naut

naut wrote

Lolita, of all things. It's a book that's been on my radar for a while but never picked up. Now that I have, Nabokov has taken me for a trip. It's a full-blown stream of conscious fever dream, but like The Stranger and Crime and Punishment, I've found it eerily fascinating in how the narrator envelops you in their twisted logic and perception of reality.

Also working through On Anarchism (non-fiction is a bit slower for me), and I've started a re-read of For Whom the Bell Tolls.

3

naut wrote

About the lack of executable (emphasis mine):

The first version of Silver Sparrow malware (updater.pkg MD5: 30c9bc7d40454e501c358f77449071aa) that we analyzed contained an extraneous Mach-O binary (updater MD5: c668003c9c5b1689ba47a431512b03cc), compiled for Intel x86_64 that appeared to play no additional role in the Silver Sparrow execution. Ultimately this binary seems to have been included as placeholder content to give the PKG something to distribute outside the JavaScript execution. It simply says, “Hello, World!” (literally!)

Here's the full analysis from the group that discovered the malware.

3

naut wrote

To summarize in from my own reading of the paper, the researchers essentially draw a correlation between more conservative and dogmatic modes of thought to the participants' ideologies (both tested and self-reported).

The paper doesn't straight up say "extremists are stupid," I think that bias is present more in the interview/article. I agree that we shouldn't use this as a pathological indicator, I see it more as a "here are the underlying processes that can lead to more extremist or dogmatic thought, let's dig deeper." My hope would be that further study would lead people to better understanding how different the lenses through which we see the world can be (being optimistic).

Thanks for your perspective, brains are weird.

8

naut wrote

From the research paper (pdf):

Dogmatic participants were slower to accumulate evidence in speeded decision-making tasks but were also more impulsive and willing to take ethical risks.

Political conservatism was best explained by reduced strategic information processing, heightened response caution in perceptual decision-making paradigms, and an aversion to social risk-taking.

Good to know the world is stuck in a death spiral because people aren't mentally able to admit everything is getting worse. I'm curious to know how the amount of information available relates to conservative/dogmatic pyschologies. We're immersed in a maelstrom of data every day, how quickly can the human brain adapt to constant sensory overload?

7

naut OP wrote

I'll try to break down my argument a bit more, but at some point I'm going to get lost in the semantic differences we're trying to make.

Play is not competitive - it is a fundamentally cooperative act

This is where we differ in our definitions. I would argue that play does contain competition, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. What matters is the intent the parties have. I think /u/masque makes a good point here in that competition is destructive when there is no other option, when you are forced to compete.

In a competitive framework, your goal is mutually exclusive with other people's

I don't think this can be said absolutely. Even in an ecological perspective, my goal of survival would not be completely mutually exclusive to that of others. Why else would individuals work together to survive? Cooperating allows a group to succeed in a competitive framework. While absolutes are extremely useful for examining concepts, I don't think they can apply to a relativistic world.

I would even consider this debate as a form of competition on some level. We're both trying to argue our points of view, but that doesn't mean there must be a winner and a loser.

4

naut OP wrote

Well said, my wording around “capitalist systems are founded in competition” wasn’t the right way to describe it. I love the intrinsic-extrinsic concept, I think that really encapsulates the issue. Thanks!

6

naut OP wrote (edited )

I think you bring up a great point, and I'd agree that the author's bias skews his conclusion a bit. Competition can be constructive, play can be competitive, and these are good things. I think where a lot of this discussion went astray is that like you say, domination and competition are being compared equally, whereas in reality they have marked differences.

Arguably, a 20yo conquest game with a specific set of mechanics is partly why this article is more controversial. I would give the Civ series as an alternate, of which domination is only one of five or six methods of victory. But even this is an extremely fuzzy simulation of our global society, and I share some of the criticisms of AoE in that the mechanics of Civ are more geared towards combat. This is my opinion of course, so it may also appear biased to others.

The main distinction or clarification I'd like to make is this:

the enjoyment of competition is always driven by an "urge to dominate"

My take is that for any concept, equating a neutral to an extreme is too simplistic an argument. Competition on smaller scales like most of the defenses pose, is not inherently bad. On larger scales however, in economies, wars, and politics, competition (defining it as a drive to win) is bad for society as a whole. Capitalist systems are founded in competition, and on so large a scale it becomes domination instead.

6

naut OP wrote

what a fucking loser

I urge the author to take his own life, life is too much for him

socialist youth pastor

Basketball? Capitalism! Dogs playing? Colonialism!

gg wp

I think it's important to be critical of why we enjoy what we do. Sure, this probably doesn't apply to everyone, but it did clarify some of the apathy I've been feeling towards videogames recently.

9

naut wrote

So the conclusion is all pollution is bad, but let's not try and reduce the amount society is producing because it's a waste of time?

I empathize with you in wanting to eliminate human exploitation of the planet, but I have no idea how we'd get there from where we currently are without borderline apocalyptic amounts of societal collapse or evolution.

An article for further thoughts on this.

5

naut wrote (edited )

A cursory glance at the play store would show that you appear to be the owner of this app, and the permissions it lists in no way are privacy first. Additionally, a userbase of ~10 does nothing to support "competition" with twitter and koo.

I speak for myself, but I doubt you'll get far off the ground using these methods. At best I'd hope you're just an overly optimistic developer, but this feels more on the line of social engineering and attempted data-harvesting or malware.

7

naut wrote

I also find nihilism to be a large influence. Nietzsche's idea of living without god is especially powerful in greater context:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

The greatest thing we as a people have to fear is accepting fault for our failures, and I think that is the main reason skeptics will dismiss leftist and anarchist thought. Using our current system as evidence for rejecting change is a sunk cost fallacy.

6

naut wrote (edited )

Ah what a society, where property > people

Where the government pays corporations to burn and rape the earth

All the while demonizing those who would try for change

4

naut wrote

I am curious to see what happens to the currency when or if (diminishing returns and all) the mining is completed. Proof-of-Work algorithms are also used for validating transactions on the blockchain (as I understand it) and it would still mean much larger energy costs than alternatives like PoS, but do you think such a fundamental part of the software would be modified?

4

naut wrote

I think you touch on the crux of the problem. Ideas like a Green New Deal (video) are a move in the right direction.

I have to disagree on comparing small miners impact to that of corporate emissions. The resources needed for scaled mining are analogous to mineral resource extraction. Like you say, energy consumption and origin are the main issues at play, and cleaner sources are necessary.

Degrowth is the most likely possibility in my eyes, but even that requires a complete paradigm-shift of the global north away from eternal growth and consumerism.

Incentivizing radical change is probably the most facile step forward, and I think the vaccine response to the COVID-19 pandemic is amazing evidence that it can be done. The social movement will be much harder though. Getting people to care about something that doesn't directly affect them in the present could be humanity's linchpin.

3

naut wrote (edited )

If you're asking what the anarchist end-game for currency would be, I am ill-equipped to answer. I'm still in the process of developing my worldview and I do not currently consider myself an anarchist.

The fundamental question is what role currency has in your version of society, I think both gold and stock are attached to a more refined market society, and likely wouldn't have a large role in more decentralized systems.

4