naringas

> So they don't really exist > because only atoms exist

but don't only exist because humans call them atoms?

There's also an ongoing 'cultural revolution' in which older artistic creations are being reassesed by modern political correctness. (see the recent ebay and Dr. Seuss news for a most recent example)

I find this "revisionism" frightening. I fear it'll continue to get worse. I hope it does not.

> At what point did Bill become an expert on everything?

When he made billions in a society which values making billions above (almost) everything else

And I say that Microsoft's fundamental innovation (I'm referring to the practice of licensing software) is bad for society.

Looks like this is only good for people whose chief activity is "owning stuff".

Everybody else (specifically people who actually execute actions, build stuff) loses.

I don't see it as waste, I see it as the cost of decentralized trust (no such thing as free lunch).

The way I see it, it's either "burn" the energy in proof of work (the machines leave behind only heat and bitcoin) or let a closed institution take this energy to provide this trust.

In the end, it's all tradeoffs and incentives decided by politics and made possible by technologies.

do you mean "yaweh" ??

all this reminds me of the way they treat the evil wizard's name "voldemort" in harry potter

this is the kind of tool that I assumen every intelligence agency in the world already has implemented as a service for their 'agents'

> Those who know about us have power over us.

I'm not sure about this, those who can change our behavior have power over us. knowing somebody does not necessarily mean I have power over said somebody.

likewise, there are things that have power over us without even having to know us.

however if someone has power over somebody AND knows a lot about said somebody then their power is (indeed) more effective.

> visual in 3D

I cannot see in visual 3D. If anything I can see in strictly bigger than 2D. (a flat 'screen' with a tinge of depth perception, which I fear I don't make much use of when I spend most of my time in front of a flat 2D computer screen)

the phonetic alphabet is a brilliant invention. made by thousands of people over thousands of years.

the least studied 'character' of this alphabet is the most imporant, the most critical character in any phonetic alphabet is the blank space. withoutitphoneticwritingsdoesnotmakesasmuchsesnse.

> I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed.

and I further retort that humans are animals, and that classifying humans into "something other than animals" is fundamentally flawed.

Why are so many humans wont on forgetting that we're an animals too?

> The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions.

I suppose owning humans as pets is already banned in all jurisdictions, so I think we agree on this.

"Bankers and financeers deserve their pay because they take all the risk"

*in theory* they do. after all, a lot of these financial-like practices (stock ownership, and such) are the legacy of oceanic trading trips, which are very risky. Over the time the 'markets' evolved and become more sophisticated (I think the rise of the spreadsheet allowed it all to become even more complicated) until today when some players get rid of any and all risk so that in the end "the market" (i.e. the government and "the taxpayer") suck it up.

I think there's some confussion about the fact that trading in a financial market is not a productive (value creation) activity, the only value they add is stability (becuase this is useful) but this is not strictly creative value (unlike, for example, manufacture). Similarly to rent, its value (usefulness) is about maintanance and stability.

my original post answers the question posed by its title (but in an unrelated way)

I have thought for a while now that Lobbying[1] is legitimized corruption

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

I'm not talking about myths under a precise definition (as in stories to make sense of the world), rather mythology in the rougher sense of the way we think about our ancestors and people from the past (in the vein of "the good ol' days" or in contrast "the dark ages")

also, "who is trying to influence" seems to imply some sort of distinct actor (with agency) doing it based on some definite agenda.

but I don't think this is the case; as some other comments point out, it's closer to a dynamic. it gets fashionable so everybody does it never mind the fact that the next generation of people will inform their beliefs about our ancestor's lives based on this romanticized versions. so in a sense "cultural ideology" is the "agent" behind this.

finally, answering how does this affect our future is not so easy. I said it because knowing our past (our history) allows understanding our present circumstance. and based on this we are able to visualize our future. If I could explain this better I could probably also answer why is there historical revisionism

> is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes.

sounds better in ther converse: "it's pretty forgiving of thoughts that do go along the predilect tropes"

so I expand:

but of course, this is not an answer; it's an explanation in the style of the surreal way in which I have chosen to make sense of the larger world around me.

however, who am I to chose how to make sense of the world? who am I to say that mytholgy-engineering has anything to do with the reason for the creation lots and lots of romances set in the british pre-victorian era?

in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently. I must show other ideas that support what I say. I must acquire a reputation and then, only then, I can say whatever I want.

But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.

because this period of history is being rewrriten in the public culture to reifnorce myths about the present and so influence (softly control) the future

edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.

all kinds of "secrets laws" and secret government stuff is the opposite of democracy. any country that does this cannot say it's a free democracy without lying. (it seems there exist no free countries).

if the law is this corrupt, breaking it is justice. however you might have an unfortunate accident or be found to be a closet pedophile (or rapist, or other forms of reputation destruction) if you go against these kinds of secretive entities.

"falsehoods developers believe about screens" ?

similarly to how C# is very much java.net ??

My point is not about copyright but about "Intellectual Property"

I disagree, what you describe is the extreme version of what I am worried about.

I'm not worried that about an external entity owning my entire mind. I'm worried about a society in which institutions and corporations have ownership over some parts of what I know.

And this is already happening, so many engineers and academics have signed NDAs, essentially giving up ownership (the ability to determine how to use) of certain information they have learned, in some cases even their own original ideas.

what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property.

how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?

does it look normal sized? I ask because I know from pictures and the internet that (for instance) Petra is not human sized

then again, it was not its job

I like the idea of judging our beliefs based on what they do for us, personally-individually, and collectively (which is very political and gets tricky very fast)

also, I like exercising my freedom of belief (a personal individual freedom). I have a right to believe whatever crazy thing I want to; but I have no right to escape the consequences of any false beliefs I might hold.

> YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

...freedom.

the trick is that these are aspirations. they are not realities and they will never be due to being perfect ideals ("idealities"). so IMO we must acknowledge that we must always pursue them, yet never reach them.

I'm only trying to say what they really are. it would be unfair to judge them only based on what they are.

then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.