I've had the Zuck Rogan podcast running in the background for a while -- I never do that and I always focus on what I'm listening to/watching, but his droning and 90% fluff wording were simply unbearable. I did catch one point when he recognizes that the prevalent approach to censorship ("content moderation") is complete and absolute no-tolerance, and that the result of that is necessarily that innocent people will be punished unjustly. That's exactly where every single instance of "content moderation" ends up, especially if it's enacted by legal imperative through a desire to be "compliant". I was brought up in the liberal mindset that a morally just justice system is one that lets ten guilty criminals go, but never punishes an innocent. Those who insist on "zero tolerance" approaches, must also recognize that they're pushing for injustice. There is no way around it.

To me, this is particularly important. Euphemisms are an unnoticed source of evil and their effects on discourse and eventually culture and politics can sometimes be massive. For instance, the euphemism "gender" for "sex", which causes all sorts of ridiculous and harmful controversies, like the one about women and transsexuals in sports. Or more specific to the US, the euphemism "ethnicity" for "race", which holds even less water than the previous one. View quoted note →

Apparently "people" are now pushing the narrative that we've peaked and are actually entering a bear market. It doesn't happen often that the interests of a mere plebs like me are so totally aligned with the market makers, the Corporate State actors and all the other corrupt agents that manipulate markets through mass psychological warfare on the population. Feels weird, but I'm past feeling any empathy for the sheeple. We will all have to get used to being part of the 0.1% at some point.

Poilievre is a question mark to me, for now, because I am naturally skeptical of anybody who calls himself a "conservative" and at the same time appeals to the free market economic discourse. Because I was there in the 80's and through the "Born Again" neocon paroxysm, I *know* that the "socially conservative, fiscally liberal" alliance is simply a mirror image of the "socially liberal, fiscally progressive" nightmare. But well, for now, I do agree that getting out of the socialist hole is necessary, and Poilievre at least does sound more coherent and consistent than many of his international counter parts. And, importantly, he does not sound like a Putin stooge.

@cyberpunk are you seeing all these videos of civilians getting organized to help, given the complete failure of the public system? Reminds me of Valencia, and is once again proof of what we already knew.

I'm tempted to make an X account simply for the purpose of putting in motion the Q-Anon level narrative that it's all a 4-D chess move from Elon, so once Canada is integrated into the US, he can legally run for POTUS and take over the world for real. (I don't even know if having obtained his Canadian passport when he was old, even if it's by blood, he counts as "natural born" Canadian and thus, natural born American -- but since when do facts matter?) View quoted note →

Isn't it clear by now that Maui was the testnet, and LA is the mainnet? Hoo boy, isn't BlackRock's real estate division making bank this year.

I just came across a YT video talking about "splitting runes" and whatnot, and curious as I am, I decided that maybe it was time to at least try to understand what the fuck is going on with all that. One minute in, the narrator is explaining that you split a "rune" (marketing babble for "UTXO", I conclude?) in several equal ones, remarking that "don't worry because all this is done in one transaction, so you don't have to PAY FOR EXTRA GAS" and that's all I need to know about this shit.

I think the detail that they're getting rid of fact-checkers "starting in the US" (so, not in the European Soviet Union), is quite significant and telling.