The United States of America after the Cold War.

I like you ask in hypotheticals.

Resist now.

All 30 if us who play it agree.

Steven Universe too!

Yup. It should not be a thing.

Meanwhile China is going all in on renewables.

Here is a fact: an authoritarian non-democracy is doing a lot for securing the future of humanity, while the “leader of the free world” are vandalizing the climate and accelerating apocalyptic climate catastrophe.

In 2025, China is a net positive for the future of humanity, while the USA is a net negative.

If that makes you uncomfortable about what our political and economic systems in the West that brought us here, well, you know the meme: “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

If you, like me, care about the future of democracy, we have to do a LOT of digging.

Vodka 25 years ago.

Excellent opportunity to prove the superiority of our localized moderation model!

Yea, that’s exactly why I thought it was worth asking.

It seems Aral has actually done the work: https://mastodon.social/@staff/115129752094733480

It doesn’t change absolutely anything in my argument, it remains exactly the same. Antinatalism absconds not only the responsibility to improve the world but even the possibility of a better world existing in the future, it assumes à priori that existence is and will remain insufferable.

You’re contradicting your own argument:

It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.

Vs

Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination.

This is a contradiction. You are literally picking the antinatalist option because of shitty living conditions.

And of course, the lack of imagination is not whether you can imagine things being better but whether you can imagine things becoming better starting from where we are here and now.

=======

We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place

If you can imagine such a place, steelman your argument then, try making it without a premise of shitty living conditions. Pick a convivial world, and make an antinatalist argument from that world. Does it still stand?

=======

Finally, the argument that says nonexistence might be better is literally vacuous: False implies True. Nonexistence therefore is trivially whatever you want it to be, but not In any meaningful sense.

In a society whose official ideology is that “There is No Alternative”, antinatalism is basically a dressed up version of “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.

It’s basically just lack of imagination. Doomerist defeatism.

Sure but I don’t think that makes it “decentralized” it makes it as you correctly point out, open source. Those are orthogonal categories.There aren’t parts of wikipedia that are hosted in other wikipedia instances that talk to each other the same way mastodon does. There is a unique, central, Wikipedia.

But once you download It, any changes you make are only local. You cannot edit wikipedia using a non-wikipedia account (sure you can edit anonymously but then your IP functions as your account) and the articles are not systematically stored in different wikipedia instances. There is one Wikipedia.

By the way, centralized doesn’t mean “walled off”.

Centralization on its own is not a deal breaker. Wikipedia is centralized.

Corporate/business ownership on it’s own is not a deal breaker. There are many business mastodon instances: https://mastodonservers.net/servers/business

It’s the combination that is a deal breaker. Corporate AND centralized. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a predictably boring story that ends with enshittification.

Capitalists love interoperability when they can use it to disrupt other capitalists. When they get in a dominant position they hate it.

It’s basic enshittification theory.

I think that’s exactly the reference here.

Enlightenment has been around for 28 years. This means there is enough adoption for it to keep going on.

This is useful for dispelling the hype around ChatGPT and for demonstrating the limits of general purpose LLMs.

But that’s about it. This is not a “win” for old school game engines vs new ones. Stockfish uses deep reinforcement learning and is one of the strongest chess engines in the world.

EDIT: what would be actually interesting would be to see if GPT could be fine-tuned to play chess. Which is something many people have been doing: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=finetune+gpt+chess

Sure, but why?