While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!
I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!
I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!
I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!
If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!
I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.
Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”
To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.
OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically high time preference, is not legally permitted to have a job and financially support themself, and so on.
Yes, that’s true, and that’s why someone else usually has to try to take care of their interests, but that doesn’t mean the caretakers’ interests are in any way valid; only their attempt to faithfully act in accordance of the only relevant party’s interests is.
The state can go [do something it can’t actually do because it doesn’t have anatomy] with its interests about its citizens; the child’s interests to be educated or not are what matter.
And the parents can go [do something they are probably religiously prohibited from doing] with their tradition; their ability to (possibly, depending on the circumstances; oftentimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and that’s why shit’s hard) know their child’s interests better than the state is the thing that matters.
I mean, I’m pretty strongly pro child’s rights, but the idea that a guardian has no interests in the matter is absurd. Being a guardian doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean you’re a slave to your child’s Optimal Best Interest, and I certainly don’t want the state deciding what that is even if it did.
E.g. sometimes I may need to shower even if Colton really wants to be held and will scream the whole time if I don’t. And I could forgo the shower, and he would be better off in the moment if I did. But I’m not obligated to just because I’m his guardian.
Okay, that’s firmly within “your body, your rules” imo. Being a guardian only gives a reasonable set of obligations.
I don’t consider children entitled to limitless bending-over backwards, but I do consider them entitled to certain freedoms; for example if a parent for some reason had decided that preventing their child from accessing information on lgbtq people was in their interests of ~religion~ and ~tradition~, they should basically cuck off with their interests. Violating a child’s self-determination and choice requires way better reasons than “but I wanna”, but a child isn’t entitled to violate their parent’s self-determination and choice for frivoulous reasons either.
In the example where the options (school or homeschooling) are both basically legitimate I wouldn’t consider either of the offered arguments a valid reason for deciding differently from what the child would choose. There are possible reasons to override the child’s choice on this matter, but neither “the state wants its citizens to be this way” or “the parents want religion/tradition” are acceptable to me. (The parents are certainly allowed to freely express their views to persuade their child but if the child wants something else I do consider it a violation of the child’s freedom of religion to forcibly convert them or make them follow the rules of a religion that isn’t theirs.)
(ETA: the distinction I’m talking about at least somewhat resembles “negative vs. positive rights”)
So my dad took away my laptop because I wouldn’t give him the password. I wasn’t even allowed to type it in, he demanded to know the password to my personal computer because he thinks I’m “ doing things I’m not supposed to do. ” My sister is not, and never has been, held to the same standard when it came to passwords on her own phone etc. But my parents always suspect me of being “up to something” and will randomly ask to use my computer/ know the password, and when I say no, they get mad at me. In the past, they have taken away my devices and looked through them, which cased me a lot of anxiety and is part of the reason I don’t like it when people use my computer or go through the camera roll on my phone. Even as I type this, I’m being asked what I’m doing. If you think parents demanding to know the passwords to their child’s personal devices is a breach of privacy please reblog
my parents do the same thing it’s torture
As a parent, you don’t get privacy until you are on your own. My house, my rules, my money, my decision.
Don’t like it?
Too bad.
I am the parent here. I’m not your friend. I’m your father.
Literally kids are not your prisoner??? There’s a difference between being protective and being controlling.
“You don’t get privacy until you’re an adult” like what the fuck. You’re one of those piece of shit parents that thinks taking away bedroom doors and making their kids hold sandwich board signs on busy roads is appropriate punishment aren’t you? Children and teens are still fucking people and still deserve respect. If you can’t even respect your child how do you expect to teach them to respect others?
AS A PARENT YOU DON’T GET PRIVACY UNTIL YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. If I suspect you’re doing drugs or talking to someone way older than you or sneaking out at night, your privacy becomes my business. You’re living under MY roof, and I bought that computer, that phone, and pay for the service that runs it. Sorry, Charlie. It’s my job as a parent to make sure you’re safe and I will exercise the UNALIENABLE right to invade your privacy.
The mindset parents have of “my house my rules / I bought you that phonecomputertabletetc so I can go through it” is a huge contributer to anxiety, depression, self harm, and suicide in kids and teens and if anyone is defending, condoning, or practicing that behavior I hope to god they get their kids taken away from them. Nobody deserves to grow up under an iron fist of emotional abuse.
dude it’s one thing to be looking out for your kid and another to be like “privacy doesn’t exist because you are vulnerable and i am in a position of power.
being overprotective of your kid is NOT going to help them. it’s fucking savage.
my mom let my sisters and i do whatever we wanted [obvs within reason] and punished us when we did bad shit and we came out just fine. we’re honest people and nothing fucked us up. my friend with overprotective and invasive parents? she sneaks out for a social life. she can’t let people touch her things without almost crying because her dad would confiscate her things as she was using them to make sure she wasn’t selling drugs or sexting. sometimes she compulsively lies about small things and admits to lying later because she knows it’s was stupid to do it in the first place and she developed OCD from her father reprimanding her for not being clean enough [even though she’s a spotless person] she will have anxiety attacks over being in a messy environment because of the panic her dad put into her while growing up. she’s almost twenty and you know what she did? she asked me to cover for her so she could go on a date. SHE IS TWENTY NEXT MONTH AND ASKED ME TO LIE TO HER PARENTS IF THEY ASKED ME WHERE SHE WAS. she was on a date!! dating! because she was afraid her dad would fucking ground her. the sad part is, he probably would have if he found out! they created an environment of distrust and she has to fight it to be able to hang out with people who weren’t even gonna get her in trouble.
yall wanna be like “privacy doesn’t exist for children and teens. no teens can be trusted.” but fact is, you’re gonna force your kid into being untrustworthy because you think it’s healthy to be controlling.
sorry. you’re a shitty parent. unless you have proof or grounds for violating privacy in order to keep your kid safe, you are abusive and controlling and a sack of shit for having 0 respect for your children.
My dad threatens to take my door away from me for having it closed. I’m a seventeen year old female, and he has threatened to take away my door.
when i was a teenager, i wasn’t allowed to have a cellphone, so my father would hand me a little bag of change and force me to call home from a payphone every single time i left somewhere and again when i arrived at the next place. that means if i went to the mall, i called when i got there. then if i wanted to go across the street to the Walmart i had to call and tell him so. then i had to call again when i got to the Walmart! if i had a bunch of stuff to do, i could go through the entire bag of change in one weekend - if i could even find enough payphones to call him from. his explanation for this lunacy was that he wanted to be able to find me anytime, anywhere. he also liked to randomly show up at my job to make sure i was there, and the first time i spent the night at my best friend’s after i got a car, he drove past the house no less than eight times, and called no less than four times. one of those calls was to ask where i was because my car wasn’t visible from the road - and when i explained the turnaround i was parked in was behind the house, he told me we’d “better not go anywhere or have friends over”. like, what the hell were we going to do? have a drunken orgy while my friend’s grandma was sitting in the next room? we ended up playing chess in the front parlor all night with all the lights on and the curtains open so he could see us if he drove by.
and what, exactly, did i do to deserve this? not a fucking thing. i didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, didn’t sneak out, didn’t do drugs, didn’t skip school, nothing. in 13 years of public school, i had one detention - for being late too many times. that’s it. i never did a single thing to make him think i was untrustworthy and i got stalked for it.
when i graduated high school, my father told me if i was going to go to art college on his dime, he was going to have a say in the classes i took and what i did with my free time - he even went so far as to tell me if he ever dropped by the campus, i’d better be in my dorm doing homework or in class, and if i got a grade he didn’t like, he was going to pull me out of school, bring me home, and basically keep me a prisoner with no phone, no tv, no visits with friends until i graduated from the local community college. faced with another four years of stalking and abuse, i moved out and worked in a factory until i could be considered an independent student, then went to the art college i’d always wanted to - on my terms.
my father died last May and i hadn’t talked to him for a year, hadn’t seen him for two, and before that i hadn’t had any communication with him at all forfour.
the moral of the story for you “my house, my rules, you don’t get any rights” parents is: stop treating your children like shit or you’re going to die alone, and you’ll deserve it.
…god, this is too real. i find myself often making up small, unnecessary lies when dealing with others, as long as it will help me avoid conflict or anger. my parents trained that behavior into me by abusing their position of power my entire life, controlling almost every step of it down to the most minute detail. if parents refuse to respect their kids as they would other human beings, the kids will never mirror that in return—funny, since so many parents demand it
not to mention that this mentality - which is the dominant one, by the way, which is incredibly disturbing - provides an excuse and convenient coverup for MILLIONS of abusive parents who will never be questioned because people will always assume that “the parent is the boss, and the child is lying and/or deserves this punishment” and look no further
it’s a matter of holding existing power structures over you dependent’s head and that’s just not fucking okay
“you are dependent on me, therefore i get to abuse you and isolate you at will, you are at my mercy” is all i can hear
on multiple occasions, i had my phone taken from me by my father “because i didn’t pay for it so it wasn’t mine” when i was never given the OPTION to pay for it in the first place. he also took it from me to stop me from calling the police or other help more than once when he was physically abusing and threatening my mom, my brother, and myself.
your child is a human being and is entitled to privacy, respect, and agency. they did not ask to be dependent on you; YOU chose to raise them until they were able to become independent.
and aside from that, it’s fucking ridiculous to trust an adult’s word over that of their dependent child on the basis of age. that’s how abuse gets swept under the rug.
parents with potentially or blatantly abusive/manipulative behaviors and expectations regarding their children should be treated with exactly the same amount of suspicion as an abusive partner. they shouldn’t get away with traumatizing their children in their developing stages just because they’re “adults” and they “own” their child.
children are not objects, you do not own them, you are supposed to be supporting and teaching them, but you aren’t allowed to conveniently forget that they’re human beings with exactly as many basic human rights as you have.
^^ These posts are something that more people especially adults should see.
Also the stuff 2oule is talking about is classic abuser/stalker behavior. People don’t stop being abusers because they happen to be moms and dads and Parents Are Responsible
ABOLISH THE FAMILY
(I’m only, like, a third joking)
[bans child labor/supports an existing ban on child labor]
[bans/supports bans on minors from having bank accounts in their own names alone]
You’re not supporting yourself! You’re a dependent! My resources, my rules!
Yeah, if a person in a position of non-consensual authority is acting abusively, it’s their own damn fault if they die alone, and I’m just sad that usually the victims can’t do anything worse than making them die alone. We abolished slavery over 150 years ago, shouldn’t we get around to abolishing unchallenged parental authority just as well?
If I had my own security provider, I’d totally let minors sign up for protection from their parents the instant they are old enough to find the website or call the company. People are not fucking property and providing food and shelter to your kidnapping victim (who can’t go find someone else to provide those things better because you’re protecting your monopoly with violence) doesn’t entitle you to treat them however you wish.
Solidity is the JavaScript-like programming language designed for developing smart contracts that run on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).
My intuitions are saying that the language should be functional, simple, high-level and damn well tested. Ideally it should also be close enough to natural language that it would be partially self-documenting and difficult to hide nasty tricks in. And it should have a strict syntax so that there’s only one correct way to do anything ever, and deviating from it would produce an obvious error instead of unexpected behavior and it would be noticed at “compile-time” so that the only programs that ever get to run are Correct.
I’m not an expert yet but these features sound like inspiration should be taken from the likes of Ada, Haskell, Python etc.
…so they chose javascript instead
what has the world done to deserve this
And it should have a strict syntax so that there’s only one correct way to do anything ever, and deviating from it would produce an obvious error instead of unexpected behavior and it would be noticed at “compile-time” so that the only programs that ever get to run are Correct.
Python
Wat
That was more about the “natural language-resembling” part; to my knowledge none of those languages would satisfy all of the requirements, but Python programs are actually readable while javascript is…javascript.
“Natural language-resembling” sounds to me like how you get COBOL. Natural language is not optimized for smart contracts, and so I’d expect that it would be full of false-friends and other traps, and programming constructions that are similar-to-but-not-actually what you expect them to be are an on-going source of many troubles.
Okay, I don’t mean it in that sense; I mean in the sense that stuff that doesn’t need to be complicated isn’t complicated.
To take a simple example, in Python one can just do a loop like “for var in array…” which, when implemented solidly, should be no less secure and predictable than Javascript’s more complex looping of “i = 0, i < length(array), i++…” or whatever it was.
In fact, my totally non-expert intuitions suspect that it’d be easier to sneak unexpected behavior to something with such imperative boilerplate (the underhanded C contest remaining a favorite for a reason) whereas pure well-defined functions if done correctly will do exactly what they should and making them deviate from their intended behavior should be the weird thing that sticks out. “for var in array…” will loop through each element of the array exactly once or otherwise python has been broken, but having to fuck around with an explicit “i” seems like it would introduce the possibility of fucking around with it to make the program do something it should not do.
Or to take an example from Julia: sum(primes(2000000)) returns the sum of primes under 2 million and it’s the job of the language to do it properly, but if I wrote my own code to do it without such (presumably very well checked and proven, in the case of the smart contract language) ready-made functions an innocent mistake (or something that’s made to look like an innocent mistake) could make it skip some primes or introduce non-primes, thus invalidating the result. If people need to spend time checking the prime-testing algorithm of each individual program it’s time away from the things that actually need attention. The less there is to fuck up with, the less chance there is to fuck up. (Although once again I suspect having it be something like “sum(primes_in(1..2000000))” would make it more reliable as this would make it explicit that we’re dealing with a range and selecting the primes from it instead of eg. the first 2 million prime numbers. Simple is good, but unambiguous is vital.)
That’s Louis Rossman, a repair technician and YouTuber, who went viral recently for railing against Apple. Apple purposely charges a lot for repairs and you either have to pay up or buy a new device. That’s because Apple withholds necessary tools and information from outside repair shops. And to think, we were just so close to change.
This shit is literally why I will never purchase an Apple product. It’s been well over a decade since I made this decision. Also, this person is a hero.
Hackers breaking bullshit monopolies is always enjoyable to see. Own the phones, pwn the drm, hack tha body, liberate the hard and the soft and the wet alike.
While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!
I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!
I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!
I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!
If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!
I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.
Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”
To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.
OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically high time preference, is not legally permitted to have a job and financially support themself, and so on.
Yes, that’s true, and that’s why someone else usually has to try to take care of their interests, but that doesn’t mean the caretakers’ interests are in any way valid; only their attempt to faithfully act in accordance of the only relevant party’s interests is.
The state can go [do something it can’t actually do because it doesn’t have anatomy] with its interests about its citizens; the child’s interests to be educated or not are what matter.
And the parents can go [do something they are probably religiously prohibited from doing] with their tradition; their ability to (possibly, depending on the circumstances; oftentimes they do, sometimes they don’t, and that’s why shit’s hard) know their child’s interests better than the state is the thing that matters.
anosognosicredux asked: Could you point to some good resources on 19th century libertarianism, esp. wrt the role of the govt in creating the proletarian underclass?
The Subsidy of History by Kevin Carson is probably one of the best ones in terms of information density albeit not as thoroughly sourced as some.
And his Studies in Mutualist Political Economy explores the topic deeper and contains some juicy quotations from people who sound basically like supervillains.
American Anarchism by Wendy McElroy explores the individualist anarchism of the 19th century as one massive but oft forgotten root of modern libertarianism.
(McElroy is sometimes quoted as a prominent libertarian feminist but here’s a very interesting piece in which Roderick Long mansplains demonstrates that sometimes men can understand feminism too and that once again stuff tracks back to the radicals of the 19th century)
While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!
I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!
I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!
I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!
If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!
I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.
Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”
To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.
unknought asked: I suspect that your anon is taking Promethea's views (which they've described as trying to bridge the gap between ancoms and ancaps, among other things) as more representative of rationalism as a whole than they actually are. Anon, I think most of us are boring liberal statists, when it comes down to it.
actually, you probably shouldn’t assume any object-level belief strongly advocated by a rationalist is representative of the community without asking around.
Oh no you made me geek out on the history of libertarianism
Because anon was actually more correct than the explanation that it would be just about me
“Libertarian” in the 19th century meant just as laissez-faire as it means now, but the political alliances were reversed; they used to call us “voluntary socialists” because we considered ourselves allies of the labor movement and free enterprise against the state-supported capitalists and thought that a free society would be less inequal and oppressive.
(And that’s totally 100% true; without the Inclosure Acts and other such shit the dark satanic mills couldn’t have happened and the 18-19th century industrial capitalists were amazingly honest about how the entire point was to use the state to create a proletariat stripped of property so they could be forced into the mines and factories for a miserable living enriching others. (Every sin begins from treating people as product and so on…) Sometimes child labor was effectively legally mandated as parents weren’t allowed to work in the neighboring parish (or whatever they were called) so they had to send children instead even though there were unemployed adults who would’ve been willing to accept the jobs. And even during the Napoleonic wars the British army had more men keeping order in the industrial communities than fighting the French (anyone who’s played Civilization knows that thing where you put soldiers in a city so it stops rioting and that’s exactly what Britain did).)
Then Lenin happened, and everyone who was not a statist soon concluded that it was a terrible thing and the libertarian movement kind of split into two.
One part allied with right-wing statist capitalism against statist communism and the New Deal as it saw it as the lesser of two evils and over time mostly forgot that it was evil at all. That’s where the “points out every single law that favors the poor, and ignores every single law that props up the rich” type of “libertarian” comes from, or the type that triumphantly touts the $50B workers steal from bosses and disregards the $50B bosses steal from workers. Laissez-faire is not “pro-business”, laissez-faire is not “anti-business”, laissez-faire is “none of our business”.
(And real freedom in employment contracts inevitably implies at least a bare minimum of pro-union stance, and the absence of state intrusion in bargaining the details would make labor struggles meaningful as employers would need to give workers a deal worth taking but it would also simultaneously prevent redwashed rentiers from looting others. All in all I’d expect a freer market with fewer distortions to deliver everyone a money which is closer to the value they create than currently, and if workers are getting less than their true worth then they obviously would get more. Even if capital isn’t redistributed, one would expect its accumulation to lower its value over time as labor would become more of the limiting factor (there are some issues around automation and the control of human-displacing capital but “everyone who is not a robot loses their job and gets fired (upon)” is a very massive market failure). This line of thinking seems to be utterly alien to many non-libertarians, although I must say that those right-libertarians who are very R first with a really small l aren’t helping at all.)
Another part decided to go against both of them and usually got stomped every time (Ukraine, Kronstadt, Catalonia, etc.) and also lost its free-market laissez-faire ideals because those were now right-wing in the Big Ideology Fuckup of the 20th Century.
There were a few attempts at reconciliation eg. in the 60s when Vietnam made right-libertarians notice that the capitalist state was an oppressive piece of shit as well (eg. Barry Goldwater’s speechwriter Karl Hess switched sides to Emma Goldmanbecause her writings were like Ayn Rand’s but with the boring parts stripped out; something that might appear completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn’t understand libertarianism), but Murray Rothbard decided that he wanted to appeal to “tight-assed conformists, who
want to stamp out drugs in their vicinity, kick out people with strange
dress habits, etc.” instead of the weirdos and founded “paleolibertarianism”. (As a weirdo, I decided that Rothbard was a total asshole.) And during the previous half-century the left got way too enarmored with social democracy and statism and when dissolving that system in the late 70s began opposing anything smelling of laissez-faire turned into a tribal symbol and an Important Hill To Die On. (You wouldn’t believe how frustrating it is to be surrounded by 5 million socdems who make Bernie Sanders look like Ron Paul in comparison. (By that I mean that he isn’t that socially liberal but he does propose low taxes. Yes, that’s Finland for you; where Bernie would be the low-tax candidate.))
And speaking of tribal symbols, the question of private property had alwas been divisive but I see that
as kind of a ??? thing because there’s no way to enforce private
property on a voluntary collectivist community without violence, nor is
there a way to non-violently expropriate a community which
maintains consensual private property, and neither side could destroy the other so making some kind of peace in the form of “agree to disagree, each side
goes its own way and doesn’t fuck with the other’s stuff” is the only
stable outcome anyway unless the entire world was instantaneously
brainwashed into one or the other.
(And the division of that stuff would end up being such that ancoms would actually have some to begin with. For pragmatic reasons. By pragmatic reasons I mean that letting ancoms expropriate enough to have their ancommunities be actually economically viable is more economically efficient than dealing with a lot of disgruntled ancoms. Disgruntled ancoms with guns and a special interest in expropriating things, specifically. Even Murray Rothbard thought that capital owned by the state or businesses that receive enough tax money is a legitimate target for homesteading and thus there is a clear win-win solution in expropriating the state and its monopolist cronies for the ancommunities so ancoms can get a real job building their vision of a good society without bothering others or being bothered, while ancaps can run their ownsociety instead of whining on reddit. And mutalists and other inbetweeners can inbetween freely.)
Ancaps usually recognize that there
is nothing stopping ancoms from having ancommunities in ancapistan while
ancoms tend to be vaguely uncomfortable around the opposite equivalent,
usually evading the question with something like “but nobody would want
it”; my opinion is that if a bunch of people want to live on a ship among themselves, bothering nobody, stopping them with violence makes one the bad guy. At that point I don’t care about lofty proclamations about how “that ship is made from materials that belong to everyone” or the other usual justifications some (but fortunately not all) ancoms give for why they would do violence to stop those people and take their ship; I’d be there, protecting their right to do whatever the fuck they want amongst themselves without bothering anyone else, with whatever amount of violence I need, and I’d probably go on the ship with them because if land is filled with people who won’t let people do some consensual thing among themselves because it would be immoral, I don’t want to live there. (this is totally going to end up misquoted in a call-out post some day as “promethea is an ancap” but do I look like I give a shit)
More abstractly, I can sidestep the issue of the morality of private property by looking at it with cynical pragmatism: in most of the possible outcomes, ancaps won’t, or more importantly can’t, prevent ancommunities; and ancoms can’t prevent ancapistan existing somewhere, so both could and should be happy with the deal of “let’s build a new society where we both can do our thing without bothering the other side”. What I think about the morality of property doesn’t matter for my anarchism because I wouldn’t impose my views on non-consenting people anyway, and I’m willing to ally with anyone who agrees with that.
(Intellectual property is an exception; when it comes to things like copyright and patents I’m 100% pirate and in favor of expropriating everything; people could obviously keep trade secrets and use DRM and make license contracts and that’s fair game, but breaking DRM and using cracked licensed software is totally fair game too.)
And about the word “libertarian”? I’ll let Murray Rothbard explain: “One gratifying aspect of our
rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we,
‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy…
'Libertarians’… had long been simply a polite word for left-wing
anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the
communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
And my response is that Rothbard is once again being a massive dickbag of an asshole and I’m not letting assholes monopolize that word.
But yeah, even right-libertarianism actually has its roots in the same soil as communism and the history is fascinating and people should learn it. (And Lenin and Stalin are assholes.)
Solidity is the JavaScript-like programming language designed for developing smart contracts that run on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).
My intuitions are saying that the language should be functional, simple, high-level and damn well tested. Ideally it should also be close enough to natural language that it would be partially self-documenting and difficult to hide nasty tricks in. And it should have a strict syntax so that there’s only one correct way to do anything ever, and deviating from it would produce an obvious error instead of unexpected behavior and it would be noticed at “compile-time” so that the only programs that ever get to run are Correct.
I’m not an expert yet but these features sound like inspiration should be taken from the likes of Ada, Haskell, Python etc.
…so they chose javascript instead
what has the world done to deserve this
And it should have a strict syntax so that there’s only one correct way to do anything ever, and deviating from it would produce an obvious error instead of unexpected behavior and it would be noticed at “compile-time” so that the only programs that ever get to run are Correct.
Python
Wat
That was more about the “natural language-resembling” part; to my knowledge none of those languages would satisfy all of the requirements, but Python programs are actually readable while javascript is…javascript.
Agreed. Now certainly Python is not an ideal choice. On the other hand, it’s not a terrible choice. First, it is established. Lots of people know it. It’s easy to pick up the basics, so there a low barrier to entry – which, getting all down with “This is based on Haskell, but with a dependent typing layer, and here are some links to research papers that describe the basics, except I’ve add some stuff, which will be maybe published in June. Keep an eye on arXiv. And – hey, are you familiar with co-inductive proofs?”
I mean, I’d have more fun learning the latter, but I can understand how a project would choose something like Python.
Javascript, on the other hand…
Just, no.
And the thing I was thinking of is basically something like that quote, with “…but it looks like Python.” appended
I might add Julia to the list of “languages that have some features that language should have” as it’s good for mathy stuff and has a readable syntax (“sum(primes(2000000))” was the most hilarious one-liner Project Euler solution ever as it’s literally impossible to describe the question in a shorter way) but it lacks in the other departments afaik, just like all of the others in their own way
NRx blog: The latest push for transgender activism is designed to inculcate trans acceptance in the most intellectually vulnerable among us and to undermine parental authority.
Me: Haha. Silly reactionaries, thinking that upbringing affects children’s long term behaviour.
It’s actually all a front, on both sides, to deflect the true blame away from Big Plastic, a partly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil.
I want to see the plastic-makes-your-kids-gay meme take off in my lifetime just because of how frickin’ hilarious it’s going to be to watch.
Plastic makes your kids trans, not gay. Srsly guys we’ve discussed this exact shit already.
Dammit.
As a saving throw, there’s a lot of trans lesbians around here, so maaaaaybe plastics turn cishet guys into trans lesbians?
Of course the reactionaries would define a trans person’s orientation based on their asab, but I can think of at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other so they’d still consider that gay.
Seems legit, right?
“at least one pair of trans lesbians dating each other”
Technically correct: the MVP of correct!
In reality I seem to be perceiving an excessive predisposition towards poly trans lesbians often dating numerous other poly trans lesbians, which is as close to peak degeneracy as it gets (and they usually tend to be kinky as well). And then they will also be at risk of seducing the reactionaries’ cis wives as well, just for the maximum cuckpoints.
So yes, glorious reactionary upsetness expectably ensuing. Better avoid plastics and chemicals.
…you know what has a lot of plastics and chemicals in them? Computers.
And the computer industry is hospitable to somewhat autistic people, who are at 7 times the risk of being transgender. This is not a coincidence because nothing is a coincidence.
computers are a well-established factor to turn nerd boys into nerd girls. i would know, i was there. maybe it was the ionizing radiation my grandmother warned me about crts…
poly transbian checking the fuck in. where them repressed nrx wives at?
they are not allowed on tumblr because @sinesalvatorem would turn them gay
