Inertial systems are all equal in a certain relevant here sense, if there is no need for account for your movement relative to Sun, Galaxy, CMB, or anything else. Yes, in this sense, Sun also rotates around Earth.

This is a remarkably specific and disturbing fact. Thank you for sharing.

It does make you wonder what caused spinal injury in these mice. I do not suppose there is a sufficient natural supply of these kinds of injured mice.

But, if not animal testing, how do you propose to develop the treatment?

Actually I like the very fact that it is paid. Supporting the developer, and some sort of accountability.

Also, after trying connect, liftoff, jerboa (all perfectly good apps), etc I find that sync is most smooth and customizable.

They certainly do. They undermine HTTP too. And would have done much more harm if the Web was not founded with a different governance model.

EU actions like that in the title post stress this original, less centralized, model. It was naive to assume that free internet will remain free if left alone.

Paradoxically, preserving freedom relies on constraints and regulations.

You still, presumably, use HTTP for your internet needs, even though facebook totally works over it.

What’s the problem with a protocol for chat?

there is not almost any attempt to organize public participation. Except maybe admin posts with discussions in comments. Also users can vote with their feet.

I agree that the admin instinct is mostly honest and democratic and they should be regarded for their work. But the instance governance is mostly autocratic. And this kind of structure usually devolves in despotism, since power corrupts.

Would be nice to see an institution-based instance, with a constitution, elections, balance of power. Would be a great social experiment!

This is really interesting, also in comparison to governance of “traditional” social networks.

I would not be surprised if someone did scientific research about it.

An interesting difference is no need to fight for land and resources, anyone can go and create another microstate.

Still, there is some benefit of larger states, they can resist spam better. But as much as they implement spam filters in the code, smaller instances can them. Political benefits of open source are real.

I guess they broke their engine! /s

smaller pieces which fell off are hard to track while their effect on the trajectory might still be substantial. Small change to the orbit early on makes a big difference after a while.

Good question, every war ends in some kind of negotiation, even for surrender. I think when Russia loses, Putin is unlikely to keep power, and some sort of agreement will happen without him.

As of now, accounts of their instance have thousands of followers.

Strangely, in chess, there is almost never a man category. There is everybody and there is women. wikipedia . See also motivations why and arguments against. It’s tricky.

It may need to be in some way decetralized though, even if some kind of certification authority needs to be in some coherent trust chain.

It makes me think of inrupt solid, although it’s not quite the same.

Also I seem to remember some dutch (or used in there) online idenity management infrastructure which allows to make some authorithative claims without getting entire identity revealed. Sadly I can not find it now.

What are people of good faith going to do about even a small fraction of those who disagree?

There is also “us” which is a larger “me”. Large problem like unintentional geoengineering needs large “us” to control and reverse. There are political implications of this kind of “us”.

There are still people in between, building training data from their real world experices. Now digital world may become overwhelmed with AI creations, so training may lead to model collapse. So what if we give AI access to cameras, microphones, all that, and even let it articulate them. It would also need to be adventurous, searching for spaces away from other AI work. There is lot’s of data in there which is not created by AI, although some point it might become so as well. I am living aside at the moment obvious dangers of this approach.

If we are talking about giving an example, while I agree in part, I also find there are people more popular and influential than billonaires. Half of the top 10 richest people are not really public personas at least from where I stand. Conversely, you do not need to be billionaire to produce 10000x CO2, you need some money but not that much. These people need to be also in attention focus. Even just middle upper class who like to fly a lot, the difference it makes is huge. Billionaires do their own part, but through ownership of large companies and their relation to customers, I think is more important way in which they make a difference.

How about stopping other individual from doing some things? Else this strategy is self-defeating, those survive who will not follow it. Writing a comment about it actually counts for conviencing others, but should this fact be one of the points?