Elon Tusk @srs@schelling.pt
🤔 critical critical theory theory
So I'm reading up on the 2017 Parity blockchain hack and it's just absolutely hilarious.
The exploited bug is like "accidentally" allowing anyone on the internet to just call any method in some code. And the code manages your bank account.
https://blog.openzeppelin.com/on-the-parity-wallet-multisig-hack-405a8c12e8f7/
So... I'm trying to understand critical race theory, but I feel they're making it unnecessarily hard...
On an unrelated matter, I just got lost in the interactive background here (desktop only): https://www.ethereum-alarm-clock.com/
RT @nickcammarata
I ultimately think one of the best things about psychedelics is they show you how radically different you can be as a conscious experience
You don’t have to die who you were born, and we have thousands of years more technology to leverage in crafting our own awareness
One last thing: by doing this, you're proving every right-wing nuthead right who claims their opinion is being oppressed, this is not a free country anymore yada yada yada. Let's not. Let's not give them that power.
My country places some limits on free speech (e.g. you can't deny the holocaust or openly incite violence). But these are coded in law and enforced by the state, i.e. they follow the usual democratic process. This doesn't.
This leads to political correctness and self-censorship.
This form of censorship is particularly insidious because it is invisible - we don't see books banned that never get written.
2. More importantly, they're disincentivizing the production of anything that might be seen as controversial b/c publishers have to fear losing a major revenue stream. As A. decides this at will, there is no certainty re this. So better safe than sorry.
- Amazon is not just "a private company, they can do whatever they want". They have too much market power for that. ("with great power...")
- Due to their market power, banning books has two implications:
1. They're making these books less visible & harder to get today.
To clarify:
- The idea that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness is idiotic & not helpful to society.
- But that someone who has this opinion is prevented from stating it publicly is deeply concerning.
- Especially when a private corp decides the bounds of discourse.
The age of corporate ideological censorship has begun.
---
RT @Forbes
Amazon Responds To Republican Sens. On Book Ban, Says Won’t Sell Books That Frame LGBTQ+ Identities As Mental Illness https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/03/12/amazon-responds-to-republican-sens-on-book-ban-says-wont-sell-books-that-frame-lgbtq-identities-as-mental-illness/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie
https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1370364095510294533
Request for research: use sentiment analysis to differentiate online harassment from criticism. Apply to twitter.
Allows us to understand when there really is a "smear campaign" vs sb painting themselves as a victim.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Productivity advice is premium mediocre.
...how it's going...
---
RT @dendricide
@deepfates dropping out of college to draw extremely racist pepe and groyper NFTs
https://twitter.com/dendricide/status/1370423662705307653
Twitter is so postmodern.
Some poor souls actually try to hold a discourse to get closer to the truth.
The real heros just throw cultural fragments at each other. - Ironically? - Does it matter?
No gods. No kings. Only men.
