main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
I love Hofstadter and have read that book, how does it relate? Btw, I'm not agreeing with the 4chan post wholeheartedly, just wanted to see how you all would roast it
There are a few books that will lead you to the same conclusion, but for me it was GEB. GEB really drove home for me that these systems aren't doing anything "new," they're just codified versions of our understanding of the world.
Truth is a higher concept than Provability. There are some things that a system, or even an ideology will never understand. Because you can describe that system / decision making process in numbers and words, that system will inherit the same problems our numbers and words have when describing our universe. However many words you make for black, white, and gray, the universe will always be capable of producing a color that is not described by one of those words.
There are things about this world and human nature that capitalism just can't capture. You know this, it's why you're here. Capitalism doesn't know there's finite amount of land, or that some people want to be marine biologists and others are scared of the ocean. Even the most subtle inconsistencies can have deep implications for the system. In 2006, we thought everyone who owned a house would keep making payments on it.
On top of that, a system can't reason about it's own correctness. If a given system is expected to describe everything, then it will necessarily contain internal inconsistencies. Two mutually exclusive things will appear as true to a given system:
The point is that we can only know about how these inconsistencies are handled after the economic system runs into them like a bullet train hitting the side of a mountain with a painted on tunnel. We see road runner go in the tunnel, and we think we can go in too. The ONLY reason our current economic system is complex is because the last crash had a complex reason. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and with them we lost any liquidity assurance on stock trades. Companies used survey people on what they wanted, people used to buy magazines to know what to want. Now Algo traders trade through FPGAs dedicated fiber lines to make sure that they see the trend first and capitalize on it first. They read in all of the tweets in real time, and look at how people feel about travelling, buying new homes, selling old laptops i.e. the consumer economy. They push ads to people's phones, place ads on the websites they visit, impersonate opinions
All of the deep dark algorithms this guy is talking about aren't doing anything fundamentally new because the inputs are fundamentally the same, and the system is still fundamentally flawed.
Thanks for spelling out your thoughts! Very cool connection
Yeah I make a lot of jumps in logic because you said you read the book, I'm sure it reads like drivel to anyone who hasn't
Nah, I think it's still comprehensible if you haven't read it, I read it quite a while ago