Don't think of it as a step back, it's just a point in a familiar cycle:
New application of computing requires a lot of compute -> compute centralizes -> compute improves, smaller, faster, cheaper -> compute decentralizes -> new application of compute is found -> (return to beginning of cycle)
Can you think of examples of this cycle? I know this is roughly what happened with mainframes, but I struggle to think of other times it went like that.
CGI rendering. To do Pixar quality animations you used to need racks and racks of servers and it still took months. Now anyone can do it, and we saw tons of slick animations on YouTube from indie studios as a result (before the AI slop cloning started I mean)
cloud? I feel like that's an example of things going the other way. It used to be every company would have either on on-prem or a colocated server at the nearest network hub - a fairly de-centralized system, and then everything went centralized with cloud platforms.
To be clear, I am not skeptical that it will work this way - I think it's pretty likely llm usage will be come a split of de-centralized and centralized. But I am not very convinced this is a natural law of technology.
The article is broken into three primary sections:
- Social media minimalism
- Cell data minimalism
- Web minimalism
What you say is true about the 2nd section, but the comment you are replying to is referencing the 1st section which states, in part:
"I did not leave X the platform, but I did leave X the interface. Instead, I have been doing most of my tweeting through Firefly:
Firefly is a multi-client that combines together X, BlueSky as well as Farcaster and Lens (both partially-Ethereum-based decentralized social media platforms)."
Informing the subject they are shadowbanned would kind of defeat the purpose of the shadowban. Might as well just issue a regular ban then.
It's nice that this place maintains an email endpoint that's actually staffed by humans who can intervene if needed. That's more than can be said about most places these days.
>Informing the subject they are shadowbanned would kind of defeat the purpose of the shadowban. Might as well just issue a regular ban then.
shadow bans here have no purpose. i would have found out in a couple days even if no one told me. so yes, it might as well just be a regular ban, correct. at least that way i would know what rule i broke.
The comment you're replying to appears to be responding to the comment made by shoobiedoo in response to what you originally said. It makes sense in this context, whether or not you agree with the position.
It's not unique to democracy, any power structure can be abused by those who manage to seize the reigns. It's possible that a democracy could produce a system with limited power structures and diffuse responsibilities if its constituents desired such.
Cheating senescence is kind of the ultimate adaptation. If we can crack this then I'd expect designing other artificial adaptations to be quite tractable in the future.
Better stack your chips too. At this point I think there's a fair chance massive life extension will be available before I die, but I likely wont be able to afford it.
I reckon this would be self-correcting. If the average person could reach retirement in such a small fraction of their lifespan, then the vast majority of the population at any given time would be non-productive retirees. The economy would slow until your interest was zero and you'd be forced back to work. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached, wherein the average Joe could look forward to a rewarding and fulfilling career of, say, 450 years or so.
Or work 30 years on, 15 years off or similar. Build a career from scratch, fulfil what you want, then have a sabbatical, then return to a new career in a different field.
Crazy that we can think about immortality and singularity, but capitalism end is out of question. Humanity will probably be extincted in these scenarios and we are still talking about work. Hilarious
I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had about all the crazy, albeit possible, futures that may come. But there is such a definitive hard stop when trying to discuss a shift from capitalism. It must bind alongside their religious adherence receptors. Because it I SO damn entrenched. Like a neural block of sorts.
Pretty ironic to come in here and claim everyone is closed-minded because they were talking about something other than your preferred topic.
> But there is such a definitive hard stop when trying to discuss a shift from capitalism.
But nobody was trying to discuss that. We were discussing how our current systems might adapt to such a huge change as people suddenly living 500 years. You know, because it's a fun thought experiment. People do that. Not everyone lives their entire life on a soapbox.
1. Is that a serious question? Your entire comment embodies that sentiment. Read it again.
2. Your "shift from capitalism". Seriously? Do you not know what you wrote?
3. Buddy, there was no "utterance". If you want someone to consider your thought experiment, it helps to actually bring it up as a topic of conversation. Instead you showed up out of the blue to whine about how nobody spontaneously started talking about it in your absence. Why the hell would we be talking about it?? You weren't here to mention it! You could have said, "hey, consider this", and had a conversation about it, but instead you came out of the gate bitching about how everyone is talking about the wrong thing because we're a bunch of narrow-minded proles.
I can't imagine why your attempts to talk to people about this get shut down. Truly a mystery.
^ Precisely the kinds of folks that simply cannot even begin to begin to think about something alternative to capitalism.
Sorry, that in a thread about possible futures you got your jimmies rustled when some people mention moving away from your deity. Forgive my blasphemy. Please continue your wonderful day.
Show me one single word where anyone has objected to your topic. You are trying so hard to make this conversation about that, but you can't, because it is not your topic, but your shitty attitude that puts people off.
Refuse to acknowledge that all you want. You are doing it at your own expense.
Apersonally I can’t see doing the same thing for more than 40 years. Maybe I’d be an actor, then have a statically, then next time be a sculptor,
Or maybe dig into physics.
But I can also invest in companies? If the population keeps growing, because less people die, the economy might just keep growing. Also if you can get 500 you might want to get more kids. So it will be exponential growth. What could go possible wrong?
> Why? If you can live 500 years just focus 20 years on compound interest hard, then retire for 400 years?
The first version of this technology will only be available to billionaires. So if you reach 70 when it’s invented and are not a billionaire, you’ll never get to try the 500 years of compounding trick
We’re likely to see this stuff get invented in our lifetimes (I’m 38), maybe practical, but we’re def all too old to see it become widely available.
Then again, life extension will not be a singular technology. You could argue antibiotics and vaccines were the first big step and those became affordable within a few decades of invention
New application of computing requires a lot of compute -> compute centralizes -> compute improves, smaller, faster, cheaper -> compute decentralizes -> new application of compute is found -> (return to beginning of cycle)
reply