• 0 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jul 30, 2021


you are literally on a federated platform that does not use blockchain. this seems like the resolution to that issue

honestly still bewildered that Microsoft went that far

the problem with that argument is that you’re implying that blockchain maintainers are infallible which we know is also not true

it’s the issue of reinventing the wheel. Do we have a solution that is more energy efficient and affordable for the average user to participate in? yes.

Oyster mushrooms are super cool, because they break down the plastics into a a biodegradble material while still being safe to eat.

Then of course there’s silk worms and mealworms! so many cool creatures in this world

I’m not certain I agree with burning plastic as an alternative… seems like it’s still creating the same environmental dangers (possibly worse?).

yeah there’s not really a need that it fulfills that something already existing doesn’t already do better lol

It’s a shame they haven’t made any mention of the insects and bacteria that will actually break down and consume plastics; although the overall point is correct.

There’s only one good use-case I can imagine for blockchain:

Hospitals sharing data.

At least in Canada, your allergies, sensitivities, or any information about you is only at a single hospital unless you visit another and give them that info yourself. This obviously isn’t ideal, because if you’re in another city and are in a position where you cannot communicate that info when you go to the hospital, things could end up poorly.

What would be really great is if the hospitals could be on their own private blockchain, with each facility acting as a node on the chain. The redundancy of the information and constant sync across all nodes actually makes sense here, and the hospitals would all be updated with the latest information that they receive from one another.

i don’t understand the question

See above. The comparison was to what the crypto boom has done to GPU prices.

Sia seems mildly interesting, but I don’t see what purpose it fulfills that self hosting does not. It introduces several complications to what should be a fairly straightforward process, and keeping your files on the Sia blockchain would really limit what you are able to do with them without introducing even more complicated steps. Like if you wanted a hosting solution that could act as a database, or a simple webserver. It seems like just another way to get people to buy into a specific crypto currency.

Get rid of the crypto currencies, and use the blockchain for more reasonable things. At least in Canada, there would be merit in having every hospital acting as a node on their own private blockchain so they could share patient information. Make sure that if someone is hospitalized outside of their usual location, they aren’t given something that they’re allergic to. Blockchains are largely just privatized, highly redundant networks for data exchange and tracking. I think what people outside of investors seem to be truly drawn to is that idea of privacy and data ownership. Fediverse and self-hosting align closer to these ideals

you speak to your audience. I’m assuming that a majority of people here do not represent the interests of GPU manufacturers… or we can assume everything is subjective and therefore does not matter one bit in the grand scheme of things

And what exactly do you consider as “sinful impact”? Everything that you personally consider “bad” for some reason?

you have to be delusional to not objectively assess the state of gpu prices and the environmental impacts as “bad”

https://priceonomics.com/how-has-cryptocurrency-mining-influenced-gpu-prices/ here’s an interesting bit on the prices

environmental impacts are largely: Carbon dioxide output, resources required to accommodate expanding blockchain, increase in proof-of-work requiring even greater resources and even higher carbon output, greater strain on gpu demands etc. then take those reasons and consider ever single crypto with these issues

all in all, you could say that those things are all bad

For ponzi-schemes, you have to look at the crypto industry’s lesser known feature: Tokens

Long before NFT’s, companies have been manufacturing systems to create “tokens” (usually utility tokens) and trying to sell them to other people. This usually happens through crypto conferences, crypto meetups etc. Typically, the plan is to convince people of their impending value growth by going on a long complicated sounded explanation of how tokens are earned and how many people are buying into them, and then get that person to by a bunch of cheap tokens. The promise is that they can then sell them to others to make more money, or (in quite a few cases), sell tokens to someone who will sell tokens and give the initial seller a small percent… and so on.

Bitcoin did not start with fiat-investment opportunities, but with the way the entire crypto market is operating, that’s the goal now: creating investment opportunities. It’s proven to be a very effective means of making fast-money, so there’s no incentive for the market to move away from pushing crypto as an investment hole rather than focusing on value control and stability to make it a more accessible form of currency. It also makes me wonder about how functional a lot of these coins even are in terms of utility. How many stores will accept every single kind of crypto?

And nobody wants to talk environment… but it’s a really huge point to bring up, especially now that the environment is worse than ever. I’ve really dug into the impacts on other posts, but I try to at least mention it because this is the one big aspect outside of the “currency” itself that actually impacts people who choose not to participate. The GPU shortages, the giant mining farms, growth-driven-proof-of-concept-difficulty-increases, etc. I get it, they’re working on something better than proof of work in terms of energy consumption. But look at how many of the damn things exist! And since all crypto currencies work alongside fiat, it’s not like we’re replacing traditional banking.

Sure, the energy consumption and carbon dioxide output is roughly ~50% of traditional banks, but unless everyone suddenly decides that they don’t care about their fiat investments, that output is just going to grow alongside traditional banks

I have no desire to start any new crypto currency. I’ve worked development in that business for long enough to have completely lost the taste for it. Most coins are poorly planned and run by con men. It’s no surprise that things are slowing down

I thought this forum is about technology, and not religion.

Just noticed this. Didn’t think exaggeration or metaphor was beyond the scope of people’s comprehension?

Absolutely agree with you.

If people value sex as something sacred and precious, that’s their own business. Assuming everyone holds those same beliefs is idiotic, and shaming people for how they need to survive is even more so

different, yes, but it doesn’t make the person doing the work any lesser or greater than a person doing some other kind of work.

a sex worker may not even run the risk of bodily harm depending on their situation, whereas it’s almost guaranteed that a roofer will.

I’m mostly making the comparison because saying things like “dirty money” and implying that sex work is more bodily abuse than any other type of hard labour is a bit naive. Each job takes something away from you. Sex work isn’t any lesser or greater than other types of work because it involves sex. The real shame is when a person is being forced or endangered to do their job in any situation.

A lot of comments that are against sex workers are based on their own personal feelings about sex and why it makes the person doing that work lesser than others. I’m making the roofer comparison because sex work is a very real thing that some people do.

It’s a service that other people pay for, and not exclusively “evil” or bad people. The vilification of the work itself, instead of those who endanger the workers, is ridiculous. That’s all I’m saying

A roofer destroys his body every day he works in order to get money, or to receive a “bribe” as you put it. Does the fact that he needs money to live make this situation less consensual?

Do you imagine that he loves roofing, and that the fact he’s getting paid for it makes him abuse this right that he’s “earned?”

The crux for all of those points is that the value is affected by fiat investments. It may not be able to be manipulated by a central bank, but it is influenced by the amount of investment put into it, which gives it the dangerous edge of being a very convenient ponzi-scheme, not to mention an incredibly unstable form of currency that most of the proletariat can’t afford to risk using for their day to day expenses. That alone turns it from “currency” to “high risk investment.”

Being able to send it instantly without fees is a great dream, but the above points kind of spoil the intent.

We don’t need to get into the environmental aspects, or the sinful impact it’s had on the price of GPU’s (further pushing the proletariat from being able to fully participate in the blockchain), and the equally terrible chip shortage combined with the continued purchase and use of GPUs by crypto miners.

But blockchain cryptocurrencies have several serious problems beyond any technical oversights with the actual implentation.

arguably, your biggest stake holders now are the incredibly wealthy -> those who can afford to mine (therefore, those who can actually participate in the blockchain), and/or those who have invested the most fiat into the currency. I know what the original goals of crypto were, but the unfortunate reality is that as soon as fiat got into the mix, the dream died. Capitalism strikes again, and no one with real money being made is going to change the way it works now.

If there’s a crypto out there that isn’t available for fiat investment, that’s the best hope to actually having a decentralized currency for all people

If you’re not keen on seeing posts from “right” leaning extremist, I’m not sure where to point you. “Centrist” communities are going to let that stuff slide, and obviously “right” focused communities are just going to be the most insane things you’ve ever seen

If you aren’t a “Trump’s America” apologist, you’re best bet is to just find a “left” community of people that largely aren’t extremists. Lemmy is fine, HexBear is okay… not sure what else though

Literally described as being a community of “leftists”

Absolutely. Quite honestly, adopting from another country had never crossed my mind, since I grew up with so many orphans. I was surprised that some people immediately jumped to that conclusion

Your pessimism and ignorance is truly astounding. There need not be wars for children to be abandoned, and it should be common knowledge at this point that foster parents have a high chance of being nothing but another loveless cage for orphans to suffer in. Full fledged adoption is hardly done right, but that’s all the more reason why good and caring people should step in and try.

I grew up around orphans, and I know how hard and lonely it is to be foisted from foster family to foster family, surrounded by siblings and adults who resent and use you until you’re once again abandoned to some other equally cruel house. Maybe you don’t think adoption does any good (god knows why), but I know for certain that there are a lot of children who grow up alone without any support that would be so much better off if they had someone in their life who truly cared for them. Is it really better to just not care at all than to try and help even one person? If you think so, you’re a terribly sad person.

No plans to create my own children. I’ve always felt that it’s far more important to adopt a child that’s been abandoned by an uncaring society then to make another. I don’t have any genes important enough to try to reproduce (and few people do). If you can’t find it in your heart to love a child that doesn’t contain the same genetic material as you, I think you should reconsider being a parent

the situation can be tricky depending on your relationship. it could also be as simple as laziness, or fear. Maybe they are afraid to face the reality that their mother is aging, and coming over to help take care of her makes that unavoidable.

I think it’s context, really.

If you are given a clinical description of someone:

  • blonde
  • female
  • good at math
  • etc…

Then there’s nothing negative about it. But if you use it in a way that implies or denotes value - objectifies, then it becomes offensive (i think…)

“What does this female want?” - implies that something about being female changes the speaker’s attitude about the request

“You’re such a female” - implies femaleness to have expected negative/positive traits that are being used as a blanket assumption for the subject.

“I chose Joey over the female” - implies that “the female” is less appealing than Joey by virtue of femaleness.

There is also something arbitrarily negative about using the clinical “female” over the less clinical “woman” or “girl” in these kinds of instances; although either has the potential be equally objectifying, especially if you consider the more abstract concept of “tone” and history of the speaker…

A lot of it is contextual nuance, and even then not everyone’s feelings on it are the same. To be safe though, I would avoid referring to someone as female unless it’s factually relevant.

I agree. School is supposed to cover the basics so that you can learn anything on your own later, plus enough about health and history that you can function in the world.

The serious issue with abolishing compulsory education (at least pre-college), is that a gross majority of parents can’t or won’t teach their kids these things. It’s either a time, energy or knowledge limitation.