|
Who What Now posted:Tools can be thrown away, bought, replaced, added to, and subtracted from at a whim. Gender cannot. But that's not important, and if you're going to respond to me I'd rather you answer my more pertinent questions of A)How will people have access to this information in real time, B)How are they to be expected to decipher such a huge amount of information in mere seconds, and C) how is this at all more useful than current models of currency? In the cyber future, gender will be as arbitrary as your choice of shoes. Nanosurgery drones will be able to perform gender replacement surgery while you sleep (utilizing your home bank of replacement genitalia). Cybernetic implants, like google glass, are for life, however.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2025 06:56 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:In the cyber future, gender will be as arbitrary as your choice of shoes. Nanosurgery drones will be able to perform gender replacement surgery while you sleep (utilizing your home bank of replacement genitalia). "If a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, why can't I marry my PC rig?!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:In the cyber future, gender will be as arbitrary as your choice of shoes. Nanosurgery drones will be able to perform gender replacement surgery while you sleep (utilizing your home bank of replacement genitalia). "I didn't ask for this...Oh wait, I totally did. Repeatedly."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"If a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, why can't I marry my PC rig?!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:I think a key point that people are not following is what additional information your system provides and how it communicates that information. Let's stick with your initial example: Okay. X has some Strangecoin, Y has a burger, and want they want to get their trade on. We're assuming this transaction is a payment: a one-time trade of coin. So the burger is advertised by Y to cost q Strangecoin. But the number of coin that actually trades hands is given by the equations: dBx = -q * Ix * Cx dBy = q * (1+Sy+Ex) * Iy * Cy So X might be paying a little more or less than q, and Y might be getting a little more or less than q, depending on the networks of transactions X and Y are hooked into. People have been using the word "taxes" a lot, which is more or less how the modifications look from the users end of the transaction, but it's important to remember that these taxes aren't going to or from any particular source (although TUA is an important hub of activity), but get distributed immediately around the network. So what does this mean for the transaction? Well, I and C are coupled to all transactions, so aren't relevant here. For X all that really matters is q. But for the burgermonger there's an additional incentive in the term 1+Sy+Ex. Sy is the amplified support that Y receives for any transaction, but Ex is a feature of X that matters for the overall transaction from Y's perspective. So what this means is that Y not only sets a price but also a range of clientele for which they are willing to trade at that price. From Y's perspective it doesn't just matter that you want a burger and have some strangecoin, but also who you are. This puts a big constraint on the economic activity, and makes salient the social relations among the users in a way that traditional money simply doesn't. This is precisely why endorsement matters. From Y's perspective it's as important as support, but from X's perspective it's the difference between engaging in a transaction with Y or not. If X's endorsement is significantly out of the range of my typical clients then it might disrupt the overall balance of income and expenses. to Zykan: I'm not assuming each party to the transaction has complete knowledge of this network. They only know the resulting modifiers on the transaction. So I'm not expecting this to work for stalking purposes. The only value in the above example that really matters is Ex. This isn't a huge cognitive overload: all you'd need is a number attached to a person (like a credit score) that modifies the exchange, and people can engage in transactions as a function of cost and user endorsement. On the basis of Ex users decide who to have transactions with, while the price still sets the value of the transaction. To Slanderer: You're right about discrete time steps, but the point of the coupling relations is to couple income over some duration of time. I also don't think its a failure to restrict the coupling to a certain number of generations. The reach of my coupling relations effectively assigns me a social caste with whom my economic fates are tied, in a way that is clearly expressed by a single parameter Ex. In a very real way, what this does is reify the class structure of the economy, in a manner that is directly palpable in every single transaction we engage in. I'm certainly not defending the class structure. I'm also not proposing a universal fix to end economic inequality. What I'm saying is a coin that works like Strangecoin can make salient these influences on our economic circumstances, in a way that gives us tools to directly respond to to those influences. There are certainly ways of constructing the breakdown of social class from other measures of the economy, but these indicators are completely obliviated for the end-user looking at a price on a shelf. Strangecoin recovers some of that information and presents it within the transaction itself as a meaningful indicator of the economic relation, which users can use to decide the significance of that relation. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that Something Awful's former display of Hate and Bigotry towards the peaceful and tolerant cyborg citizens of Malatora was
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Wait, so you openly admit that a buyer may or may not pay more or less than advertised, and that a seller may receive more or less than he asks? And you don't see this as a HUGE problem? You tried to compare this to taxation but you seem to have forgotten that taxes (sales tax anyway, but that's the one most comparable here) are a static percentage of cost, they don't fluctuate wildly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
'cuz gee, it's just so hard to see examples of inequity in our current system, we really need to make it 'salient'. For gently caress's sake, good job on identifying one thing which is not at all a problem in our system--people being able to trivially observe inequities--and creating an incredibly overcomplex system to not even solve that, but just put it on display.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, so you openly admit that a buyer may or may not pay more or less than advertised, and that a seller may receive more or less than he asks? And you don't see this as a HUGE problem? You tried to compare this to taxation but you seem to have forgotten that taxes (sales tax anyway, but that's the one most comparable here) are a static percentage of cost, they don't fluctuate wildly. It's a problem if we are talking about implementing this tomorrow to conduct real world economic transactions. It's not a problem if I'm explaining a model of economic behavior and pointing out interesting differences in is incentive structure. In my last post I explain why I don't think this is a huge cognitive burden even if it has counter intuitive results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:So what this means is that Y not only sets a price but also a range of clientele for which they are willing to trade at that price. From Y's perspective it doesn't just matter that you want a burger and have some strangecoin, but also who you are... That is part of what a price dictates in the current system, since usually people with money are in a different social class. But in your system it's now explicit!? If I sell a hot dog, I must now explicitly discriminate along social and economic classes? Like, I want to sell ice cream, but I can only sell to suburban people with my price, not city people or tourists who might come by? Every part of this system I've heard so far is worse than what we have right now. It would really help you to explain what makes this better for users, easier for consumers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:'cuz gee, it's just so hard to see examples of inequity in our current system, we really need to make it 'salient'. Worse, not only does it not solve the problem that he setting out to solve but it actively makes other problems much much worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:'cuz gee, it's just so hard to see examples of inequity in our current system, we really need to make it 'salient'. I don't just want it on display, I want it on a projection system beaming from giant fighting robots. Inequality is all over the place, and yet it's also incredibly hard for people to make decisions in full light of the actual disparity of circumstances. The point of making it salient is precisely so you can do something about it. Just as a for-instance, if people are all clustered up in coupled castes using Strangecoin, I would guess the resulting network is not a small world network; in other words, on average it takes a lot of transactional hops to go from one user to any other. The smallness of a Strangecoin network might serve as a measure of the disparity of economic wealth quite apart from income.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I said that my tools are as important to my identity as my gender. That has theoretical relations to this proposal, but it's not some ulterior political motive for the proposal. I'm actually starting to look at the legal and regulatory implications of human enhancement. Also, the use of technology and 'tools' in identity construction is a fairly agreeable and understandable concept - to say that San Francisco-based users of wearable tech are subject to the same type of discrimination as homosexuals, the disabled or trans people is laughable. Edit: also, you haven't answered the question I've asked a few times in the last few pages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:It's a problem if we are talking about implementing this tomorrow to conduct real world economic transactions. No, you can't just hand wave this away. You simply cannot have prices not mean what they advertised. No system can operate that way at all. And would you please directly answer the three questions I posed to you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The reach of my coupling relations effectively assigns me a social caste with whom my economic fates are tied, in a way that is clearly expressed by a single parameter Ex. In a very real way, what this does is reify the class structure of the economy, in a manner that is directly palpable in every single transaction we engage in. Regular currency: Anyone can buy a burger at the same price and the burgermeister has no incentive to pick and choose who he sells the burger to because he gets the same price for it in the end. StrangeCoin: Anyone can buy a burger, but people with more rich friends have their friends pay extra for it, so the burgermeister now has an incentive not to sell his burgers to poor friendless people. Those poors now palpably feel the reification of their real class structure in that they can't buy food anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:I'm actually starting to look at the legal and regulatory implications of human enhancement. Also, the use of technology and 'tools' in identity construction is a fairly agreeable and understandable concept - to say that San Francisco-based users of wearable tech are subject to the same type of discrimination as homosexuals, the disabled or trans people is laughable. I think there are absolutely structural relations between the discrimination of cyborgs and the discrimination of other minority groups. From the perspective of queer theory I'd probably want to treat Glass wearers and persons with a disability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't just want it on display, I want it on a projection system beaming from giant fighting robots. It is already salient. it is already salient. it is everywhere around us and completely salient. Your system doesn't allow people to make decisions in the light of actual disparity, either, it forces those decisions, in a completely gameable way which would magnify inequity. quote:Just as a for-instance, if people are all clustered up in coupled castes using Strangecoin, I would guess the resulting network is not a small world network; in other words, on average it takes a lot of transactional hops to go from one user to any other. The smallness of a Strangecoin network might serve as a measure of the disparity of economic wealth quite apart from income. We already have great, robust, strong measures of disparity of economic wealth aside from income. Nice job still dodging the question about endorsements and how they'd function with ten people at Wal-mart, by the way, you wouldn't want to actually answer a straightforward question in a straightforward way. It's much better to open up endless cans of worms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I think there are absolutely structural relations between the discrimination of cyborgs and the discrimination of other minority groups. From the perspective of queer theory I'd probably want to treat Glass wearers and persons with a disability. In what way is someone with a theoretical enhancement disabled? As a category, people wearing google glass are not cyborgs. They might wish they were, but they're not. If we're talking about people with neuroprosthetics, then we might have interesting social and legal questions to ask. We do not have those questions to ask when the subject of discrimination refuses to take their sunglasses off at night/wear google glass in a bar. Edit: my dentist's drill is part of my identity as a dentist. Why are people discriminating against me by saying I can't take it into a bar with me while it makes a nice whirring noise?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
"So X might be paying a little more or less than q, and Y might be getting a little more or less than q, depending on the networks of transactions X and Y are hooked into" is the worst idea I've ever heard. Pretty much the entirety of human civilization, for all it's flaws, is focused on strategies for obtaining resources as predictably as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is already salient. it is already salient. it is everywhere around us and completely salient. Your system doesn't allow people to make decisions in the light of actual disparity, either, it forces those decisions, in a completely gameable way which would magnify inequity. Let's say the system couldn't be gamed and works more or less like I suggest. Why do you think it would magnify inequality? In other words, why do you think direct feedback on the caste structure of the system would result in more inequality in the system? I mean this as a genuine question. You've drawn a conclusion, but I would like to see your reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I've got to say, I'm really enjoying academics from a myriad of disciplines and titles all coming out against this crackpot for their own specific reasons. It's like the freeper thread in that there is always more problems to find with it, all you need is a different perspective. You could say we spontaneously come together to point out how dumb Eripsa is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Let's say the system couldn't be gamed and works more or less like I suggest. Why do you think it would magnify inequality? In other words, why do you think direct feedback on the caste structure of the system would result in more inequality in the system? RealityApologist posted:So what this means is that Y not only sets a price but also a range of clientele for which they are willing to trade at that price. From Y's perspective it doesn't just matter that you want a burger and have some strangecoin, but also who you are. You just explained this yourself an hour ago! Do you not read the drivel you write?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I think there are absolutely structural relations between the discrimination of cyborgs and the discrimination of other minority groups. From the perspective of queer theory I'd probably want to treat Glass wearers and persons with a disability. Please stop acting as if you have any idea what Queer theory even is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:"So X might be paying a little more or less than q, and Y might be getting a little more or less than q, depending on the networks of transactions X and Y are hooked into" is the worst idea I've ever heard. Pretty much the entirety of human civilization, for all it's flaws, is focused on strategies for obtaining resources as predictably as possible. Right. This is why in Strangecoinworld, payments aren't really the best strategy for conducting business. I'd much rather couple to networks that are already stable, because that ensures my own stability. So instead of paying q coins for the burger, I might instead couple with the burgermonger for 30 minutes while he prepares and I eat my meal, forming a temporary network to our mutual advantage if we're already both members of a stable network. By coupling, both parties increase their relative influence on the overall network, so it's a win-win situation. If we get rid of payments as a distinct transaction type, we're also remove any real need to consider transactions as discrete, but that would just make things more confusing. If there are no payments and only coupling relations, you might expect the overall activity on the network to drop, so the basic income keeps he currency flowing through TUA and the rest of the system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
^^^^^ poo poo just got crazier and stupider. The only thing that 'coupling' does, it seems, is spread out a payment over a brief period of time and make it slightly more indeterminate. Adding confusion to the system seems to be a favorite of yours. I guess if your goal is to destroy economic activity this is a good system: is that what you actually want? RealityApologist posted:Let's say the system couldn't be gamed and works more or less like I suggest. Let's not because the way that you suggest doesn't actually 'work', and the extent to which it does 'work' can be gamed. Let's deal with your real system, not some magic one where someone else fixes all your problems and it somehow is still in any way remotely your system. quote:Why do you think it would magnify inequality? In other words, why do you think direct feedback on the caste structure of the system would result in more inequality in the system? You're using 'caste' wrong, of course, giving it your own stupid private definition. The system would magnify inequality by making economic on a 'need this poo poo to live' way what is currently only social. Right now, people 'endorse' other people and all that it means is that they can get into clubs, get good seats at restaurants, etc. What you're proposing is that these endorsements have actual economic value, so that Farrus McBlackest, an unemployed PTSD-suffering veteran who has no friends, even if he gets the money together to buy a suit, is not going to be able to because the suit will actually only be sold to people who can pay q + X, and he can only pay q. People will be disincentivized to do business with him, to rent him a home, to engage in any economic transition with him, and will much prefer to deal with Chevy's grinning white rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
eXXon posted:You just explained this yourself an hour ago! Do you not read the drivel you write? How does that exacerbate the problem? The implication is that it's better for our class relations to remain nebulous and indeterminate when engaging in individual transactions. I'm not sure why we should think this is true. I'd like to see the reasoning. edit: Obdicut posted:The system would magnify inequality by making economic on a 'need this poo poo to live' way what is currently only social. Right now, people 'endorse' other people and all that it means is that they can get into clubs, get good seats at restaurants, etc. What you're proposing is that these endorsements have actual economic value, so that Farrus McBlackest, an unemployed PTSD-suffering veteran who has no friends, even if he gets the money together to buy a suit, is not going to be able to because the suit will actually only be sold to people who can pay q + X, and he can only pay q. People will be disincentivized to do business with him, to rent him a home, to engage in any economic transition with him, and will much prefer to deal with Chevy's grinning white rear end. Sure, but there are people now who can't pay q and end up in the same situation. My question is why we think there would be more people left without a support network in Strangecoinworld than people in the existing economy. You're arguing as if it's a virtue of money that even if a person doesn't have anything else, they can still spend a dollar to get a burger. But that's a pure distortion of the economy that completely ignores the realities of our economic network. I don't know how making some aspect of that fact salient somehow results in fewer people with networks of support. My intuition is exactly the opposite: that most people have strong networks of support that are much more healthy and active than their economic networks, and building an economic infrastructure that reflects these facts will result in overall more support for persons. I'm perfectly willing to admit I might be wrong, but I'd like to see an argument. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I think this system would work really well if everyone were robots monitored by a central AI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:How does that exacerbate the problem? The implication is that it's better for our class relations to remain nebulous and indeterminate when engaging in individual transactions. I'm not sure why we should think this is true. I'd like to see the reasoning. I guess what people are saying is that you make them obvious by embedding them in the economic system in a way that only increases the disparities rather than working against them. A currency system that actively worked against inequality would be interesting, say, one that forces a modest amount of inflation by generating additional currency for every transaction and transferring it to the poorest part of the population. Then again, I'll flat out admit that I know nothing about real economics, but even I can see that such a system would be impossible to implement given how much political pressure there already is to keep inflation low, how such a system would be gamed, and the fact that implementing it would be ugly as sin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:How does that exacerbate the problem? The implication is that it's better for our class relations to remain nebulous and indeterminate when engaging in individual transactions. I'm not sure why we should think this is true. I'd like to see the reasoning. eXXon posted:Regular currency: Anyone can buy a burger at the same price and the burgermeister has no incentive to pick and choose who he sells the burger to because he gets the same price for it in the end. Now to that I have to add that your retarded currency apparently is designed to make it exceedingly difficult to buy a single item with a one-time payment and instead incentives extended periods of payment for some unfathomable reason. RealityApologist posted:So instead of paying q coins for the burger, I might instead couple with the burgermonger for 30 minutes while he prepares and I eat my meal, forming a temporary network to our mutual advantage if we're already both members of a stable network. By coupling, both parties increase their relative influence on the overall network, so it's a win-win situation. Now random dude in the burgershop needs to couple to the burgermeister, which in your OP claims that both income and expenses become linked. So if you want a hamburger, you need to tie your expenses to the burger shop's expenses, because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:How does that exacerbate the problem? The implication is that it's better for our class relations to remain nebulous and indeterminate when engaging in individual transactions. I'm not sure why we should think this is true. I'd like to see the reasoning. No, pay attention to your own system. Your system means that they'd now have to pay Q + x, not q. I have no idea what you mean by 'left without a support network', as this is a totally new phrase you've just thrown in there. quote:You're arguing as if it's a virtue of money that even if a person doesn't have anything else, they can still spend a dollar to get a burger. But that's a pure distortion of the economy that completely ignores the realities of our economic network. When you make a contention, provide support. Don't just say it. How is that a distortion? In your system, if Farrus wants to buy a hamburger, he either won't get served at all because he's not attractive enough, or he'll actually have to pay P + q. In our current system, he could just buy the loving burger. quote:My intuition is exactly the opposite: that most people have strong networks of support that are much more healthy and active than their economic networks, Your intuition is terrible. The actual facts are that people with better economic networks also have much stronger social networks. This is something that actually should be intuitively obvious, because economic wealth helps you socialize and maintain networks. You still haven't addressed the wal-mart toothpaste thing. I've answered your stupid question, now can you answer mine, please? Adventure Pigeon posted:I guess what people are saying is that you make them obvious by embedding them in the economic system in a way that only increases the disparities rather than working against them. It would be gamed in the following ways: Groups that benefited from additional currency in the economy would create a ton of spammy transactions to increase currency in the system. Groups that benefited from income inequality would clump transactions together and offset them as much as possible to prevent that. But in general the initial one is the one you'd have to worry about : you'd be handing over the ability to cause hyperinflation. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It would be gamed in the following ways: Groups that benefited from additional currency in the economy would create a ton of spammy transactions to increase currency in the system. Groups that benefited from income inequality would clump transactions together and offset them as much as possible to prevent that. But in general the initial one is the one you'd have to worry about : you'd be handing over the ability to cause hyperinflation. Yeah, I'm not even arguing that it would be viable. In the end my point is that weird, katamari solutions to all the world's ills don't really work. The more complex changes you make to a critical system, the more it goes horribly wrong in unexpected ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yeah, I'm not even arguing that it would be viable. In the end my point is that weird, katamari solutions to all the world's ills don't really work. The more complex changes you make to a critical system, the more it goes horribly wrong in unexpected ways. There is a reason the phrase "keep it simple, stupid" exists. Also why engineers don't reinvent the wheel every time they design a new tire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The reach of my coupling relations effectively assigns me a social caste with whom my economic fates are tied, in a way that is clearly expressed by a single parameter Ex. In a very real way, what this does is reify the class structure of the economy, in a manner that is directly palpable in every single transaction we engage in. This is just gibberish now in an attempt to cover up that you are making this up as you go along and are trying to hide your lack of knowledge with your (mis)use of jargon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:In what way is someone with a theoretical enhancement disabled? As a category, people wearing google glass are not cyborgs. They might wish they were, but they're not. If we're talking about people with neuroprosthetics, then we might have interesting social and legal questions to ask. We do not have those questions to ask when the subject of discrimination refuses to take their sunglasses off at night/wear google glass in a bar. The irony is that if I slap someone with Google Glass hard enough to take the expensive piece of equipment off their face I am both showing that real, actionable violence against 'cyborgs' exists, but also that wearing Google Glass is merely a fashion choice rather than something as unextractable as gender identity. Cyborgs only exist in the minds of the techno-fetishists that desperately want to become them, and will remain as such until the act of being part-machine is more than the affectation of bougie self-obsession.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Okay. So price must be set before either side begins an interaction, but both can act on perceptions of the other's network before deciding to pull the trigger on whether or not to buy or sell. This does not provide any new information to any party about the value of the burger, which I thought was the whole point! It's reducing the available information by concealing what price communicates. In order to figure out what end amount they will receive, a seller must use class perception as a proxy for price. The new information that they get is the accuracy of their class perception once the transaction goes through, when they receive whatever extra payment. This obfuscation is trivially avoidable by the seller absent a new restriction, because they can simply set the price as a funds-received number before agreeing to deliver. It is also avoidable by any party with sufficient bargaining power to mandate disclosure of necessary information to figure it out. The increased difficulty in matching value to price also makes it much easier to game the system by colluding on transactions, because we've given up on the idea of a readily ascertainable fair market value for goods purchased by all classes - they will have to pay different prices. It also doesn't do anything useful in evaluating overall class perception accuracy, because the reenforcing nature of the system turns any perceived class marker into a self fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't matter if left handed people are less connected - if the perception arises that they are, they will become so as merchants refuse to deal with them or charge them higher prices. There's no reward here for challenging that perception. The reward is for accurately identifying the trend and going along with it. Based on that, I don't see the point. We can already examine how people perceive class without making it the determinant of economic success. It's not new information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Gerund posted:The irony is that if I slap someone with Google Glass hard enough to take the expensive piece of equipment off their face I am both showing that real, actionable violence against 'cyborgs' exists, but also that wearing Google Glass is merely a fashion choice rather than something as unextractable as gender identity. Well, they do exist and face discrimination, but usually for the disabilities that required them to need constant mechanical aids. Cochlear implants, prosthetic limbs, eye/thought controlled computers are all things that exist. Spend much time working with the disabled OP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
I continue to be amazed a man who cannot write or do basic mathematics has, at least according to him, any sort of academic credentials. If he isn't just a crazy dude working the checkout at Wendy's while holding a "degree in the study of life from the universe" and does actually have any sort of degree, shame on that institution. Wagging my finger here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I continue to be amazed a man who cannot write or do basic mathematics has, at least according to him, any sort of academic credentials. If he isn't just a crazy dude working the checkout at Wendy's while holding a "degree in the study of life from the universe" and does actually have any sort of degree, shame on that institution. Wagging my finger here. He really is a grad student and really teaches people. Edit: Yeah, prolly unnecessary. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:He really is a grad student and really teaches people. I even verified that John Baez knows him but he stressed it's a very weak connection. Real life inquiries are kind of a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2025 06:56 |
|
|
All this talk about coupling transactions just makes me think of the end of Diamond Age. Am I in a high enough caste to buy a skullgun, or would that link me to Lockheed-Martin's social network?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 19:57
|
|