UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Just look for the Independent Craft seal.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
This also leads me to wonder, though, is there information out there which ISN'T digitized and accessible on the internet? That simply can't be added to AI models because it's been overlooked because it isn't legible to people?
There is actually a ton of information that has not been digitized and only exists in, for example, national archives or similar of various countries or institutions.
I hadn't actually realized that this was the case until I started listening to the behind the scenes podcast for C&Rsenal - they're trying to put together a comprehensive history or the evolution of revolver lockwork, and apparently a large amount of the information/patents are only accessible via going there in person.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
This is fascinating and it suggests that training AI on 'incomplete' information archives could lead to it making some weird inferences or blind guesses about pieces of historical information is simply never encountered.
Well this is basically how C&Rsenal started their revolver thing... doing episodes on multiple late 19th century European martial revolvers and realizing that the existing histories are incomplete.
I now have to wonder if there are any humans out there with a somewhat comprehensive knowledge of the evolution of revolver lockwork.
Probably the best one right now would be Othais from C&Rsenal.
And now we have to wonder just HOW LARGE the corpus of undigitized knowledge is, almost by definition we can't know how much there is because... it's not documented well enough to really tell.
I would guess that a huge amount of infrequently requested data is totally undigitized still.
Actually, another area that demonstrates this: I frequently watch videos about museum ships on youtube and so much of the stuff they talk about is from documents and plans that they just kinda found in a box on the ship. So much undigitized.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
The reason theft is wrong is because you are depriving someone of their property, the use of said property, and indirectly the time and effort put into creating/obtaining that piece of property.
This is why the matter replicator thought experiment is salient. If someone came up to me and said, can I have your car for free, I'd say no. However, if instead they wanted to merely duplicate it perfectly at no cost to me, I would instead agree.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
You're not even correct by the points of your own argument, though.
When I copy a photograph, what have I taken?
Nothing, I've taken nothing. The original item is still there as it always was, yet I also have a copy of it.
If nothing is taken, there can be no "taking" of something which doesn't belong to you.
Further, the idea that one can own a particular pattern of matter or bits is seems mistaken.
Even the US Constitution acknowledges that you can't own "intellectual property" in the Copyright Clause
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Clearly acknowledges that we're conferring a limited right for a specific public purpose, not that there is an inherent right of intellectual property.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
I would disagree and say you are the one playing a semantic game here.
Taking implies that there is some thing (item) which you now have which no one else can now have because you have it.
That is simply impossible in the case we're talking about.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
What gives you the right to control who has a copy of an arbitrary collection of bits?
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Either way, my moral intuition was always that it was pretty obviously stealing to pirate music, movies, or software.
So when I steal something, I have taken something from someone else. They no longer have that item. When I pirate media, what is taken? What have I deprived someone else the use of?
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
It is, in fact, what it means to take something.
And since it is, it is also a substantive objection to your point.
And since it is a substantive objection, you have not answered it.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
It doesn't seem like it has to be either expensive or anti-social.
Expense seems to be related to government regulation.
Anti-socialness seems to be related to douchebags blowing giant vapor clouds.
Neither is inherent.
There seems to be no upside.
Unless you want to dose yourself with nicotine. Which is as valid an upside as dosing yourself with caffeine is.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
And do you think that this is a good description of more copyright situations?
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Well it comes back to intellectual property being a bankrupt concept. It’s an land grab by corporate interests in what is intended to be a limited right to encourage the arts and sciences.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Are people owed a return on their capital? Because that seems to me like something that is not a right.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
If someone invests money into creating something, it doesn't matter if it's replicatable on a massive scale.
Except this again ignores that copying some copyrighted work does not deprive the person who created it of anything.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
If you don't have an affirmative case for why gun rights are more valuable than X dead kids per year, I hate to tell you, but you're going to lose.
The affirmative case is obvious: X dead kids per year is a small price to pay for the impediment to tyranny an armed populace offers. How many kids will the next totalitarian state kill for ideological reasons? It's going to be more than die by the happenstance of gun crime.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.
If we're honest, yes. I think more people with more guns is better. And I will countenance no taking of guns from people.
The odds of concealed carry protecting you from victimization of any kind, let alone a mass shooting, is incredibly low
Elisjsha Dicken
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
I'm by no means an expert, but AFAIK making a case that can provide an adequate seal without breaking (and be cycled in without jamming and extracted without breaking, perhaps creating an obstruction in the barrel...) is far harder than making a simple gun.
It isn't actually that hard. It's simple drawn brass. https://www.petersoncartridge.com/technical-information/drawing-brass/
In addition, you can actually just turn a cartridge on a lathe from brass bar stock. Or mild steel. Both will work and while it's not as efficient as drawing brass, all you need is a lathe.
And each cartridge can be reloaded multiple times with equipment that is basically ubiquitous in the US.
I guess you'd be incentivizing revolvers though.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
or shooting for sport in the U.S.
Can you tell me what you think shooting for sport looks like?
Because substantially all of the restrictions proposed would impact it.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
a gun should never be involved in buying groceries
Hunting is the original grocery trip, though.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Right, so we're banning all soccer balls with a diameter under 6 feet. What? The sport can continue, just in a slightly altered form.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Second, I don't think it's true that there's a correlation between stricter gun laws and backsliding on democracy or basic civil rights, and I'd like you to support that claim.
What if it happens that the right to keep and bear arms is a basic civil right?
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
Public health does not override the rights of the citizens.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
You're theory being that if the truckers were armed the Canadian government would have been... less harsh? If anything that would surely make them come down like a ton of bricks.
They would have had to commit to actually exercising force and seeing blood in the streets rather than pussyfooting around and closing bank accounts.
UnterSeeBootRespecter
1yr ago
That we have done so does not justify it.
It means we were wrong to do so and should repent.
Former brewery owner/operator. The Brewers Association has a campaign called Certified Independent Craft: https://www.brewersassociation.org/independent-craft-brewer-seal/
Rules are you can't be bigger than Yuengling, and you can't be more than 25% owned by a macro-brewer. https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics-and-data/craft-brewer-definition/
Pretty much every craft brewery that puts product out in cans or bottles has adopted the logo.
So if you actually want to be certain you're not supporting AB InBev, etc., look for the Independent Craft logo.
More options
Context Copy link