mircea_popescu: ask a guy, "mircea popescu", ask a gal, "jennifer latson???"

mircea_popescu: and speaking of jennifers : i can report partial data on a multi-year research project. of the "internet demographic" (under 30, poor, intelligent, educated, ambitious - the sort that supplies the seo experts, hackers, camwhores etc), 93% (of 2274) males and 2% (of 741) females actually heard of bitcoin.

mircea_popescu: apparently a bare tits floor cleanner / anthropologist named jennifer latson actually believes what "the press at the time" said is a source of truth ; and worth the mention other than derisively.

mircea_popescu: http://time.com/3546215/laika-1957/ << also interested for idiotologists, because of the references to imbecile ustardian press of the 50s, and exact unchanged restatement half a century later. truly nothing has changed in our colonies on the indian plains.

mircea_popescu: so no, no "correct for x". there is a "correct of y" and that's the whole of the law.

mircea_popescu: meanwhile, considerations of "abstract thinkers" who are really metaphysicians, such as "will people be able to breathe ???" are not to be considered. if they are they live if they are not they die. nobody cares. whether leika comes back down or not is not a point of consideration in the soviet space programme.

mircea_popescu: and in this context there exists a correctness, "what do we make the rail out of ?" "well, minimum mass of functional steam engine is 1 ton, so i guess something rigid enough ; but also can't be friable must be ductile.

mircea_popescu: that's it. it exists BECAUSE you could add a rail to a steam engine. it doesn't exist TO anything, for all anyone cares it could be to go to the moon or washington as well as better circle the wagons or hunt mountain goats.

mircea_popescu: the train example is very much illustrative. there is no purpose to trains! trains exist because of the following conversation : "hey, this steam engine is pretty neat, but is it always stationary ?" "i guess you could add a rail to it..." "hmmmm". ☟︎

mircea_popescu: i'm not required to show you a 1980s mercedes sedan in 1882 to explain why the fuck cars are a thing.

mircea_popescu: you're not at liberty to freely migrate this into some crazy shit on a stick like we're doing free word association in the mental patient yard.

mircea_popescu: cars replaced horses over a century.

mircea_popescu: i don't see much of a problem.

mircea_popescu: yeah well, it is my notion that the proposed scheme, while sinfully vague, is a better prototype for it than anything else available.

mircea_popescu: the only difference being that folks who abstract end up urbiting only if idiots, and choose to do so ; whereas folks who think program is a car and internet a truck end up with openssh and junk-o-rama no matter what they want, or do, or even understand.

mircea_popescu: everyone swallowed the inept broken premises whole, to debate the end point. fucking hell. nevermind if you'd download a car or not. CODE IS NOT CARS!

mircea_popescu: code is not things, which is why whether i;d download a car or not has no fucking bearing on that discussion.

mircea_popescu: maybe i do it with a ion gun, for all you know.

mircea_popescu: correctness here is dna, not a chunk of bent metal.

mircea_popescu: i get it, you've lived a life dealing with people who want a certain thing to come out of babbage's machine. fine.

mircea_popescu: there isn't a purpose, how hard is this to grok ?

mircea_popescu: heck, bitbet didn't keep logs. confiscate all you want. was it a timely enough confiscation ? ☟︎

mircea_popescu: there is not a point in this sense. ☟︎

mircea_popescu: you've not defined "involuntary participation" in such a way as to put it in this soup and prove anything.

mircea_popescu: for it to be a point it'd have to be constructed out of things that may exist in the same sentence, which it isn't.

mircea_popescu: that's not even a point.

mircea_popescu: if it's right it's right and if it's wrong it's wrong. a statistical argument may not decide this. it'll be just as wrong with 3 billion and just as right with 0.

mircea_popescu: stop mixing shit against entropy flow. you don't give the first of a flying fuck about the number 3. you're wrtiting code, it may not contain magic numbers.

mircea_popescu: and you know this through massaging your prostate until a number squirts out ?

mircea_popescu: the botnets are a lot closer to the result, in practice, than usg ever got.

mircea_popescu: but the concept of "a method which does not allow mapping of physical resources to logical resources by third party" DOES work. ☟︎

mircea_popescu: now, the tor would be "ipad", except a peculiar sort that does not in fact work.

mircea_popescu: let's try a comparison, to clear this up. so : capacitive display, as seen in ipad, is inherently cool. the capacitive display would be the "can't phyisically identify box running server".

mircea_popescu: now, time to make a day of it, and the bait a full wedding meal.

mircea_popescu: you can't convict without body BECAUSE the "this hammer points at you, mr alf" is a sham ; and known as such, and for a long time.

mircea_popescu: <asciilifeform> cpu is cheaper to reproduce than steel fork it is really only a photograph. <mircea_popescu> eh. this is not a discussion of metaphysics.

mircea_popescu: eh. this is not a discussion of metaphysics.

mircea_popescu: to have a fork obama can't confiscate ? yes.

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform consider the implications of what you are arguing. if your idea of "irreplaceable home box" stands, this necessarily reduces to fortresses, armies and dirigibles. a world which happens to exclude a lot of people ☟︎

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it remains possible, yes. review your objection re "spamming reddit", which is exactly the same principle at work in a smaller snowglobe. their swarm of pinoy breed there, right ? pasture.

mircea_popescu: from these it necessarily follows that tmsr must make a correct commodization interface for computing resources.

mircea_popescu: so, strategically, we (as in, humans, people, we) are confronted with an adversary (ie, socialist state, usg, aliens, the devil incarnate, pure evil, etc) that predicates its relevancy upon targeted computing denial (see http://trilema.com/2014/the-problem-of-enforcement/ ; and also http://trilema.com/2015/mika-epstein-aka-ipstenu-is-a-thoroughly-clueless-poser/ re the ddos "we won't fix" and so on ) ☟︎

mircea_popescu: yeah, you're mixing teh levels. lemme rant for a while.

mircea_popescu: that's a different (and much lower) level of the discussion. was that your target ?

mircea_popescu: there's no point in the sense of "this is what we're trying to accomplish". there's a few drivers ; and logically some likely outcomes. should i enumerate ?

mircea_popescu: everyone hates a verb ;/

mircea_popescu: i dunno how to extract a sentence out of your last two lines.

mircea_popescu: hard to do when there's nobody with a clue in "the team", obv.

mircea_popescu: of course, if you read the java-esque nightmare that "solidity" is, reimplementing eth as a small emu thing would benefit it immensely.

mircea_popescu: fundamentally uci is a lateral pill for the hardware problem, oddly enough.

mircea_popescu: HOWEVER, it will create, if successful, a ready way to resolve http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-28#1492111 and such problems. ☝︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: yeah, the platform specificity is a bitch.

mircea_popescu: i'm not saying that we are, but WHY NOT must be stated, and in such a way 107 iq guy in 2049 reading this understands exactly wtf.

mircea_popescu: if we do a "trust but verify" no agreement all code, we end up strongly decentralizing, but exposed to you know, thedao.

mircea_popescu: anyway, this is a political choice mostly. if we do a "gentleman's agreement" and no code sorta thing, we end up strongly centralizing, army of lovers.

mircea_popescu: script should prolly include a "needs C"