Ah but that is just nerve sensor input time, it does not include the time spent processing inputs into an awareness (or however one wants to describe our internal model.) Perceptual lag is a subject of a lot of unfortunately paywalled research.
The lag is not dissolved by relativity. Reality, as many athletes know, will let you know when your perceptual lag is a critical shortcoming.
I suspect perceptual lag is the term. I had heard it from a memory standpoint, I think. Something like:
Our minds operate on our memories, our memories are always beind reality. Our interpretation affects our memories, or at least the recall, and are always reacting to the past.
Perceptual lag seems more to the point. (Long thing included in case someone else happens to have another idea.)
This means that you should feel touch from your finger before your toe, since it has less far to travel.
What actually happens is that you feel both your toe and finger touching at the same time. Your brain buffers the signals and plays them back at the same time, giving the illusion of simultaneity.
So yes, not only are you experiencing the world slightly behind, but it’s in differing amounts of delay.
You can search for “brain buffer simultaneity” to find tons of research on this topic.
Reality/causality also moves at the speed of light, and observations of time and space are relative to the observer. So it's still present reality, for you at least.
Love em. Peak Capitalist innovation! By shipping a 99% complete product for a low price, you can gain a large user base. Then, you make it addictive as fuck and add pseudo-gambling, to take advantage of people likely to routinely make small purchases. Then, all you need to do is spend a fraction of dev time on new skins or stickers, and make obscene profit!
What, you don’t like living in the modern orphan crushing machine, designed to commodify literally every second of your existence? Are you some kind of radical? Spooky!
Those aren’t the only alternatives, lmao. Do you think humans stop innovating if they share tools and democratize production, rather than having a bunch of unaccountable mini-dictators?
Do you think the Capitalists are the ones who innovate, or is it the Engineers and Scientists that do?
So you’re saying engineers and scientists aren’t capitalists. That’s pretty dumb of them, then again engineers and scientists aren’t terribly keen on history.
Engineers and Scientists are workers, not Capitalists. Capitalists are owners.
You’re quite literally on the explicitly leftist, anti-capitalist alternative to Reddit. Instead of a centralized, closed, Capitalist system filled with ads, you’re on a federated, decentralized, openly shared platform that deliberately rejected the profit motive and Capitalistic development for its own innovation.
Did it legitimately never occur to you that FOSS is a leftist structure? Right now, you’re using an example of anticapitalist innovation.
Also the commentor above probably doesn’t realize that engineers and scientists have all throughout history had a pretty negative take on capital. Academics are generally left leaning
Absolutely. Engineers aren’t the ones that see any of the benefit of the IP they create unless they have the money, connections, resources, and Capital to also manufacture and sell said products. The ones who create what people use every day get to see the IP they designed get resold countless times with no kickback. Same with Scientists, many go uncredited for critical research, especially women, historically.
And yeah the capitalists are the ones that drive the innovation since they’re the ones that allocate the capital where it would generate the most return, which sometimes means innovation.
You’re literally on one of the alternatives. FOSS is a rejection of the profit motive, and individual ownership of Capital. It is, quite literally, an anticapitalist statement. Are you under the impression you’re on Reddit?
Money doesn’t need to come from Capitalists, and again, Capitalists aren’t doing the innovating. That’s like saying the bread baker that fed the Engineer is doing the innovating, because without the bread baker, the Engineer couldn’t innovate. Of course humanity is interlinked, no one man is an island, but that doesn’t mean labor performed by one person is actually labor performed by another.
I’ll make it simple for you, and give you 2 choices.
Factory 1: Capitalist owner, non-owner workers. The only voice workers have is to either get a new job, or unionize.
Factory 2: Workers are the owners, and thus production is democratized. One of the workers is elected as a manager, and may be stripped of power by the rest of the workers at any time.
Which one is better?
To circle back: what you listed is a very, very narrow vision of what Socialism can mean. Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and can be just as varied as Capitalist organization. Are you going to say that Sweden is the same as Pinochet’s Chile, just because both were/are Capitalist? Absurd.
FOSS is not necessarily a rejection of the profit motive, it just says that there shouldn’t be restrictions to redistribute work to the masses. Just look at Linux itself. The project is maintained largely by contributions from (big tech)[lwn.net/Articles/915435/] even though it’s under the most restrictive copyleft license.
Also, I’d rather the factory that has the incentive to reduce prices to compete with others instead of the one that has all the incentive to increase costs (wages).
Besides, you can absolutely create any co-op you want in a capitalists system. If you think it’s just as innovative then just go and start one instead of screeching at people that capitalism bad.
FOSS is undeniably a rejection of the profit motive. People may use something developed as FOSS to make a profit, but FOSS itself is rejecting profit. Linux being used by for-profit companies does not mean it’s suddenly privately owned, a la Capitalism.
You didn’t answer the question, you dodged it entirely. If this is your way of massaging that you think antidemocratic measures to ensure workers have no say other than to unionize or leave is a good system, then it’s a very odd dodge. You can have normal wages and normal sale prices with worker ownership.
Being able to start a co-op within a market based system does not mean co-ops are Capitalist. They are firm rejections of Capitalism. Additionally, if we can agree that democratic control is better than authoritarian, centralized control of Production a la Capitalism, then it makes sense to advocate for a more democratic and horizontal structure.
Am I not allowed to make my case against Capitalism when clearly relevant? Shutting me down by claiming I’m screeching at others, when you yourself attacked my comment first, is ironic to say the least.
Are you really that dumb? The point of open source software is that anyone can contribute and use. So of course some tech companies are going to contribute to the Linux kernel, why? Because it’s more innovative than the alternatives. The best innovation happens when you let go of the profit motive and just let engineers tinker.
Buddy look around. We are in a capitalist paradise and what is happening? Oh right, costs are rising! Why are you pretending that capitalism means that companies keep the costs low, when it literally incentivizes monopolies to form, and thus drives UP costs??
Capitalism is the reason for institutional racism (in the US), for the degregation of the environment, for poverty in first world countries, for so many wars and violent coups, for literal slavery. If you think that billionaires controlling society will create innovation, it might, but for the a cost of exploitation and destruction that 100% isn’t worth it.
It’s crazy to me that people like you genuinly believe that a worker led society is somehow bad. You do know that you are a worker right?
This is quite a shitty way of portraying these technologies.
Uber/Grab might be banned by some countries, but I’m sure as hell I’ll never take a traditional taxi. They haven’t earned my trust, while Uber and such allow reviewing the drivers, and the driver wouldn’t think of scamming you. (Generally speaking.)
For longer stays I wouldn’t book a hotel room because it lacks basic facilities like microwave, cutleries, washing machine, etc.
Blockchain itself is a great thing, it could be definitely useful for something. Cryptocurrencies, however, are indeed evil. Toy money for criminals.
AI tools are useful for many things. Plagiarism is just one (ab)usecase. There are tons of other things that you can achieve with it while not committing plagiarism.
You’re right in all except crypto. It’s not just criminals. It’s privacy. I prefer paying cash outside to remain anonymous. Why should i give my data for free to a company just because i needed toilet-paper. And CC is the cash for the internet. Just not as widely accepted as cash is (in most countries)
I like privacy too, but currently way too much harm is being made by the fact that people can keep their income private. Think about all the corruption using offshore accounts. It’s not even cryptocurrency, just some other solutions. In a world where everyone’s income is public, politicians won’t be able to explain their financial gains. And you wouldn’t have to worry about whether you’re underpaid at work compared to your colleagues who do the same job with the same efficiency. And if you receive your income from a legitimate source, you earn that money, then it’s nothing to be ashamed of. And nobody gives a damn crap if you use it to buy your toilet paper. On the other hand, if you’re buying a HIMARS system on the black market, and then pass it onto the terrorists, you would very well deserve to be caught by the authorities and then rot in jail for decades.
Of course, this is a very extreme scenario. I’m not saying the ideal world is when everyone’s finances are flat out published and advertised like “hey, look, I’m rich and ready to get robbed”, but this is definitely an area where total privacy hasn’t worked out well.
Where i live, the salary is usually one’s top3 secrets. But it’s not about that. It’s about disliking cards. I buy TP with a card, the company has free data about my buying-habits, while I get nothing. After a while they know exactly what i buy, how often i do and which size my johnny is because of the condoms i buy and whatnot. Maybe it’s being an IT-pro that makes me critical of every digital data i leave behind…
And beside of that, the crime argument is always the same á la “u got something to hide?” yes, i do. And it doesn’t have to be lovedolls or weapons. Criminals were there before CC and will be there when cash and CCs are eradicated. There will always be ways.
It’s not even really private unless you’re using Monero similar (which you can’t buy on most exchanges for that very reason). Most CC blockchains are entirely public ledgers that are very thoroughly mapped out by government agencies and by private companies looking to monetize the data.
Yeah i know. But i know stuff is as private as it could be. If need be, i could even go to an atm-kinda-thingie here and trade cash for some CC. Totally anonymous. But everything is better (in regard of privacy) than using a credit/debit/whatever-card.
Of course it’s - privacy considering - stupid to buy CC on some major (American even) platform with paypal or my other fiat-cards.
Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao
That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?
Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.
I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.
Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?
Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)
Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)
And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.
I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.
Okay, but again, pretty much everything in society only has legitimacy as long as society allows it, so I’m not sure why that is especially meaningful in this discussion.
Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.
Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.
I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.
I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.
What do you think about that assessment of the situation?
You’re right. I have no optimism about human society since we are currently destroying the ecosystem and are doing next to nothing about it. There won’t be a human society soon barring something seriously drastic changing.
As far as the initial comment, no, I think it’s one of those “legal tender is fiat currency, don’t trust it” crypto bros or goldbugs.
The American corrupt government insures your money through the FDIC, so if the bank collapses, you get to keep your money. Also, corrupt credit card companies do not force you to pay for transactions from a stolen credit card and you don’t lose money because of it.
What guarantees like those do crypto currencies have?
Damn. Are people so far gone that you can’t tell that I’m joking when I suggest that we can just use AI when we need to count something? That’s a bit depressing.
Add comment