knightly the Sneptaur

Yeah, I had to go back to a 15-year-old journal article to find something with the multi-viewer light path diagrams I was looking for.

By getting fancy with the lenses, it’s possible to accomodate more than one viewer:

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~andrei/pubs/2010_ISMAR_Autostereo.pdf

A “fediverse” version of Youtube already got made and subsequently killed, PopcornTime.

The Bittorrent backbone already has plenty of media and can handle more bandwidth than we’d ever need to throw at it. Encrypted Onion Routing provides a degree of insurance against copyright cops, too. The only problems left to solve are automating the discovery of user-relevant content and avoiding the legal system long enough to write and popularize an open source app that puts it all together with a couch-friendly front-end.

The term is Gerontocracy:

It sure doesn’t seem to be working because it’s still costing more and more all the time. So they’re printing it faster than they’re taking it away.

Precisely.

The government can either fix this by raising taxes or by reducing the rate at which it allows the banking industry to print money, and neither option is politically viable for obvious reasons.

But that’s not surprising since the government doesn’t tax itself.

This comment leads me to believe that you have some fundamental misapprehension as to how money and/or governments work.

Governments create money so they can pay people to do things. If a government tried to tax its own payments then it’d just be paying itself with dollars that never had a chance to circulate through the economy. Even in concept, this is a waste of time and energy. The only real effect would be artificially inflated numbers for government expenses and tax receipts, the total amount of economic activity enabled by those dollars and the total amount of currency removed from circulation would be zero.

The purpose of taxation is to take excess currency out of the economy, and you just can’t do that by moving money from one government office to another.

The concept of money is theft, taxation is how the money-printing thugs keep it from inflating itself out of existence.

How many of your loved ones have they already murdered?

How many more will have to die before the owners of this country decide that a for-profit healthcare system isn’t worth the threat those profits generate?

The death toll of the health insurance industry currently stands at like 68,000/year. Health, life, and medical insurance companies combined employ about 900,000 people. We could end the insurance industry overnight and the lives saved would outnumber the jobs lost in like 13 years.

I’m disappointed that nobody’s mentioned Pony Island yet.

90% of folks can’t be trained to kill.

Half of the remainder would rather frag their own commanding officers than some poor foreign kid.

Inseperability. Codependence. A lack of notable distinction.

Y’know, like how our “two” major parties are the opposite faces of the same capitalist coin.

What does that have to do with anything?

It disproves your BS.

He’s a member of the right-wing monoparty, isn’t he?

He was an independent, switching his allegiance to the monoparty didn’t help him win any federal elections.

You can’t be an independent if there are no parties to be independent from.

You seem to have very suddenly switched from accepting the reality of the American monoparty to suggesting that no parties exist at all. Are you sure you’re arguing in good faith?

Why is Bernie Sanders such an ultra-capitalist far-right Republican?

He isn’t, that’s why he’s not president right now.

I would like an explanation for this because I didn’t realize he was, but your own logic says he is.

You’ve never discussed my logic, you jumped straight from “American political parties only pretend to be separate entities” to “America’s most famous center-left social democrat is actually a right-wing ultraconservative” as if making the latter claim would disprove the former.

There’s a reason why the Democrat superdelegates refused to nominate the most popular American politician in 2015.

What goalposts?

America has a capitalist monoparty that only pretends to be two parties so as to maintain the illusion of choice.

But you have to admit that RBG didn’t step down during Obama’s term, that they let Republicans keep Merrick Garland out of the SC and gave them that seat, that they didn’t put Roe v. Wade into law during any of the chances they had to do so.

Admit that they were excited about Cheney and Bush’s kids giving an endorsement and never even bothered putting Sanders on stage at a campaign rally.

Admit that their presidential candidate underperformed the abortion-legalizing state ballot measures in every state that had one.

If we’re talking about a distinction without a difference then we can admit that America is a one-party state that only pretends to be a two-party system.

That was already the case, remember when Harris was excited to get Republican endorsements and promised to put one on her cabinet?

This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.

This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.

Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.

Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?

Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.

Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.

All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.

Reality isn’t even objective, relativity is the rule.

Also, we can’t even impose a religion’s brand of morality on its own priests, why would you pretend that doing so globally would even be possible?

I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.

You are describing a “Bimodal Distribution”, where most but not all fall into one of two categories.

If it were a binary system, there would be no exceptions.

Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females.

In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.

Intersex mammals aren’t “unhealthy”, they’re simply different.

This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.

That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.

Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?

If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.