Tlaloc_Temporal

Arabic numerals came to Europe from India via Arabia. The Sine function does too, but it’s name is garbled and doesn’t mean anything.

Venetian blinds came from Persia via Venice.

Spanish Flu was everywhere, but everyone at the time was lying about it due to being at war, except for Spain.

Many First Nations peoples are known by what other peoples called them (often pejorative names) rather than their name for themselves.

Words usually aren’t authoritative declarations of truth, but rather snapshots of what was a useful distinction to someone somewhere a some time. Did the French think their style of kissing was a unique cultural phenomenon? Will Skibidi be known about in 500 years? No one documents graffiti, was it “discovered” by Pompeii?

We live in a truely unique age, where nearly any question can have a relavent answer of some kind in moments. We can see people streaming everyday things from around the globe, or find the best research about what we know about ancient people’s daily lives. Is any of this worth carving into a monument though? How many copies of an archeological journal are going to survive the ages vs copies of Game of Thrones? I’d say there are countless things about our lives we think are special to today that even prehistoric people did, it just isn’t notable enought to build monuments to or copy manuscripts of.

Where are you getting silence from? If speaking to an entire nation is a right, why don’t I have that opportunity?

Hate speech and calls for violence are already exceptions to freedom of speech. You know, things that can cause irreparable harm. Blatant lies from government officials can also cause harm, yet you would say any impairment of a politician’s ability to say literally anything is “silencing them”.

I fully support your right to say almost anything as a citizen, but not as a doctor, teacher, lawyer, or other professional with power. A doctor selling snake oil to their patients shouldn’t be a doctor, a teacher shouldn’t be preseting flat earth as the truth, a lawyer shouldn’t be giving poor council for their own benefit, and a politician shouldn’t be spreading egregious lies to their constituents.

The method I proposed was a response to another method (modifying freedom of speech), which I thought was better, as it could leave freedom of speech intact as is. I then immediately point out that this method would still have issues, because determining truth is hard. Passing judgment on even the most ridiculously well supported scientific facts is something basically all courts shy away from, and I don’t think the currect political landscape is capable of attempting reasonably unbiased legislation something so central to our culture. I wonder if such a determination is even possible to make reasonably in the style of government we’ve used for the last few centuries.

Where in this do you find a will to silence people I disagree with?

Not every private company can just do anything. ITAR still applies to SpaceX, the military industrial complex still wants political control over it’s suppliers, telecom corps still need to adhere to network standards, and COPPA was applied to YouTube (and they dealt with that terribly).

As much as capitalism wants to push everything as far as the system will bear, we can change that. We can say that social platforms need special care, or government officials need to be held to a higher standard. The issue at this point is political will, wich is growing in many directions at the moment.

The problem with specifically controlling speech is that we don’t have any system unbiased enough to be responsible for such a broad aspect of society. Some specific cases with some general rules might be useful though, but again I don’t trust our current systems to make good rules. This is all speculation on how to prevent public manipulation, and it probably won’t work well when used to root it out once established.

That’s a bold statement. The difference between haz3 & haz4 is quite a bit bigger that the difference between haz4 & haz5. The icons are basically the same rhough.

Is medical malpractice censorship? Legal malpractice? Financial malpractice? Engineering malpractice? Academic malpractice?

I don’t want to use government sanctions explicitly because government decisions tend toward political or popular outcomes, not reasonable outcomes. When a doctor SAs their patients, we don’t saction them; we revoke their medical license. Fiduciary negligence calls for a lawsuit, not direct government action (although lawsuits have issues as well).

I’m not advocating for community action either (I would hope individuals would check for integrity, but that obviously doesn’t happen enough ATM), shunning or excuding people from certain communities is something I want to avoid. This is definitely not excommunication (even if we broaden the term beyond it’s explicitly catholic meaning), I very much do not want to banish or otherwise impact affected persons’ quality of life. It’s simply about practising a privileged profession.

You should be able to say whatever you want without government censorship, but we shouldn’t be giving all ideas privileged platforms. Libel is a very difficult thing to prosecute for, but I think we need to challenge more publically broadcast statements. To broadcast as “News” or something authoritative would be a privilege, like practing medicine or law.

Even in this hypothetical situation, the definition of reasonable accuracy would have to be determined methodologically, as political entities and the public cannot be trusted to decide in good faith. That’s the crux of trying to implement public deplatforming; objective value judgments. We can get useably close with peer-reviewed papers, but it’s still vulnerable to political and monetary influence.

To summarize: I do not want to silence anyone, just restrict access to the official-looking megaphone and clipboard. Even then, how that access is restricted is a difficult problem considering the conflicting interests around it.

Excommunication? What? This is requiring journalistic integrity to work in journalism, just like how medical malpractice can make you lose your medical license or legal malpractice can get you disbarred. There is precidence for this system, and I chose it specifically to reduce punishments and make sure those affected can still make a living.

I even point out one of the big issues of truth being difficult to define, and how this system might just push the problem down the road, and wonder if the actual problem (politics becomming unbound by reality for political gain, or a loss of political integrity) can even be regulated at all.

Hmm? A creative limitation? How have I done that?

I’m advocating for maintaining freedom from government censorship by using an industry ban instead. Specifically in the realms of news and knowledge, not entertainment. I don’t think that impinges on any (currently held) right, democratic or not.

That happens regularly whenever the bones start to solidify. It’s analogous to the “strech” function on other platforms, but functions significantly differently.

70% of the time, bloom is garbage, 25% of the time it’s garbage and is covering up other graphical issues. 5% of the time, it gives some nice depth to light and emphasizes brightness differences, even without HDR.

Already in effect. Lost of basic services require a mailing address, which means either rent or property taxes. Medical care often requires a job to grant insurance, and any chronic or ongoing illness is the definition of a subscription.

Instead of modifying freedom of speech, make large-scale lies jusification to banish someone from the industry, like sex-offenders and schools.

Still a bit vague and as always figuring out what’s true is hard and ajudicating truth is even harder, but any errors won’t be nearly as bad, and it would still be effective.

The core issue here is still agreeing on truth though. Can you define a method of ajudicating truth that can’t be misused by an overwhelming amount of bad-faith actors? Can you bind an organization to a method even if every member wants something else?

I think you missed the reasoning behind the “dead” part.

If the hammer doesn’t bounce when it hits, it’s not as lively, and lands like a dead body.

Well it does have a claw, but it specifically has the nail holder.

Large corporations are overly litigious. Individuals can’t afford to be litigious enough.

I think most if not all tetrapods should have the 1-2-3-4-5 hierarchy for their arms and legs (although the later branches often fuse together).

I just checked, and mice have the 1-2 pattern for front and hind limbs. It’s just the arms that are weird, but this mouse’s arms have always been weird.

Edit: I just saw the legs again, those are definitely screwed up too.

And wild curves of extrapolation, and wild planes of extrapolation, and wild queues of extrapolation, and…

Some cells are getting 47%, which is ridiculous for a generator! The theoretical maximum efficiency for solar cell from the sun as it appears in the sky is about 68%, so that’s pretty good!

However, how expensive is that cell going to be? How much maintenance does it need, and how fragile is the system once deployed? It’s very obvious that PV efficiency has beed skyrocketing recently, and I don’t thinks it’s stopping soon, but a commercial PV panel available today is just breaking 20% efficiency. Luckily, sunshine is quite abundant.

Ooo, good call.

There’s also radioisotope piezoelectric generators, where the electrons are caught by a cantilever and then released in regular pulses. An electron waterwheel if you will.

Did you know my profile picture is a Windows Vista background? I didn’t until a few months ago.

Kermi Tree Frog