I watched a video about what would happen to the human species if there were only two people left on Earth. Basically humanity would be almost guarunteed to go extinct from incest induced genetic illness. But that made me wonder: what would it take to prevent that? For example, what if they were able to recreate or maintain advanced fertility technology? In other words, what if the mother and father froze their eggs and sperm and their children acted as surrogate parents for their own generic brothers and sisters long after their genetic parents had passed on? If death is no obstacle, what is the fastest and most efficient strategy for weeding out genetic illness? What would it take to recover a stable population?

The same people who claim there isn't a formula for love are also the ones who get the most upset when someone "does it wrong." For the record, I'm certain that there IS a formula for love.

Porg🤤

Who the hell is Galvin and why is he trying to screw with my steel?!

It's wrong to depend on someone or something that you hate. It's fine to tax rich people, but if you depend on their taxes, then you had better LOVE the taste of their boot. Otherwise you are going to have a bad time.

I genuinely believe that privacy is severely overrated and even dangerous. Anonymity provides protection all by itself; the purpose of privacy is shielding one's ideas from criticism. When a person's messages will never be seen by another living soul, it is far easier for that person to lose themselves. The worst cases of evil and degeneracy always occur under the shield of privacy. Think private Discord chats, private DMs, private phone conversations, etcetera. I am a huge freak and degenerate, but the idea of needing to have a private conversation or join a private community grosses me out. And it's bad infosec besides! The only way to have a private conversation is to talk to yourself inside your own head! Spilling confidential shit in someone's DMs weakens your infosec. Who cares how strong your protection against third parties is? The second party can already see everything clear as day!

Jesus christ, I just opened someone's profile in public and their banner was a loli blowjob animation. Loaded instantly too. Luckily nobody saw, but I'm taking suggestions if anybody knows a desktop android client that lets you disable banners. Disabling custom emojis would be great too! A Nostr client should not be able to render arbitrary media unless the user allows it!

I'm so silly. I set my browser to clear cookies every time it closes because I want to take measures to avoid tracking online, but then I go out of my way to avoid closing my last tab because I know it will clear my cookies. Ah well, my computer restarts often enough that it's not a huge issue. Dunno why partial cookie clearing isn't supported though.

I just had an argument. I love those. It was good practice articulating one of my beliefs. The belief is 100% objectively correct obviously since it's coming from me, but I wasn't articulating it very well. Getting to go through it with another person helped me to make my explanation more concrete I think. I got to borrow their brain and their perspective a bit, and they insisted on seeing the world in one particular way. I didn't have a preference, but by trying to get my beliefs to map their way into their worldview, it helped me to articulate myself... less like a robot let's say. You should have seen our conversation. They insisted on their particular worldview, and then when I pointed out the contradiction in their worldview, they decided the real problem was with the word they used. Lesser fools than myself would have absolutely flipped out and pissed their pants at spotting a mistake like that, but I am gracious. Why should I be satisfied with a shallow semantic victory? Are my skills so lacking that I cannot argue unless all the words for our conversation are exactly right? No, I got them to rephrase their statement with different verbage, and pointed out the contradiction there too! And then we I did it yet again! I can change semantics all day! I don't care what meanings you want to ascribe to your speech so long as you will stand by what you mean. Then when someone is most vulnerable, you exploit them by providing them with a lifeline. A verbage that works within their worldview, and and explanation that works within their verbage. And then you hope and pray that your belief can stand up to nasty surprises and you aren't just shoveling your dogshit onto the plate of someone with nothing better to eat. Sorry folks, changing a person's mind really is the least consequential part of a debate, no matter how conclusive it may feel.

The clearnet has rules that the darknet does not. The clearnet was established by the state, and governments have kept a firm grip on it ever since it's creation. The first amendemnt of the US constitution means that SOME portions of the clearnet will have some protection from interference, but even the US government imposes strict requirements on users of the clearnet. (And the US supreme court has long since waived any right to protection from those requirements.) There have been attempts to create censorship resistent platforms on the clearnet, (Nostr, Arweave, etc...) however, these platforms are not truly censorship resistent so much as they simply deny data hosting users the ability to perform their legal duties. If data hosting users are not able to fulfil their state imposed obligations, then I see no future except one where the protocol itself is banned from the clearnet.