As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.

Removed by mod

You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn’t even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.

or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody

Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and … Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some “proof of sovereignty” while it’s not even in UN’s own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won’t get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it’s not.

I’d argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.

Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.

Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I’d sign under. It’s just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.

And then we can do US

Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?

And nobody will obey that decision.

ICJ has made some rulings about Artsakh too. Should have been not so hard to sanction the beheading savages out of occupying a small country and expelling its residents. By the way, in the UN charter a “country” does not only refer to UN members, that distinction is intentionally made clear in a few places.

UN is less useful than Holy Roman Empire.

Unless you make a p2p system and search comments by page hash in some way (maybe just over I2P?) making it hard for other nodes to understand from which node it comes and which node downloads those comments.

OK, I agree. Not very good. But in theory it can be better.

All such news make me want to live to the time when our world is interesting again. Real AI research, something new instead of the Web we have, something new instead of the governments we have. It’s just that I’m scared of what’s between now and then. Parasites die hard.

A whole world of fascists.

Not necessarily and only those you comment.

That’s the point, to comment any webpage. It’s clear you visited it if you comment it.

Globalization ruined it.

Not like in politics (though similar), but in the sense that instead of a space of generally sane people where you don’t have to follow any conventions of fashion or social expectations of idiots, like a park where people sit in grass and eat sandwiches, it has turned into something like a mall built in place of that park, with guards, ads, bullshit and shopping apes.

There definitely was trash. You just didn’t have to see it. You’d not go to a central recommendations system, like in social nets or search engines. You’d go to web directories and your friends. Like for many things you still do.

Now there’s the fake social pressure of being on corporate platforms. Why fake? Because you still really need and talk to the same amount people you would back then, even fewer.

That fake social pressure was their killer invention. Human psychology is unprepared for critically evaluating the emotions from being able to scroll through half the world of other people right now. They don’t generally use that seemingly easy ability to reach anyone anywhere, while when it was a bit harder, they would, but the fake feeling of having it is very strong.

It’s a mouse trap.

Why was it a bad idea? Seems like a wonderful idea. Minus Gab.

Some kind of web of trust and inheriting ignored users based on it and weights - and it will work.

Nukes are an option, yes.

But as the recent event with exploding pagers has reminded us, global logistics and also systems’ complexity allow for many funny things.

but for the vast majority of people such limited devices will never be adopted and any business producing them will either be niche expensive or fail.

I don’t think that’s true.

Cause the fish is starting, slowly, to suspect that it’s in a net.

All this is creeping surveillance, and the end goal is not commercial, it’s political.

One commandment parents of many people of my age (28) have failed to imprint is - you shall say “nay” and you shall tell jerks to eat shit and die.

There are many distractions, somehow the computer program processing your unencrypted communications being called “AI” becomes important, somehow the difference between that program and the people controlling it becomes important, somehow them being able to censor you becomes important, and somehow requirements to confirm identity become normal.

I felt hot all-encompassing shame many times in my childhood for not remembering things which were unimportant, but people around would remember those. Only now I understand that something in my childhood was a gift.

Seeing what is happening by most general and vague descriptions might help to judge things more soberly.

But younger folks are one shiti event from being believers and we got a lot of shit floating down our way.

They stubbornly ignore the technical component and are even irritated for you daring to suppose that there’s anything important in preventing that shit other than their social and political activity.

They refuse to understand that most of said activity on compromised bot-infested platforms (all the mainstream) is bent in the direction power wants.

The threats are not directly visible, they are abstract, theoretical, hard to feel and touch. While you are near, a real person saying to them that something you know better than them is more important than they think, and something they know better than you is less important than they think.

That tends to create resistance.

That’s a wrong speech to deliver to a cute girl asking how to make things better.

You’ve started with philosophy and economics and olden days.

If we want to explain today’s tech and possible directions of fixing it to “normal” people, we need to start with what they need to do that they do with smartphones.

That’s what businesses do too - they take something hard and suboptimal, make the road shorter and take their toll. Sometimes stealing part of what you are carrying on that road, or replacing it with their unwanted shit, or just stuffing their unwanted shit into your pockets.

So what we should think about is - what to replace their finger-poking box with, so that it’d be better fit for how they use it.

I’ve written my luddite idea in another comment. Split it into a few dedicated devices, much simpler in their essence. Since smartphones are used today mostly not as universal machines, and this difference can be optimized.

That’s only IMHO.