I believe you mean, "agree with me on gender and sexuality". When you take away the tendentious wording, it's a lot less clear that it "should be a given."
Seems like a recipe for elitism. The groups of interesting people would be virtually impossible to get into, and the pleb groups would be boring.
One of the things that worked about internet discussions of the past is that they prioritized quality of ideas, not importance of identity or who you know or any of that. Social media turned that on its head, I think a successful model might involve turning it back. More like UseNet than Facebook.
The early net was nice because it didn't have billions of people on it. It was a self selecting crowd of early tech adopters who had the time and money to have an online presence, a rarity back in the day. It was its own moderation system because there weren't that many people. Even the web index used to be manually curated.
Then the internet became a victim of its own success and the signal to noise ratio plummeted. You can't replicate the early internet with less moderation, you either need selective participation or heavy curation (not moderation).
Let me make a counter argument - the signal to noise ratio was always awful. Look at UseNet, at Eternal September.
What changed wasn't the signal to noise ratio, but rather how the internet judged reputation of speakers. We went from forcing everyone to analyze the ideas presented, to offering them shortcuts in the form of "curation" or "moderation" that selected for better content.
Then, the gatekeepers of the "curation" and "moderation" systems developed cliques and hugboxes. They built balkanized, loyal audiences in this way. Call this the Fark, SomethingAwful, Bodybuildingforums, etc. era.
The strong balkanized cliques formed by this iteration pivoted their cliques into social media, and content began to be selected for based on who you were - how much money you had, who was on your friends list, what job positions you held. These cliques established fairly stringent, unwritten ideological litmus tests for admittance. And nobody is better at passing ideological litmus tests than motivated power seekers (i.e. activists) in fields like politics, academia, and journalism, who quickly discovered that they could blackmail/extort their way into the gatekeeping positions.
That leads us to today, where myopic moderation by ideological activists is sold to the public as "curation" and your ability to choose which speakers to hear is sold as a negative externality and a threat to public safety.
So what's the path forward? I posit that we could achieve much by actively suppressing these newer forms of gatekeeping, and returning in as much as possible to the original form that allowed internet discussions to thrive - anonymous text coupled with broad based evaluation of ideas, not speakers' allegiances, possessions, and public personas.
Without the accessibility of their public library, and public workers to guide them, they would have never been able to acquire the required knowledge in aeronautics
Isn't that a bit like saying that every innovation depends upon milk? I guess, technically, every innovation does begin with a baby drinking milk, but it seems like a stretch to attribute the innovation to the milk, rather than to the mind of the individual who may or may not have been fueled by milk?
> it seems like a stretch to attribute the innovation to the milk, rather than to the mind of the individual who may or may not have been fueled by milk?
What ever it been fueled with, knowledge wasn't created at an individual's birth, it's an accumulation of a collective and shared effort
The point i was trying to make in my post is; it always starts from the people, for the people to continue, for the people to achieve a civilizational ascension
If we build the means to generate infinite energy for free, then we'll have to ask ourselves if giving that much power to the individual a safe endeavor, or if we should make sure the prospect is for the collective to ascend
Thanks to this achievement, many will learn from it and acquire knowledge to pursue that goal, would it be the case if it was a solo for profit effort? i doubt it greatly
The open source tech industry thrives because it's a collective and shared effort, funding issue persists but that's due to us, individuals, living civilization's transition, it'll be a solved problem shortly
Do you have any source information for this? As far as I understood, the Wright brothers started out by building hobbyist gliders in consultation with fellow aviation pioneer Octave Chanute.
I checked the Wikipedia entry, but the only reference it maintains for the Smithsonian having helped the Wright brothers is that they apparently gave Wilbur an award in 1910, after having tried unsuccessfully to steal credit from him for building the first heavier than air flyer. Somehow I doubt that's the kind of government contribution to innovation to which the previous poster intended to refer.
Wilbur Wright asked for the Smithsonian's aeronautical research. They still have the letter. The very Wikipedia article you're referencing, in the exact paragraph you're talking about, contains the words "Orville Wright, whose brother had received help from the Smithsonian when beginning his own quest for flight."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Smithsonian_fe...
Sure, the Smithsonian people were assholes about it. That doesn't negate their contribution to the Wright brother's work. Incedentally, in modern timesif you visit the Air and Space Museum you can see the exhibit where they own up to the shabby attempt to promote their late leader over the Wrights. They cover the feud pretty thoroughly -- including having both aircraft.
Yeah but the Wrights were following research from all over the world, including England and Germany. You might as well say that the Wrights were also funded by the British government.
The Wrights didn't start from a government-funded initiative. Using govt resources, like public roads or receiving public schooling as a child doesn't make every subsequent output a "government initiative." This is semantics at this point though. You've made up your mind, and so have I, and you're obviously sitting on this thread to rapid fire rebut on this Tuesday night. Here you go, have the last reply:
I didn't say anything about roads or school. The Smithsonian actively executed aviation research by physically building and flying powered aircraft. These experiences were among the information sent to the Wrights. The Wrights' work was directly informed by government experimentation at the Smithsonian. I don't understand how better to communicate this, and I don't understand why you got weirdly personal about it. I hope things get better for you.
Wow, Musk's getting coverage on HN. Let's check it out...
...oh. OK. Hmmm.
Starting to get a little worried about the neutrality of coverage. It's never good when technical issues and technical projects get polluted with political animosity.
If I was served malware by Facebook, I could definitely contact Facebook for assistance, and even sue them if necessary.
And the point about "URLs I dont know" is exactly my point - the move towards hosting content on websites of dubious operational security is a net negative for internet security. Sites like Facebook may not be perfect, but at least we know who runs them, that they've got skin in the game and incentives to adhere to their stated policies as well as laws and regulations, and where our data is located.
One of my first real entries into "the industry" was as a beta tester for WC2:ToD on Mac OS. Warms my heart to see its included here. Shout out to all my Burning Blade bros from the ladder days!
A combination of beeswax and microcrystalline wax (made from petrolatum) works the best, but beeswax alone will provide fine water repellency, just slightly less durability and ease of application.
