“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

Okay so what are you trying to say with this quote? Are you arguing that businesses don't require investment and risk?

Everything you said is good, but I think it misses the point of the blog post.

The internet was special because it was a place to share those weird, human endeavors.

I can do all I want in the solitude of my home but I want to share it! The internet is where you can find people with common interests that you can't find in people you know IRL. That was the escape. Finally you feel less alone, a stranger on the other side of the world feels the same way!

That's what was optimized. We were herded into centralized algorithmic bubbles, optimized for creation and consumption but not for sharing. Sharing has some care in it, a common need for something, a connection between two or more people. The internet has been optimized for consumption. Everyone is consuming in the same place, repeating the same jokes, and it all moves too fast to even recognize the same usernames you might see.

It all moves too fast, there's little incentive for platform owners to make a place where people actually connect at the speed of human socializing because if you're busy connecting, you're not seeing the next ad.

Also I'd just like to add, reddit killed the classic forum. Many are gone, some are holding on by a thread. You can't just "avoid the bad parts" because the bad parts consumed the good parts.

Just realised that reading your message, I really feel this, I've been designing a game and I've recently been having discussions with friends and people interested in it and it's just a really different experience talking with them vs posting about it, don't get me wrong, having a weekly cadence is nice and Sharing Saturdays can be really helpful to get the word out there, but it's such a different interaction and mindspace I end up in during the "plan to explain to people in this weird advertising, but not process about my passion project", vs "talk to someone about my passion"

And I'm aware that these are different activities, but I don't think they should be as far apart emotionally as they end up being?

For example the last discussion I had we talked about how I was exploring connecting the impact of actions in the small scale to the large scale, for example how designing a particular construct or vehicle, would change how efficiently a player would be able to mine and that would then impact how much that particular player made from mining in that area

This creates all sorts of interesting questions and even just that discussion was engaging

So depending on your context, it may seem like the whole ecosystem depends on tokio, but if you look at say, embedded Rust, it makes a little more sense.

The system requirements for an async runtime on a workstation processor compared to say, an RP2040 look very different. But given the ability to swap out the backend, when I write async IO code for a small ARM M0 microcontroller, that code looks almost identical to what I'd be writing outside that context, but with an embedded focused runtime, ie embassy.

I can focus less on the runtime specifics as they use the same traits and interfaces. Compare this with say, using a small RTOS or rolling your own async environment, it's quite nice.

Much of what I need to learn to write the async code in embassy can cross over to other domains.

Translation: The government does little to protect their citizens from predatory business practices because those in power have gained power via predatory business practices and have tricked many people into believing it's their own failings for being made a victim.

Crypto rug-pulls are now done by a sitting president and if you complain you simply have a "victim mentality" because you're not looking for a way to exploit your neighbor.

We should really be embarrassed of our selves yet people come on here every day to defend the scammers.

It's all power.

The music and movie companies have power. They have the funds to bankrupt you with a small army of lawyers. You as an individual do not stand a chance against corporate lawyers. They can destroy your life over fairly minimal and non-violent offenses.

AI companies are backed by the very powerful. They can steal all they want and use the same army of lawyers to bankrupt any small rights holder. The big rights holders go to the same parties and allow it to happen.

Regardless of the actual take on copyright, both methods skullfuck the little guy without power.

People cry foul because, at least in the US, we claim to live in a free country based on equality, yet there is a very obvious caste system of the haves and the havenots.

It errodes the legitimacy of the system. Imagine if for years you see news reports of a mother getting a judgment against her where she owes 100s of thousands because she seeded a Brittany Spears song. Then you suddenly see the same laws that were leveraged to instill fear in you, tossed aside when the rich and powerful say it doesn't count anymore, you're going to cry foul!

It's not a hypocrisy of position on copyright, it's bearing witness to the illegitimacy of the laws they're bound by.

We sadly don't need AI to justify outrageous warfare. You just need to remember when the US invaded Iraq over WMDs, including a full investigation into the WMDs that never found any. We then invaded anyway, to the detriment of everyone except defense contractors.

We regulated it as a means to police certain communities.

Hell, Billie holiday suffered from addiction but that bastard Harry Anslinger ordered doctors to not treat her and not provide her with methadone. She died with police stationed at her hospital room door. The FBI also harassed her over songs about lynching.

Nixon is literally on tape saying to go after weed and heroin more harshly as an excuse to arrest more anti-war protesters and civil rights protestors.

I'd argue "cracking down" has done little for controlling drug abuse and has primarily been a method for selective policing. Particularly in the states.

We'd probably be better off if people were grinding and smoking poppy seeds. Even Heroin.

We as a society somehow keep making the whole opiate addiction thing worse with increasingly stronger versions. I've read that Heroin overall was a much more enjoyable drug, and harder to OD on. Then Opioids became big, the sackler family got rich, and now you just have a super cheap, super strong drug that isn't even enjoyable. Fentanyl just knocks you out and makes overdosing easier.

I do wonder what a safety minded policy around opioids could look like, as they're not exactly a new problem in the scheme of human history.

> Paper and pencil has great tactile feedback.

I can try:

There's variation, paper to paper, pen to pen, pencil to pencil, they each present slightly differently. Write with a ballpoint on some receipt paper, then write with a fountain pen on some smooth, low absorbancy paper, then whip out one of those green engineering notebooks with a mechanical pencil.

For each task with a physical writing utensil and paper, you get a distinct experience that connects you physically to the task.

Once actually writing, there's a sense of finality, even the erasable pencil leaves a mark. Your movements have consequence.

Then there's the persistence. A piece of paper doesn't timeout to the lock screen. It's there, all the time, using zero energy to continue to exist. You can prop it up on your desk and forget about it until you need to reference it. If you're constantly going between two pages, you can lay them side-by-side without reducing their size.

I've always found writing/drawing on a tablet to be frustrating. It feels like I'm looking down at a notebook through a toilet paper tube, like I can never see the full picture. I used a wacom tablet with a chromebook and Xournal for years to take class notes. Something about disconnecting the stylus from the screen fixed those frustrations for me, like it took the expectations of paper away and provided the expectations of a pointing device.

On the flip side, plenty of Rural and Suburban people are terrified by the city, which kids growing up in the city shrug off.

Rural folks might learn to respect a PTO or the varmint rifle by age 10, but city kids learn how to navigate the bus routes and subway. They learn how to walk on crowded streets, how to live among a lot of different people, including dangerous people(and how to avoid the conflict).

It's all quite interesting. Different kinds of toughness, different kinds of mental fortitude.

I think that there's a major difference in the resulting mindsets that the two types of experiences form, though.

The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you / wreck your harvest, and that it is only through man's intelligence and social bonds that we thrive. I would argue a corollary of this is that one cannot tolerate malicious or grossly neglectful people around.

The second group learns that other people are a liability and that bad actors are just a fact of life to be tolerated and worked around.

Both approaches are clearly optimal for their respective environment. The former seems like a stronger foundation for building a civilization on, though.

This is becoming such a weird romanticisation of rural Americana!

Your civilisation is being destroyed because a largely rural constituency is able to clean a rifle in 60s but appears to have no critical thinking skills when it comes to a certain New Yorker.

Yes it’s good to learn how to be resilient in nature, but it’s also important to learn how to get along with and manage relationships with larger groups who are not always to be trusted.

The point missing from this discussion is that because of hysteria over stranger danger (not supported out by any real evaluation of or changes in risk) and because we allow cars to dominate our urban spaces, city kids are being denied opportunities for independence they previously had. That’s the real change that’s happened … and we’re replacing real urban experience with corporate attention economies.

> The first learn that nature is always present and doing its best to kill you

> The second group learns that other people are a liability

Sounds like nature is simply survival + entropy and sometimes that leads to mixed incentives. Rural folks also understand people are dangerous. Per capita violent crime and murder is higher in Rural areas.

That's why I find it interesting, they're different expressions of common survival needs.