I'm not in the right frame of mind to watch this today, but it strikes me that while many see much truth, their beliefs about how we can be saved from this often differ. It's surprising to me how often their perceived saviours are akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Although I get why they feel the need for a saviour when we end up feeling so powerless and these are so much more powerful people.
Steem and Hive pretty much mimic the real world. Steem has gone the communist route with an obvious single controlling entity, while Hive has gone the democracy route which we pretty much know is controlled by the few biggest corporations (stakeholders in this case). I'm curious to see if they can genuinely find a true way to decentralise Hive.
"...Steem has gone the communist route with an obvious single controlling entity, while Hive has gone the democracy route..."
Both the Steem and Hive systems seem to me to each have elements of democracy as well as communism. Steem is also a fairly ready example of an autocracy after the hostile takeover. In either case they're mechanics are virtually the same at this point, save for that Justin Sun metagamed the system with Steem as far as I can tell.
They are both like communism in that they offer a publicly owned resource. The blockchain can even be looked at as a means of production with which any of us can work (blog, curate, or support the network) to produce goods (valuable crypto tokens), in a simplified sense. They differ from communism in that they include money. Also witnesses are arguably a protocol imposed social class, and there's also that fish metaphor from plankton to whale which gives a whole zoo of different social strata.
Still, they have elements of democracy. There is voting implemented through multiple levels of the system. Here there are both elements of direct democracy and representative democracy, which I find interesting. However, there is the so-called 'iron law of oligarchy' which holds that democracy inevitably implies de facto oligarchy. Also votes don't have some intrinsic egalitarian value here, as they do in most governmental voting schemes. Instead the vote is proportional to how rich someone is; more money more votes. I'm not terribly fond of that last bit myself.
Justin Sun turned Steem into something of an autocracy with the hostile takeover. Now he has personal unchecked supreme power. I hear that the top 20 Steem witnesses are his sock puppets. If so he puts almost every new block into the chain. He decides who to censor for whatever reason, and has circumvented normal popular controls on his authority.
It's sad really, in my opinion.
I always had a deep suspicion of him, at least now I have a reason for it.
I often think it's a good experiment in whether true decentralisation can ever be achieved. It seems every implemented system has loopholes for exploitation. The problem with one account one vote on Steem or Hive is that this is too easily exploited through extra account creations. Not that it helps in the real world, where choice is pretty much just an illusion too.
Great message, and there's certainly concern that the largest stakeholders on any DPOS governance system could form cartels that control the entire chain. Comparing large stakeholders to an effective plutocracy is actually quite accurate. This has been observed. Just look at the former Steem and the exchange cartels on EOS. This doesn't make these people evil, but as you say, if they care about free speech, freedom from the legacy financial system, or true freedom - then it's important for them to act responsibly onchain. Disagree vehemently if you want with ideas, debate them, criticize them but if there are voices you don't like, just mute them and move on. No need to crush them unless they are an existential threat to the ecosystem - which the majority of users are not.
Back to JFK, I recently read a fantastic book by James Elroy- American Tabloid
It's a piece of historical fiction but it's one of the best 'theories' as to what actually occurred with the JFK assassination.
And the best part is, it's a pleasure to read. It's fast paced and hard hitting.
I highly recommend it, I think you'd appreciate it!
Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, was a smuggler who made his fortune from black market sales of products prohibited by government. JFK, I think as a result of his upbringing, had an aversion to government intrusion in society which I share.
Do you know what a conspiracy is? Two or more people agreeing to commit a crime.
Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant and certainly did not assassinate JFK.
Since the coverup of the conspiracy that assassinated JFK remains in effect, people that want to understand the truth of the coup that took over American government at that time need to theorize to do so. By definition they are conspiracy theorists, just like the FBI and District Attorneys.
I couldn't view the video, as usual, but I did read the article.
I can agree that predictive modelling is not foolproof, even that it rapidly degrades in reliability the farther forward in time projections go. If the modellers don't say so they're either taciturn, aggrandizing their craft, trying to mislead, none of those or any combination.
Still I think it foolish and irresponsible to throw down the hard-won mathematical tools we have at our disposal. The fact that mathematical models are simplified is purposeful. We could never hope to know every facet of a situation if our intellect could even contain the procedure of making use of those facets. I thusly refine to say that such models are simple by necessity. To expect future data to unyeildingly cling to the curve is to reduce the unknowable complexity of the universe into a handful of relationships designed to be wholly understandable in an afternoon, or at least in a paltry human lifetime.
With that said, mathematics seems to me one of the clearest lenses we have for examining our world. I think computer-modelling is complementary to the human mind, not in some struggle for dominance. Mathematics is indeed 'actual thinking' (as that article put it) and to disregard it is the absence of such.
Sure, someone could (and almost certainly will) misapply the SIR model for instance. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to dispense with systems of equations or predictive modelling in general. That's akin to tearing your arms off when you need to trim your fingernails.
We'd be fools to discard climate models on similar grounds.
The next two thirds I agree with about nearly wholeheartedly.
I do have a comment about this though.
"...wholly governed at the sole option of the largest faction of stakehodlers..."
Like it or lump it this is what we signed up for with proof of stake, delegated or otherwise. I personally don't like it and the cognitive dissonance is palpable. At least we can actually communicate with other stakeholders and apply social pressures to them with this network I suppose. Still the paradigm where the wealthy make the rules by way of that wealth smacks of the human problems we already see in the world at large. Even so platforms like these seem to have the potential to undermine the hegemony of still greedier social media conglomerates, which I despise, so I'll be sticking around a while yet.
The problem with models, and maths, is that just like words you can use them as you will. No physical limit exists that prevents false words from issuing from our mouths or keyboards, and none prevents bad models and the wrong equations from being used either.
This doesn't make either unusable, but requires they be used and judged with veracity and reason.
I have predicted a post-market economy, and I suspect we will first - and soon - experience a post-economy market, which globalists are about to impose. On Hive, we today have Steem as an example to follow, or a warning shot across our bow.
I suspect whales are watching token price. I suggest they base their decisions on broader societal values.
It's all I can do. Such facts as the existence of wealth that exceeds the market cap of all cryptos together should provide impetus for them to secure their stakes, because for some the price of Hive is trivial, and the annoyance caused by it's community is insufferable.
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation, and Liberty. We are a peaceful and non-violent movement that sees information as being held back by corrupt forces in the private sector and government. Our Mission.
I'm not in the right frame of mind to watch this today, but it strikes me that while many see much truth, their beliefs about how we can be saved from this often differ. It's surprising to me how often their perceived saviours are akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Although I get why they feel the need for a saviour when we end up feeling so powerless and these are so much more powerful people.
Steem and Hive pretty much mimic the real world. Steem has gone the communist route with an obvious single controlling entity, while Hive has gone the democracy route which we pretty much know is controlled by the few biggest corporations (stakeholders in this case). I'm curious to see if they can genuinely find a true way to decentralise Hive.
"...Steem has gone the communist route with an obvious single controlling entity, while Hive has gone the democracy route..."
Both the Steem and Hive systems seem to me to each have elements of democracy as well as communism. Steem is also a fairly ready example of an autocracy after the hostile takeover. In either case they're mechanics are virtually the same at this point, save for that Justin Sun metagamed the system with Steem as far as I can tell.
They are both like communism in that they offer a publicly owned resource. The blockchain can even be looked at as a means of production with which any of us can work (blog, curate, or support the network) to produce goods (valuable crypto tokens), in a simplified sense. They differ from communism in that they include money. Also witnesses are arguably a protocol imposed social class, and there's also that fish metaphor from plankton to whale which gives a whole zoo of different social strata.
Still, they have elements of democracy. There is voting implemented through multiple levels of the system. Here there are both elements of direct democracy and representative democracy, which I find interesting. However, there is the so-called 'iron law of oligarchy' which holds that democracy inevitably implies de facto oligarchy. Also votes don't have some intrinsic egalitarian value here, as they do in most governmental voting schemes. Instead the vote is proportional to how rich someone is; more money more votes. I'm not terribly fond of that last bit myself.
Justin Sun turned Steem into something of an autocracy with the hostile takeover. Now he has personal unchecked supreme power. I hear that the top 20 Steem witnesses are his sock puppets. If so he puts almost every new block into the chain. He decides who to censor for whatever reason, and has circumvented normal popular controls on his authority.
It's sad really, in my opinion.
I always had a deep suspicion of him, at least now I have a reason for it.
Can't disagree with any of those points.
I often think it's a good experiment in whether true decentralisation can ever be achieved. It seems every implemented system has loopholes for exploitation. The problem with one account one vote on Steem or Hive is that this is too easily exploited through extra account creations. Not that it helps in the real world, where choice is pretty much just an illusion too.
Great message, and there's certainly concern that the largest stakeholders on any DPOS governance system could form cartels that control the entire chain. Comparing large stakeholders to an effective plutocracy is actually quite accurate. This has been observed. Just look at the former Steem and the exchange cartels on EOS. This doesn't make these people evil, but as you say, if they care about free speech, freedom from the legacy financial system, or true freedom - then it's important for them to act responsibly onchain. Disagree vehemently if you want with ideas, debate them, criticize them but if there are voices you don't like, just mute them and move on. No need to crush them unless they are an existential threat to the ecosystem - which the majority of users are not.
Back to JFK, I recently read a fantastic book by James Elroy-
American Tabloid
It's a piece of historical fiction but it's one of the best 'theories' as to what actually occurred with the JFK assassination.
And the best part is, it's a pleasure to read. It's fast paced and hard hitting.
I highly recommend it, I think you'd appreciate it!
I should read more while I have the time =)
I do hope the largest Hive stakehodlers modify governance such that mere money is not the only impediment to censoring it. It is doomed otherwise.
American senior, do you respect John F. Kennedy? It is interesting that Americans create his American myth by linking his death to conspiracy theory.
Joe Kennedy, JFK's father, was a smuggler who made his fortune from black market sales of products prohibited by government. JFK, I think as a result of his upbringing, had an aversion to government intrusion in society which I share.
Do you know what a conspiracy is? Two or more people agreeing to commit a crime.
Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant and certainly did not assassinate JFK.
Since the coverup of the conspiracy that assassinated JFK remains in effect, people that want to understand the truth of the coup that took over American government at that time need to theorize to do so. By definition they are conspiracy theorists, just like the FBI and District Attorneys.
I couldn't view the video, as usual, but I did read the article.
I can agree that predictive modelling is not foolproof, even that it rapidly degrades in reliability the farther forward in time projections go. If the modellers don't say so they're either taciturn, aggrandizing their craft, trying to mislead, none of those or any combination.
Still I think it foolish and irresponsible to throw down the hard-won mathematical tools we have at our disposal. The fact that mathematical models are simplified is purposeful. We could never hope to know every facet of a situation if our intellect could even contain the procedure of making use of those facets. I thusly refine to say that such models are simple by necessity. To expect future data to unyeildingly cling to the curve is to reduce the unknowable complexity of the universe into a handful of relationships designed to be wholly understandable in an afternoon, or at least in a paltry human lifetime.
With that said, mathematics seems to me one of the clearest lenses we have for examining our world. I think computer-modelling is complementary to the human mind, not in some struggle for dominance. Mathematics is indeed 'actual thinking' (as that article put it) and to disregard it is the absence of such.
Sure, someone could (and almost certainly will) misapply the SIR model for instance. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to dispense with systems of equations or predictive modelling in general. That's akin to tearing your arms off when you need to trim your fingernails.
We'd be fools to discard climate models on similar grounds.
The next two thirds I agree with about nearly wholeheartedly.
I do have a comment about this though.
"...wholly governed at the sole option of the largest faction of stakehodlers..."
Like it or lump it this is what we signed up for with proof of stake, delegated or otherwise. I personally don't like it and the cognitive dissonance is palpable. At least we can actually communicate with other stakeholders and apply social pressures to them with this network I suppose. Still the paradigm where the wealthy make the rules by way of that wealth smacks of the human problems we already see in the world at large. Even so platforms like these seem to have the potential to undermine the hegemony of still greedier social media conglomerates, which I despise, so I'll be sticking around a while yet.
The problem with models, and maths, is that just like words you can use them as you will. No physical limit exists that prevents false words from issuing from our mouths or keyboards, and none prevents bad models and the wrong equations from being used either.
This doesn't make either unusable, but requires they be used and judged with veracity and reason.
I have predicted a post-market economy, and I suspect we will first - and soon - experience a post-economy market, which globalists are about to impose. On Hive, we today have Steem as an example to follow, or a warning shot across our bow.
I suspect whales are watching token price. I suggest they base their decisions on broader societal values.
It's all I can do. Such facts as the existence of wealth that exceeds the market cap of all cryptos together should provide impetus for them to secure their stakes, because for some the price of Hive is trivial, and the annoyance caused by it's community is insufferable.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Delegate to the @informationwar! project and get rewarded
Are you ready for your vaccination? They're turning stadiums to hospitals...and we know it's not for covid. 4 done!
The only injection that could be forced into me will have to be lead.