Jiggle_Physics
@Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Every support thread on Reddit is literally this now 7 hours ago:
yeah when I left I deleted everything. When I was talking about it to a friend who uses it, and knows my account, informed me that all my interactions with them are still there. Took a look, and yeah, everything restored.
- Comment on Iron 7 hours ago:
No, that is not what I am hearing, I am hearing “we should change IP law, but not if it interrupts development/production of medical tech”
- Comment on Iron 22 hours ago:
So where is the threshold? Also, you are talking to someone who is likely to die from the government’s recent bill stopping the supply of medicine, and other treatment, I will need. This is the result of private ownership of the medicines, and machines, needed to deal with this, and their power to affect the government. So I am currently in the situation I propose will happen, in a much larger manner, in the future as these technologies develop, and society becomes more intertwined with it. So, where is the threshold were we stop this, and change our laws on owning ideas? I propose that we crossed it some time ago, and this shift into IP law is long over due. I would rather get this done earlier, rather than later, because the only thing that will happen is this dependency will grow. Your appeal to emotion with your anecdote about your diabetic will only worsen the type of situation I find myself in, as society becomes more dependent on the tech. The longer we wait the more catastrophic it will become due to pussy-footing around, and kicking the can down the road, as people don’t want to make hard decisions.
- Comment on Iron 1 day ago:
Tell me, what exactly is the threshold where a private entity owning society directing technology crosses to where it should no longer have that control over it? Define when allowing technology to be privately owned goes from where we are, to “oh shit, they already have complete control”? Because I would prefer to restructure how ownership of ideas works before we have to destroy society in order to course correct.
- Comment on Iron 1 day ago:
yes, I have been trying to express that what we have at the moment is not so much the problem as the advancement and what is to come. I am also not saying that we should not do these things, I am saying when do do them we must not allow it be controlled, via IP ownership, or otherwise, by a private entity. As things stand the medical industry holds far too much sway with their ownership of things people need to live, or live well. They are also actively working against social medicine, with a current focus on the UK, and a variety of developing nations. They should not be afforded the power imbalance such ownership allows them now, and as things like this progress, it will only make that power imbalance worse. Every technology is a double edged sword, and the more one affects society the more we need to prevent the cutting edged aimed at us. I could not dare to guess the ways in which we could be impacted by future technology, much how people in the 90s could not have envisioned the societal issues that are arising now, such as the loneliness epidemic, and the structural loss of actual ownership, or any rights to anything we have. Sure we had a pretty good guess that propaganda would run wild, and it has, but many other things that have huge impacts are things no one was thinking about even 20 years ago.
- Comment on Iron 1 day ago:
No, because very advanced levels of genetic engineering are unlike anything we historically have done, as is automation that basically replaces all human as the general work force. They are not apples to apples comparable.
- Comment on Iron 1 day ago:
this is great if the IP holder continues wanting to play ball with socialized medicine
- Comment on Iron 1 day ago:
the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don’t, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.
These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
We need to make genetic modification something that isn’t gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, are possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn’t matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
I mean, meth is already a powerful aphrodisiac
- Comment on The White House Rose Garden was replaced by pavement 5 days ago:
That’s the capitol building though
- Comment on The White House Rose Garden was replaced by pavement 5 days ago:
you mean this?
- Comment on Mastercard release a statement about game stores, payment processors and adult content 5 days ago:
Silicon Valley used to call the founding staff of PayPal the PayPal Mafia
- Comment on This is why brexit happened 1 week ago:
- Comment on This is why brexit happened 1 week ago:
chaos reigns?
- Comment on I explained economics to my nine year old 1 week ago:
macro economics is astrology for MBA bros
- Comment on Anon makes decisions 1 week ago:
Clearly anon is doing the beloved dance yore.
- Comment on Anon is Illiterate 2 weeks ago:
Correct. Also getting beyond 6th grade is generally defined as the the language skills needed to read/write news, most novels, contracts, information pamphlets, etc. The use of specialized language, such as technical lexicons, is where you get into higher grade levels of reading. There isn’t any universal standard as to what determines this, exactly. Many tests also work on being able to make sense of sentences that gradually become more, and more, obtuse. Their length, use of punctuation, tenses, and other technicalities, are increased until the person can no longer explain the sentence correctly. The problem with this is that it may be technically correct, but it is bad writing. If someone where to ace a test on some of this overly complex sentence structure, they would actually do worse for submitting it to a test of the skills on writing a sentence explaining something. So a lot of this lexical grading of reading level is nebulous, and results will vary from each person reviewing them, and exactly how they are performed.
- Comment on Anon is Illiterate 2 weeks ago:
The way they get that grade level reading comprehension is dubious. If you read the news, non-academic magazines, and most of the NYTs best seller list, you likely have been reading primarily around that level according to these tests.
- Comment on Anon is rude at work 2 weeks ago:
Correct, but refusal to engage in small talk, banter, discussing your lives, and the occasional social outing, will have many see you as stand offish, asocial, and your refusal to do this basic community building stuff, as being rude.
- Comment on Dik Piks 3 weeks ago:
Lemmy is the first place I have used this name, so I doubt it. One of the longest use ones, like almost 20 years, had Mr. in it, so I just think its dudes wanting other dudes to see their dick, maybe get one back. that or some sort of scammer/conman.
- Comment on Dik Piks 3 weeks ago:
over the many years I have been online, I have received 100s of unsolicited dick picks. I am a guy, and straight. meh, just letting me know to block them I guess.
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 4 weeks ago:
I have been trying to get a good grasp on how many people own second homes, and there seems to be some real uncertainty about this. About 6% of homes in the US are not the first deed to a home a person, or couple, owns. However, upwards of 40% of people report owning a second home. We aren’t really sure what is going on here. Clearly 40% of the population do not own more than one home, and considering that the really wealthy often own 5+ houses, there is just no way. However that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some problems with the data collection on how many homes are owned by people on multiple deeds.
From what I have found seems the most thrown around estimate is somewhere around 7-8% of homes are owned by people who own other homes, and that group like makes up around 8-10% of the population. But who knows, there are many people who are on deeds, but don’t truly own the home, and them being on it is a security/convenience measure. Bleh.
- Comment on Anon does some online shopping 4 weeks ago:
2005 was back when you would open a page and get a cascade of pop-ups, then have to wait for a flash presentation load, play, and then present the option the website had to navigate with
- Comment on I can fix her 4 weeks ago:
living on the edge, a place you can easily fall to your death, but it is exhilarating to be there
- Comment on I can fix her 4 weeks ago:
Many years ago I responded to one of these inmate pen-pal things. I did it because Susan Smith, the woman who pushed her car into a lake with her small kids in it, was one of the people on the pen-pal list. I wrote a letter, but got a boiler plate response from the prison about her no longer being on the pen-pal project due to an over whelming response.
I remember the profile she had though, discussing how she loved rainbows, and mini mouse
- Comment on we are creators 4 weeks ago:
That immigrants are literally an invasive military force that is destroying the US
- Comment on we are creators 4 weeks ago:
