. Their husband of 10 years hadn't slept with them in 5+ years, and was always in the basement playing video games or watching porn. Which he didn't want to watch with her. Two of them - totally separately - told me they would dress up in lingere and go to the basement and the husband would say he was too tired. A third said she felt "unfuckable" and started crying recounting it. (I said, oh no! You're totally fuckable! I also said, I would never play a video game rather than lay in bed with you. And it was like... holy poo poo) This is literally what's going on.

reply


graderjs 55 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

Responding to the title: they get their dopamine and serotonin from smartphones x sex has become more risky (than it already was, heh -- STDs and pregnancy / child support) especially reputationally risky with revenge porn and fake rape accusations amplified by social media x 'woke' conflict around consent x pandemic?

reply


andrewclunn 0 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

STD rates among women are up. More men are virgins though. Basically the women are all sleeping with a small number of men. A few men are having all the sex and the others are invisible to women. The resulting bitterness of men towards women and ensuing cat ladies in waiting among the zoomers will be quite the shock to the out of touch older generations.

reply


pinephoneguy 22 minutes ago | prev | next [–]

1) So called "sexual liberation" leads to less sex paradoxically (availability of porn for men, women always thinking they can do a little better and holding out etc.) Humans function better with intact family units and when that's destroyed everything else comes next.

2) You can weaken a country via PR/marketing that discourages sex or encourages promiscuity. Outside influences that are trying to destroy us have been doing this extremely aggressively.

3) High inflation rates and high immigration rates and abuse of credit have resulted in young people being completely unable to afford housing. Without private space to have sex it becomes much more complicated than it already is and for many people it's just not worth it.

4) Society has been atomized (intentionally or not) and most people aren't part of a local community anymore. This makes meeting a partner extremely difficult.

5) Men typically initiate relationships but have been told doing so is unacceptable. This leaves it to women who will only initiate relationships with the long tail of attractive men, meaning only a few women will be successful.

6) Smartphones eat everything. They're worse than television.

reply


elcapitan 8 minutes ago | prev [–]

So what's the problem when people are not forced anymore to adhere to stupid social games, faking interest in other people, wasting a lot of time on something that in the end is just a couple of minutes of satifsfying a body function? Seems like a huge plus. Nobody is forced to live that way, and probably everybody else is better off with the two worlds separated.

reply

(This is nearly every top comment from that particular post.)

Analytic Engine
May 18, 2009

not the analytical engine

Nomnom Cookie posted:

anyone who thinks that liberty includes the freedom to starve does not care at all about whether humans are free. dig a little and you'll find that most "libertarians" are social darwinists. they champion freedom as a means to enable plutocracy, which in their minds is equivalent to aristocracy in its literal meaning--rule by the best. you cant find the ubermensch by measuring wealth but that wont stop hn from trying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25sSLBvk_M8

carry on then
Jul 10, 2010

by VideoGames

(and can't post for 10 years!)


destroy all men

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."
hn thread: i would never play a video game rather than lay in bed with you

ultrafilter
Aug 23, 2007

It's okay if you have any questions.


I really don't want to know what hn posters think about teenage sexuality.

fritz
Jul 26, 2003

ultrafilter posted:

I really don't want to know what hn posters think about teenage sexuality.

they're libertarians, you know exactly what they think

Xik
Mar 10, 2011

Dinosaur Gum
Problem: Data centers have a huge environmental impact.

quote:

The following article, excerpted from anthropologist Steven Gonzales Monserrate’s case study “The Cloud Is Material: On the Environmental Impacts of Computation and Data Storage,” takes us into the blinking corridors of data centers that make digital industry possible and makes clear the environmental costs of ubiquitous computing in modern life.


Solution:

golemotron 2 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: The staggering ecological impacts of computation a...

Consumption really can lead to the development of clean energy sources. People need to develop a growth-mindset on this issue.

carry on then
Jul 10, 2010

by VideoGames

(and can't post for 10 years!)

Xik posted:

Problem: Data centers have a huge environmental impact.

Solution:

golemotron 2 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: The staggering ecological impacts of computation a...

Consumption really can lead to the development of clean energy sources. People need to develop a growth-mindset on this issue.

this guy's management material

Internet Janitor
May 17, 2008

"That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."

Xik posted:

Consumption really can lead to the development of clean energy sources. People need to develop a growth-mindset on this issue.

quite an innovative euphemism for brain cancer

epitaph
Dec 31, 2008

Xik posted:

Problem: Data centers have a huge environmental impact.

Solution:

golemotron 2 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: The staggering ecological impacts of computation a...

Consumption really can lead to the development of clean energy sources. People need to develop a growth-mindset on this issue.

coiners like to repeat the same nonsense regarding their useless activities

NihilCredo
Jun 6, 2011

iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

hey i heard accelerationism was en vogue

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Breakfast All Day
Oct 21, 2004

the growth mindset of never learning anything new and always applying the "number up" strategy to every experience in life

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply