Dank is entirely subjective, and even if we were born in the same “back then”, our danks can be completely incompatible. There isn’t an agenda, it is just another extension of capitalism and profitability.
I wonder how many sites will bother checking for Spanish pornpasses. Seems they’re just playing people and waiting for the inevitable, “Turns out the Internet isn’t respecting our kids, we need to ratchet up the control. We tried to give you a good deal though, right?”
That’s the insidious part of all this - the government will set up captive portals which require you to verify yourself to get outside the federal network. It will start with porn, then it will be VPNs, and so on. This is just a very convenient excuse to establish the infrastructure and process framework which will eventually be used to kill the open internet by a million cuts.
I just slap two 1tb nvme drives in raid0 to get 2tb and all the speeds. If it comes crashing down all my stuff is stored on my server that I care about and I try to not keep more than a few games installed plus with fiber it takes a few minutes to re-download anyways, now I just need to setup a regular backup of my config. I have a habit of doing a clean install every few months so I’m used to living mostly off my server at this point
One of the things blockchain could do is become a digital proof of ownership, augmenting or replacing things like property deeds and car titles. We already agree that a written record of ownership of such things is legally binding (even if the writing is stored digitally), but transfer of that ownership to another person is still a very manual process. Imagine an NFT that represents ownership of your house, and when you want to sell your house, you transfer that NFT to someone else's custody - adding their ownership information to it. It would record the entire chain of ownership, and specific details about the piece of property involved.
And who would the largest nodes on that blockchain be? The banks? Who could say and do whatever they conspired since they command >50% of the computing power and/or value?
The average person isn’t going to build a fucking blockchain node just to keep the deed to their house.
“Grandma, please you need to fill your basement with these ASICs or else script kiddies will steal your house”
NFT is issued determining ownership to a property. Property sells, another NFT is issued, tied to the original one to maintain a chain of ownership. Issuance of a second NFT for a sale to a new owner would depend on authorization by the previous NFT holder. Lienholder information could also be stored, and linked to a mortgage NFT with payment history.
The "NF" part of that stands for "non-fungible." As in, once created, cannot be changed.
They’re not making a technical argument but a practical one.
Who ever owns the chain is the ACTUAL owner of the NFTs. Who ever owns the physical hardware is the ACTUAL controller of the chain.
The problem with NFTs is … they only solve theoretical problems, not problems in the real world, where it ALWAYS takes agreement and cooperation for anything to ACTUALLY function and serve a purpose.
Blockchains have already proven to be no more secure than a properly designed normal database, and are ALWAYS going to take more electricity, so…they continue to be nothing but a toy and a canary for the gullible tech bro.
Nah, movement is a ton of energy be it gas or electric. Electric vehicles are still the future for the simple fact that they replace something even less economical or long term.
NFTs replace nothing. Not with an improved version, anyways.
I mean, you can use other systems besides cryptographic proof-of-work to determine legitimacy of stakeholders of a blockchain. It doesn’t necessarily have to waste power.
That being said, none of the other alternatives are really viable either. Proof-of-stake? So the “richest” people on the chain control all the money? Sounds like we just reinvented the late-stage-capitalism we already have.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
The whole non-fungible part can be a problem, not a solution. It very, very rarely happens that ownership of a property is contested. It happens quite often that a mistake is made during a property transfer/sale that needs to be corrected. How do NFTs deal with this, and are they a solution to a non-issue?
See that’s the thing. Not being able to correct transaction errors is a feature of blockchain. I’d go as far as saying it’s the #1 feature of the majority of crypto that brings in all the scammers.
Personally I prefer my money being insured and controlled by the government.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with ‘your’ keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity
As you’ve said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they’re either complicated for the owners or it’s someone else controlling people’s keys, defeating the entire point.
Without law enforcement, which is centralized anyway, your documented ownership is worthless. So if the state or a similar centralized real life organization, whiches existence people agree on, is needed to grant and enforce that ownership, blockchain is unnecessary. They can instead just store that shit in a database.
It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn’t play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I’m not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn’t get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone’s keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.
Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that’s not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it’s still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.
Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued ‘currency’, but I don’t see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The ‘digital Euro’ proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you’re spending it down to the cent.
Meanwhile said countries are completely reliant on USA death tools via NATO treaties because you have regulated yourselves into helplessness while Russia is at your doorstep knocking. Good luck to you if Trump is elected and backs away from defense treaties.
We may not need licenses for firearms but we need them for cars, heavy equipment, a ton of employment positions, but not this ranged lethal weapon that fits in your pocket
That’s because driving a car or operating heavy equipment are not a constitutional right written down by decree of democratically elected officials during a constitutional convention, you silly fuck.
Regardless, your lack of broadly socially-accepted individual-level firearms training and neutered militaries will be unable to stop the unending meat waves of aggressive territory-hungry Russian rapists no matter how you play it.
Limp-wrist? So gay right? That’s where that term comes from, isnt it? So explain to me how, where someone likes to stick their dick has to do with their opinion of firearms?
Oh shit no, I always attributed it to weak people, not LGBTQIA people. Forgive the ignorance.
Point still stands, weak people will vote against their own interests in the guise of a safe society and then get steam rolled by another society less interested in safety.
I hope all Russian soldiers die slow painful deaths, and I hope their entire economy tanks harder than Putins mom getting railed out by the chimps that were present in the orgy responsible for fathering that bastard.
That is… Likely not correct. Finland came very, very close to losing the Winter War; Russia pulled back because they didn’t realize that the Finns were on their last legs. Yes, Russia right now couldn’t walk through Finland, but at the strength they had prior to invading Ukraine? It’s much, much more probable. The military of Finland is tiny compared to Russia; 292,000 (about 25k active, the rest reserve) compared to 3,159,000 (1.1M active); looking solely at active military, that’s 44:1, Russian advantage.
The big thing that would stop Russia now is NATO, since all countries are pledged to help any other member country if (when) Russia invade. The US is a significant part of NATO, both in terms of raw manpower, and in terms of money spent on the military. Without NATO, Finland probably loses, as long as Russia presses their attack. With NATO, but a NATO without the US, Finland wins, but it takes years. With both NATO and the US, Finland takes Moscow in 2 months.
There is a red-tailed hawk that roams around my area, and every time we hear it, my wife rolls her eyes and goes “I KNOW it’s not an eagle” because of how many times I would mention it whenever the screech would play on TV or movies.
No. This won’t work any better, either. Keeping anonymous porn off the internet is like trying to prevent kids from fooling around with sex by not telling them about sex.
Unless you’re removing their genitals, they’re GOING to figure it out. The situation only gets worse with more ignorance and more control.
True dat. I had a reasonable family safe network, and certain things blocked. My daughter was watching some regular movies on a shady website. Me: how did you access that, and doesn’t that need an IP in the US? Her yep, I wanted to catch up on episodes so I setup a proxy server. Me: blink blink OK. I was too glad she learned proxy server setup on her own, to suggest she not access that site.
Git is not a blockchain. Most importantly, it’s not distributed. There’s a singular git server that all git clients for that repository connect to and use as a source of truth.
That’s not a git thing though. You can totally have multiple remotes and the remotes are just git repositories themselves. Git is 100% decentralized. There is technically nothing stopping you from having multiple remotes.
In contrast with Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally with a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub; that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to.
I agree it’s not a blockchain, (although it has chain properties) but it is kinda decentralized. By convention projects almost exclusively have a single remote, and by convention that single remote is treated as an ultimate source-of-truth… But you can absolutely have the same repo with multiple remotes defined, and one could establish different schemes to determine which branches on which remotes represent what in terms of “truth”.
I’ve pulled code branches between my computers without publishing to an external server plenty of times. It’s a really useful feature to be able to keep stuff in sync with a version history.
That is patently false. It was developed to help develop the Linux kernel, which famously has multiple decentralized repositories managed by different maintainers.
The fact that most companies use it in a way you describe, with only one central repository, does not mean that git is not distributed.
One of the crucial differences between blockchain and Git is that Git is fully subserviant to humans and anything can be undone by humans.
If your blockchain house title is stolen by a hacker, either the courts (rightfully) aren’t going to put any significance on the state of the blockchain and are going to say “yeah, you still own your house” (in which case what was the point of using blockchain in the first place rather than a SQL database or some such where mistakes and problems and fraud can be undone without cryptographically-hard obstacles in the way) or if in this hypothetical the Libertarian dystopia has progressed to cartoonish extremes, you’re just SOL and lost your house, which just isn’t even remotely realistic.
Yes, proles. Give up your only means of fighting back. We promise your right to vote is strong enough to protect you from anything. The government that can’t keep its own cops under control will save you. Trust big brother.
What’s fucking delusional is thinking that a bunch of civilians armed with handguns and rifles could ever match a modern military should it come to violent revolution or, alternatively, that arming civilians with the kind of weaponry that WOULD do the trick isn’t just a recipe for needless slaughter.
Nope, it categorically isn’t. That’s a strawman/false dichotomy combo so ridiculous that I doubt you’re actually sane enough to be entrusted with any weapon more dangerous than a camping spork.
Well I could show you my gun collection but at this point I’m fairly certain that you would just shit yourself in fear.
Anyway, have fun being unarmed with the state of the world today. The far right will continue stockpiling weapons and you’ll be knocking on the doors of guys like me if and when they finally decide to use them.
That’s the thing that you’re not getting bud. The far right isn’t going to be using their guns against the military or the government. They’re going to be using the guns against us.
Well I could show you my gun collection but at this point I’m fairly certain that you would just shit yourself in fear.
Typical ammosexual trait: can’t distinguish between common sense and cowardice 🙄
Anyway, have fun being unarmed with the state of the world today.
Thanks, I am and so is the vast majority of people in a radius of 1000+ miles from me.
The far right will continue stockpiling weapons
Because ridiculously lax laws and even more lax enforcement allows them to. They’re like politicians with bribes in that aspect.
you’ll be knocking on the doors of guys like me if and when they finally decide to use them.
Nah, I think I’ll just wait indoors until someone much more emotionally stable deals with it after your Rambo wannabe antics have gotten you killed.
The far right isn’t going to be using their guns against the military or the government. They’re going to be using the guns against us
And why is that? Because of the lack of laws, regulations, and enforcement. Not because wannabe tough guys like you don’t have enough penis extenders that go boom.
My brother in christ fascist won’t hesitate to kill you if you stand in their way. I am not gonna stand in their way without the means to defend myself because I am not suicidal. Forces of reaction WILL have weapons and they WILL use them. You aren’t going to convince the fascist to take their own guns away from them through voting
Statistically speaking (and assuming you’re an American) you are an overweight 40-something hermaphrodite with some college education, who has 1.8 children and is going to die of congestive heart failure.
There are three kinds of untruth. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It’s not actually about winning against the military. The civics justification for having guns is to make harassment campaigns more accessible when necessary. (Any sustained resistance resistance campaign would have to have outside supply lines.) No modern rebel group has taken on an established military on equal footing. The goal is to make oppressing the population extremely annoying, not to actually be in control yourself. In order to actually run a government you need a different set of skills than to run a resistance campaign, but a resistance campaign might become necessary until we can restore the government to a just one.
There’s other justifications for individual ownership of firearms, but that’s the one most similar to what you’re thinking of.
What’s fucking delusional is thinking that a bunch of civilians armed with handguns and rifles could ever match a modern military should it come to violent revolution
You just have to make it expensive enough that the military doesn’t want to fight, and you need to have enough of the civilian population on your side that the gov’t can’t control them, too. As the gov’t commits atrocities against its’ own people in an attempt to crush a rebellion, it ends up creating more ideological rebels.
And anyways, you’ll note that the US has tended to get pretty fucked up when dealing with insurgencies and guerilla warfare where it can’t leverage air superiority. How many, say, Air Force pilots do you think will start refusing orders when they find out that their last ‘precision bombing’ run killed 150 children in a hospital?
A lot of people are in the military for economic reasons; I don’t think a lot of them would turn on the fellow members of their class. Police, on the other hand…
I find it hilarious that these sickos suddenly support marx when he endorses their fetishes.
If Marx saw bump stocks cmags and all the other idiotic bullshit they use to murder children and innocents he’d call gun fetishists assholes and reassess.
Yeah, I was just looking through some documentation on it. It says it uses a “digital wallet”. Maybe people are seeing that and thinking that means it’s blockchain-based? I’m not seeing anything more solid claiming there’s any blockchain involved, though. (I’m not 100% certain there isn’t any blockchain involved, though.)
It’s BS either way. Extra super plus plus BS if it’s blockchain-based. But still BS even if there’s no blockchain involved.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.