tsylba

Your writing style is the inspiring level kind.

80's Punks were the Tricksters of ancient mythology (eg. Coyote in amerindians culture), it always been the role of those at the margins of Society dealing with uncomfortable other realities, bringing liminal space into our collective consciousness. Punks are not dead, they (or more precisely their archetypal essence) have just shape shifted into another form we fail to recognize as we age while their prior shell have been consumed by mass media and commodification.

Chances are the future generation Punks are either that itch we can't quite name or out of our generational perception altogether.

I like to say we, as human, are all « shaman » : we're structuring chaos into order.

Any job is just that, it's a story, it's transforming & aggregating bits of the information field into another, surrounding it by meaning in the process.

I don't care if you work with computer, as a social worker or as a fisherman. You're just transforming bits mate.

I guess it's the logic behind the vaccine mandate fearmongering. If one would want to reduce the population maybe the easiest method would be a stochastic approach by injecting at random a malicious agent affecting health or reproduction globally. Of course it would mean we do have such an agent and we know how to control it, which I doubt, but it's sound (and kinda painless).

Oil is a hell of a drug for civilization, and I'm not sure how we will willingly tune off of it, unless we chose a radically different economical organization.

But as many I am kind of hopeless as it seems competition, which fuel this need, is at the core of mankind (or at least the leading West)'s mentality.

« At » is correct here, it's a descriptor of "where", here "remotely".

Nietsche's « Beyond Good And Evil» in french would be "Par-delà le bien et le mal" or "Au delà du bien et du mal". In this example, the "where" is beyond.

The Domino's pizza tracking bits is a funny one for those whom had read Snowcrash, where a whole earlier section of the book is about the advancement of the pizza delivery industry.

I don't know, it seem to me the 90s had a very dystopian view of future Pizza Hut.

« The Deliverator stands tall, your pie in thirty minutes or you can have it free, shoot the driver, take his car, file a class-action suit. The Deliverator has been working this job for six months, a rich and lengthy tenure by his standards, and has never delivered a pizza in more than twenty-one minutes. [..] Pizza delivery is a major industry. A managed industry. People went to CosaNostra Pizza University four years just to learn it. Came in its doors unable to write an English sentence, from Abkhazia, Rwanda, Guanajuato, South Jersey, and came out knowing more about pizza than a Bedouin knows about sand. And they had studied this problem. Graphed the frequency of doorway delivery-time disputes. Wired the early Deliverators to record, then analyze, the debating tactics, the voice-stress histograms, the distinctive grammatical structures employed by white middle-class Type A Burbclave occupants who against all logic had decided that this was the place to take their personal Custerian stand against all that was stale and deadening in their lives: they were going to lie, or delude themselves, about the time of their phone call and get themselves a free pizza; no, they deserved a free pizza along with their life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever, it was fucking inalienable. »

Let's be real, there is only one way to debug C and C++ program : fprintf(stderr, "%s %d\n", __FILE__, __LINE__);

I wonder how this kind of amount is decided, a percentage of the profit they have earn from the decision perhaps ? what is the metrics ? It seems enormous but it's kind of fair when you profit from a monopoly position in an economical infrastructure.

I have no idea how this legal stuff work but it sure does seem fascinating.

Nice read, quite a well written essay. I like how two seemingly distinct subjects are organically knitted together to raise its arguments. What partly sounds like a (not so) hidden praise for creative commons remix culture may I add.

[edit] Also : https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4

I love how the word "social" has been preempted to mean the exact opposite of it.

Dialectic is where things happens, it's where people meet. Dialectic is the dancing space between two perspectives.

We all know the saying "It's not about the nails", where one person try to solve an appearing problem for another one who secretly just need an ear to be listen to. Yes, listening is important as a human skill to relate & connect, but ultimately living together is dancing between perspective. We hardly all be passive or let others strongly shape our shared narratives.

We know we're not right, how can we be ? we share a narrative about the world and try to make sense of it. Like the Tao symbol Yin & Yang interlacing, everything we do, we tell contains a part of truth and a part of wrong. The issue is when one identifies too strongly to one's perspective. We're always at least partly wrong but living is deciding which path to take at any moment, and accepting it's not right.

Politic is how we organize ourselves & Democracy aims to listen to everyone, the only way to do that is to share our perspective and enable true dialectic. Sure, sometimes positions are strongly held, but there is no true freedom without a bit of a fight isn't it ? how can we all relate all the time ? share the same taste, share the same vision ? it's boring and borderline dangerous. That what anarchism tell us, not as a dogma to political utopia but as a way to relate politically : we differ so we need to talk, we need to dance everytime to build a better shared perspective, with as many vision there is.

Anarchism is a dialectic of every moment, inhaling and exhaling, sharing and dancing, but we cannot dance alone, and we cannot just all listen (and say nothing), and we cannot all talk (and be deaf to others perspectives).

And this is what we are all doing just now, what the authors of the post did too. He speaks his truth and wait for people to dance with it.

(But as anything goes, what I just typed is neither completely true or false, and that's ok)

I might have add "upon itself".

There is much to say about what is reality, and you can bring researcher like Hoffmann stating that we see of reality only what is good for our peak survival (don't need infrared, don't see infrared).

Hyperreality is something else altogether. First, it's a common theme in postmodernist to state we live in a construct culturally accepted and ever evolving. Hyperreality states that we accept for reality layers that are objectively not, and make it "more real than real". The flavors of energy drinks (with weird names and chemically cultivated), porn for sex, Disney land as archetypal America, tv reality (which is everything but reality). Transposing the sign-value for the thing by itself. Words does not mean the thing that they use to mean but are reinterpreted upon this biased view of reality.

The map is not the territory, the word are not the reality behind them.

Media are more problematic because they are the message (see McLuhan), they are a space we live in (the water the fish flow in), not "reality" sense by our direct organ.

But yeah it's tricky, there is a philosophical conundrum, I get your point.

Once a media is accepted and known by the multitude it becomes performative, a spectacle where authenticity vanished preempted by new social rules. Beaudrillard's hyperreality describes the situation where we don't live in reality anymore but in the image of the reality we build, akin to an AI learning from data generated by another AI. It seems our current internet culture - heavily centralized, and universally used - is hyperreal, a performative space bound by rules of how to act, how to be accepted, what to say and not to say. In this kind of constructs I believe authenticity vanishes.

I wonder how we might prevent this things to happen. I suspect it's linked with demography and popularity, something something Dunbar's number related.

I look forward to the day two bots try to outsmart each other in their own private bubble.

Somedays, A.I. could scam for us.

Protecting one's interests, if you will.

Yes, those regimes - as Iran's - are looking for the nuclear weapon to protect themselves, as we do. That's not really fair to prevent other countries to gain access to it just because we disagree with their political views. In no way can we pretend our perspective to be "enlighten" by fair principles.

As sadly as it sound, the H-bomb seems to promote peace through the status-quo : developped country (eg. USA, UK, France, ..) send troops but wheres there is no nuclear threats. Damocles Swords like that (nuclear / bio weapons) prevents us to go to traditional war against each others. Without them, we will end fighting each others, with fists and stones if needed.

It might be due to the lack of this equlibrium weapons that terrorism arise : they can't fight traditionally on their land, neither can't they protect their ideology, so they aims at our weakest part.

* Oh and, as a side note, it only seems to prevents physical war. Nowadays we fight and kill rather through our economy than our bullets.

When you look at the top five weapons exporter in the world [1], then at the United Nation Security Council permanent members [2], you'll understand there is no easy solution to that problem as it is, politically at least.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_larges...

[2] http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

tl;dr those who protect peace also nurture war.

Furthermore, ethics is way too cultural and subjective to be taught. Even if we could all agree on macro-rules, eg. hurting peoples is bad whatever hurt they infliged, the more specifics (and micro) we become, the more divergences will arise. And as everythng, our perception of what is "ethics" will evolve.

> So having more cops in a high-crime neighborhood is somehow a bad thing, because the presence of more police actually confirms the fact that there is more of a need of police in this neighborhood?

That's the essence of the Security vs Liberty argument. Yes, on one hand it is a good thing to have more security in an area which needs it; but will you accept say, being filmed 24/7 for more security, with the tradeoff that this same data can be analysed by third parties for any reason whatsoever (ala Minority Report's shopping mall scene).

It is not an easy problem and we must decide for ourselves which tradeoffs we will accept, because it is seldom free technology with no strings attached.

I feel I can relate to that, I'm still in my twenties and has recently begun to see in myself and some of my friends this eternal shift from youth to 'adulthood' (this words don't reflect my points accurately but I lack the proper ones right now), the loosing track of the dominant (sub)culture(s), the "it was best before" phenomenon. But this is completely subjective, maybe "old age" come from the tiredness to be always updated / on page with the current trends, happy with our past experiences and memories. Is there a best moment ? somewhere everything has to change and everything will change.