From: nospam@example.net
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-04-08, D wrote:
>
>> Interesting! I did have an idea once to write my own usenet
>> based on scp transfers.
>
> Best intentions are theoretically a wonderful thing.
Very much true! ;)
>
>
>> Haha, did you ever check out the abomination called
>> Matrix? It's a modern chat protocol that supports regular
>> chat, audio _and_ video and many many other things. I
>> cannot think of a better example of "boil protocol oceans"
>> than that.
>
> Never heard of Matrix. Or *that* Matrix. You know.
You haven't missed anything. It is an enormously convoluted and complex
chat protocols. Apparently XMPP and IRC wasn't enough, someone had to
develop _the_ chat protocol (TM).
>> I always wonder what's wrong with IRC for chatting? And
>> I am very much opposed to pulling in all functionality in
>> one and the same software. I think that's a great recipe
>> to make sure your software will be full of exploits and
>> security holes. ;)
>
> There's nothing wrong with IRC. There's something wrong with people:
> in this case both the "not remaining happy with a good thing" part,
> and the "that we need to waste time / energy / effort guarding
> against exploits and filling security holes" part.
>
> Whenever I overhear someone bellyaching about us/our needing to
> change socio-political systems, I pull out the keys in my front
> right pocket and go, "fix our needing *this* first, *then* we'll
> see if we need all *that*"....
>
> More fundamentally, there's no meta fix - aka bandage - for
> untrustworthiness. It must be fixed at the source.
>
> There are subtle types of untrustworthiness that might not seem as
> such, but "add up".
>
> For example, I find a Gemini post I like, then go deeper into the
> capsule, rejoice at finding email contact information, take the
> time to write, and then *never* hear back.
That's annoying! But it has happened to me from time to time. But I
remember once when it did sting a little. It sounds so trivial when
written down, but it did hurt a bit. I went to a magic show with one of
my childhood magic heroes. I haven't thought about the magician for
probably 20-30 years or so. And after the show he was signing autographs
and I gave him my business card to sign, and he did this overly
manipulative routine to get out of signing my business card and gave me
some presigned card out of fear I was somehow going to trick him. I
always wonder if he thought he was being slick, while I instead felt
quite insulted. I think I would very much have prefered that he would
have told me that his policy was not to sign peoples own cards or papers
due to legal reasons and then give me his presigned card. That would
have felt much more honest, than trying to smooth it over in a very bad
way.
> Sum/integrate that effect over the entire space, and to me it appears
> that Geminauts are mostly people I can't take at their word, because
> per experience - which is all I have in the evidence department -
> they give the appearance of being available for correspondence when
> they aren't.
I think we spoke about this before, but gopher/gemini does seem like a
remote place for long form diaries. I wonder if the guy you wrote got
scared since he never thought he'd get a reply. ;)
> But, see... I'm not talking about people "trying harder". I'm talking
> about people fixing that which makes untrustworthiness the default
> behavior, because then - in this example - we don't have to think
> twice or a dozen times about whether spending time replying will
> be in vain, leading to a growing sense of trying-to-community not
> being worth the effort.
How do you think it could be fixed? Or do you think it is possible to
fix? Communities are a difficult, organic, slippery, emergent thing.
That much I have learned in 10 years of running a community offline.
>> Ahh, got it! Yes, the philosophers of alt.philosophy do
>> seems to be soundly asleep most of the time. =(
>
> From one point of view, it's just an arbitrary label. From another,
> posting outside its implied limits is admittedly just more of the
> disingenuity I just got done hypocritically railing against....
>
> So much complication, so little time.
>
>
>
> But, hey, it led to interaction, so I'm suddenly pretty high on
> ends justifying means....
Haha, true! ;)
>> Did you ever read Nietzsche? I just finished reading the
>> Joyful sciences and 50% is madness and among the other
>> 50% I have to say that he is pretty much spot on on some
>> things. If I put on my existentialist glasses, I'd say he
>> does a much better job than Sartre for instance, where I
>> don't understand a word of what the man is saying.
>
> The only European I recall getting with in a more than a little way
> was Schopenhauer. But I don't remember any of it except the look
> of his face on my copy of "The World As Will and Representation" (?).
You sure did start with some heavy stuff! I've read about Schopenhauer
but never read anything except his short essays. I'm still trying to
make up my mind if I should spend the time reading him or not.
> (Or was it "copies"? Was that a two volume thingie? I'm suddenly
> remembering one paperback cover being red, the other blue....)
>
> My vague recollection with abandoning European-ish philosophies
> was their always feeling intensely "tl;dr".
>
> But I guess that's actually more a reflection of my impatience....
Yes, it is definitely not a quick fix.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
