UraniumBlazer

joined 1 year ago
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ooo someone really likes bunnies, huh

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago

That makes ur body take a screenshot

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

Looks like someone needs to give this fellow a bunny too, eh?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Fuck the Chinese State, but this is absolutely amazing! Open source model weights are a step towards public ownership over this new means of production.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Isn't it possible with a VAT-like system, where a collecting agency returns the collected money to the central bank?

Yes, but it would be much more impractical compared to the existing interest rate system, where all the central bank has to do is change the interest rate. What about businesses that sneakily avoid this changing VAT tax? You would need a much stronger tax collection system for this. There are just too many problems associated with this, when compared to the current interest rate system.

This actually doesn't seem too bad. Most points of sale are digital.

What about small businesses operated by old people who aren't well versed with tech? What about furry artists who are getting like 5 dollars for their art? Do they have to incorporate a point of sale system now? Also, another huge disadvantage of a hybrid currency is the inability to calculate the amount of money being actively exchanged at a given unit of time. If all currency were online, you would be able to calculate exactly how much money was exchanged this minute.

Instead of changing it daily, only change it monthly/quarterly/...

Well that's how the current system already works. The central banks are constantly reviewing the economy to make these decisions. It's just that after a decision is made, it takes a lot of time for its effect to actually show in the economy (banks review the central bank's rates, change their own rates, people take more/less loans, deposit the money in some account, money multiplier effect happens accordingly and the amount of money actively being exchanged changes and so on).

The point is, for such long gaps, the current interest rates system just is a lot more practical. However, again, the big ping difference means that economic issues can go unaddressed for longer, causing more damage.

If we had an online only currency, we would have a crazily efficient system where the boom bust cycle for the valuation of our currency would be a lot more muted. However, with hybrid currency, the most efficient way is the interest rate method that we currently use.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No. VAT is what you would consider to be fiscal policy. It would be a tax that the government imposes on you. The transaction fees would be money that ends up in the government's coffers, which the government would put to use somewhere. Increasing/decreasing VAT wouldn't decrease/increase the amount of money in circulation. It would just increase/decrease the amount of money that is in the government's control.

The transaction fees that I'm proposing here would be monetary policy. There would be huge tanks of money that noone uses. They would be filled up/emptied depending upon how above/below the current amount of money in circulation is from the target.

More money in circulation? Transaction fees increase, more money gets pulled out from circulation and gets put in the tank. Less money in circulation? Transaction fees get lowered (mostly negative) to get money from the tank into the economy.

This is possible only using an online only currency with a predefined algorithm controlling the transaction fees.

Doing this with hybrid currency (like we have now) would be an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. Imagine having to pay 1.00023 dollars every time you get a bag of chips. Imagine being a business where you have to manually input, document and pay the daily changing VAT to the government. The current system of changing interest rates for the federal reserve funds reserves this tedious calculation to the banks instead of all businesses.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

Changes in transaction fees wouldn't be so drastic though. As you can make tens of thousands of corrections per year (compared to a couple in the current system), changes wouldn't affect you so much.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I don't believe the current system (by that, I just mean the institutions controlling currency) is what's killing us. The economic policies of different governments are the ones killing us.

I am a strong believer in leftist policies. However, I also believe that we don't have a better system than markets. The presence of markets requires the presence of Keynesian economics if we want to avoid boom-bust cycles.

That being said, do I think Keynesian economics will continue to exist decades in the future? No. One of the biggest flaws of this system is that monetary policies require a lot of time to have an effect on the economy. This huge ping difference understandably introduces many issues.

There are better ways to control the amount of money in circulation (like fluctuating transaction fees) whose effects can be a lot more immediate. However, they require all money to be electronic.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No, you're right! This is exactly why adjusting interest rates by the bank issuing a currency affects how much money is in circulation.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Circumcised?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
 

Neural networks have become increasingly impressive in recent years, but there's a big catch: we don't really know what they are doing. We give them data and ways to get feedback, and somehow, they learn all kinds of tasks. It would be really useful, especially for safety purposes, to understand what they have learned and how they work after they've been trained. The ultimate goal is not only to understand in broad strokes what they're doing but to precisely reverse engineer the algorithms encoded in their parameters. This is the ambitious goal of mechanistic interpretability. As an introduction to this field, we show how researchers have been able to partly reverse-engineer how InceptionV1, a convolutional neural network, recognizes images.

 

HEAR ME OUT BEFORE YOU DOWNVOTE.

Disclaimer: The hyperloop is an absolutely shit idea right now. I do not support building in any form right now.

Now to the shower thought: Theoretically, a hyperloop can get you from place A to place B on the planet in less than 40 min (back of the napkin calculations assuming constant acceleration and deceleration of around 1G). Being completely underground (more on that below), it would also be a really good piece of infrastructure safe from arial/orbital bombardment.

Now to the obvious problems: We need the tube to be very very straight to achieve high speeds without killing our passengers. We would want the hyperloop to enter city centers. Building such a straight thing in city centers would require a lot of demolition. Therefore, we would have to get it underground. Bringing it on the ground again outside cities doesn’t make sense because we would be introducing steep upward curves, thus reducing its maximum speed. Therefore, it makes sense to build this thing completely underground. Building underground also gives us many more benefits like not having to do much land acquisition, safety from violent attacks and so on.

Our tube would have to be incredibly airtight. It absolutely cannot have any leaks anywhere. Also, we need to be able to achieve incredibly low chamber pressures and maintain them.

If we are building this underground, we would need a shit load of energy to dig and transport the material outside the tunnel. We would also need a shit load of steel and other resources for these incredibly long tunnels.

Where do we get this energy? Where do we mine these resources without destroying the planet? Now this is where the “future” part comes in. We would need energy to be incredibly cheap. The only viable long term method (by “long term”, I mean it from the civilization time scale) would be via nuclear fusion. When is nuclear fusion happening? Well, it’s only 30 years away! /s Jokes aside, the energy source might be when nuclear fusion not only becomes possible, but also incredibly cheap (the nuclear reactor shouldn’t cost billions lol).

About the resources? Well, we probably need to mine them on the moon, no? The moon has A LOT of them right on the surface. If we can mine them and send them back home, we solve our resources problem!

Well, you might ask- doesn’t it make more sense to just have spaceships with engines propelled by nuclear fusion that exit the atmosphere, go at hypersonic speeds and then drop in? Why build expensive underground continent spanning tunnels? Well, what if we are attacked by aliens? They could easily blockade our airspace. Hell, just dropping a few million stealthy pebbles in our lower orbits would be enough to stop all hypersonic travel (the risk of ships exploding on contact with these pebbles would be too high for air travel to continue). Hypersonic spaceships would also face the problem of traditional aircrafts- you would need to build spaceports far from city centers. These spaceports would require a lot of space and cause a tremendous amount of noise pollution (constant sonic booms for every launch and landing).

Therefore, I think I have made my mind. I think I would be voting for a hyperloop proposal that possibly would be tabled in our direct democratic government a 100-150 years from now!

 

HEAR ME OUT BEFORE YOU DOWNVOTE.

Disclaimer: The hyperloop is an absolutely shit idea right now. I do not support building in any form right now.

Now to the shower thought: Theoretically, a hyperloop can get you from place A to place B on the planet in less than 40 min (back of the napkin calculations assuming constant acceleration and deceleration of around 1G). Being completely underground (more on that below), it would also be a really good piece of infrastructure safe from arial/orbital bombardment.

Now to the obvious problems: We need the tube to be very very straight to achieve high speeds without killing our passengers. We would want the hyperloop to enter city centers. Building such a straight thing in city centers would require a lot of demolition. Therefore, we would have to get it underground. Bringing it on the ground again outside cities doesn't make sense because we would be introducing steep upward curves, thus reducing its maximum speed. Therefore, it makes sense to build this thing completely underground. Building underground also gives us many more benefits like not having to do much land acquisition, safety from violent attacks and so on.

Our tube would have to be incredibly airtight. It absolutely cannot have any leaks anywhere. Also, we need to be able to achieve incredibly low chamber pressures and maintain them.

If we are building this underground, we would need a shit load of energy to dig and transport the material outside the tunnel. We would also need a shit load of steel and other resources for these incredibly long tunnels.

Where do we get this energy? Where do we mine these resources without destroying the planet? Now this is where the "future" part comes in. We would need energy to be incredibly cheap. The only viable long term method (by "long term", I mean it from the civilization time scale) would be via nuclear fusion. When is nuclear fusion happening? Well, it's only 30 years away! /s Jokes aside, the energy source might be when nuclear fusion not only becomes possible, but also incredibly cheap (the nuclear reactor shouldn't cost billions lol).

About the resources? Well, we probably need to mine them on the moon, no? The moon has A LOT of them right on the surface. If we can mine them and send them back home, we solve our resources problem!

Well, you might ask- doesn't it make more sense to just have spaceships with engines propelled by nuclear fusion that exit the atmosphere, go at hypersonic speeds and then drop in? Why build expensive underground continent spanning tunnels? Well, what if we are attacked by aliens? They could easily blockade our airspace. Hell, just dropping a few million stealthy pebbles in our lower orbits would be enough to stop all hypersonic travel (the risk of ships exploding on contact with these pebbles would be too high for air travel to continue). Hypersonic spaceships would also face the problem of traditional aircrafts- you would need to build spaceports far from city centers. These spaceports would require a lot of space and cause a tremendous amount of noise pollution (constant sonic booms for every launch and landing).

Therefore, I think I have made my mind. I think I would be voting for a hyperloop proposal that possibly would be tabled in our direct democratic government a 100-150 years from now!

 

Most states rely on paper bureaucracy to ensure that the state can function and provide services. Paper bureaucracy has been part and parcel of how we maintain states and corporations since the Chinese invented the first paper bureaucracy systems of management 3000 years ago. But as you all probably know, bureaucracy kinda sucks. It costs a lot to maintain, and in the worst cases bureaucracy can turn a state into a labyrinthian monstrosity that can be near to impossible to navigate.

Estonia is a Baltic country that in recent years has been embarking on reform programs that are intended to change this. Estonia is a “Paperless state” meaning a state that has effectively removed all paper from it’s bureaucracy and replaced it with a digital state structure. In this short video I would like to introduce you to the digital state and argue for it.

 

Edit: To those downvoting, could please comment the reason as to why you are downvoting? The comments that are there right now do not explain the reason for the downvotes. I am genuinely curious as to what the thinking behind disliking the post is.

Imagine you are a trans woman in the 15th century. You lack the tech to grow boobs. You lack the tech to make ur dick into a vagina. However, the want still exists and is very real.

Now imagine the year is 2124. You are 55 years old. The tech to look exactly like you looked when you were sayyy 12 exists. You want to look like that. I would say that looking like that is your right. It's your body after all.

However, you are still 55 years old. You just LOOK like a child. But you possess the ability to consent. Is having sex with such people moral? (I would say it is).

This however introduces problems. How do you differentiate between actual children and people who physically look like children? Would this be a political issue then? Would adults who want to have sex with adults (but those who look like kids) be discriminated against? Would there be movements for this?

 

I really really don't understand how people are either so tiny brained or so fkin inconsiderate. Probably this is the wrong community to post this, as my infuriation levels are far from mild.

Like... you look up a tutorial on a specific thing. You see a list of videos describing the very thing that you want in perfect English. You open the video to see that it is in a completely different language (usually Hindi). You then feel like personally going on a mission to assassinate that video creator. /s

Like come on... I understand that English alphabets are more readable to people who speak languages other than English. FINE. I GET IT. But would it be too much to ask to at least put the name of the fkin language that your video is actually in, in the title?

Like... it would so much better for a video title to be "(Hindi) Ranked Retrieval model explained" instead of "Ranked Retrieval model explained" and it turning out to be in Hindi. Like... do these people not think? Or do they not have a brain? Or do they just not care?

I scoured through SO MANY VIDEOS and all of them have this nonsense going on. Like come on....

 

For those unaware, YaCy is an open source indexing software with some p2p search capabilities. However, if you've run it yourself, you'd know that the search results are very bad. Therefore I am wondering if this is a resources issue or a YaCy software issue, or both.

Had YaCy had really huge resources for the crawling and indexing, would it have been a good enough search engine to replace google/ddg?

view more: ‹ prev next ›