xianc78 @xianc78@gameliberty.club

ocaml unsafe statements are pretty disciplined compared to what ended up happening later

c#/rust: we might need to do this so throw in the unsafe block that completely sends everything to hell
ocaml: we might need to do this so throw in a very specific keyword that allows exactly one type of bad behavior locally
c/nim: safety is an illusion take your life in to your own hands

@graf

I'm convinced the human race is suffering from mental retardation.

During the trial of Ian Freeman under the pretense of selling cryptocurrency without a license and somehow being a scammer despite not knowing of some small percentage of customers being directed on behalf of actual 3rd parties scamming people the prosecutor used the argument for why he was somehow responsible by saying "if not for" Ian's actions the victims would not have been scammed. This was an ingenuous, but misleading argument, and utterly illogical.

Well, today I'm reading a post from someone about Flocks cameras and a similar premises that if not for flocks cameras this women would not have been wrongly pulled over twice at gun point by police.

While that may be true the problem was not the cameras here. It was with the data entered into the system identifying her vehicle as being driven by a murder suspect. There are sound arguments for banning flock, but here it requires a more nuanced argument.

It's very similar to the prosecutor's argument with Ian Freeman in the crypto6 case. If Ian hadn't sold the cryptocurrency to the victims who were being scammed by third parties the victims couldn't have lost $$$. Ian didn't know about the scams, didn't partake in the scams, and took reasonable efforts to mitigate the risks under the law (even though the law didn't require it in this instance), but those mitigations were based on a flawed idea in law that this can be mitigated. Individuals are being held to a higher standard than the banks that were used to transfer money by the victims to Ian. Ian never transmitted value on behalf of anyone, only the banks did that.

"This couldn't have happened without Flock's involvement, and it demonstrates the risk to the public."

@catmanmancat Yep. Gun owners are targets.

Bob Ferguson of WA state, spent millions trying to hem up gun owners going to Oregon and Idaho who were possibly buying high capacity magazines after "his" law passed. Millions spend on WA undercover agents working in border states. Didn't catch shit. Now with new laws, they know who owns guns and Flock helps them track you, even in the border states. Gun ranges and gun stores are heavily covered by flocks.

As much as I want something like this I can’t bring myself to make a buy. I’m still paying for it with my Neo Geo AES+ Ultimate edition preorder awhile back. Plus I’m sure I’d just let it sit and collect dust. 😢 #gamer #gaming #videogames #vidyagames #retrogaming

I wonder if kids these days know about slenderman. I still see Jeff the killer and smiledog getting brought up every now and then but slenderman's legacy seems to be limited to Minecraft's enderman.

Codeberg uses Anubis, despite Anubis being against two Codeberg TOS policies:

1. Uses AI generated code
2. Uses cryptocurrency technology (proof of work)

What news sources do you actually trust in 2026?
Enough that you take reporting on face value rather than constantly extrapolating details you know are left out when inconvenient.

@Merc @PurpCat
Most things that happen in gaming now are downstream of Twitch/streamer culture, so the way games are perceived and "discussed" in comments are their reputation among normalfags. You've heard of coworkers music? It's like coworker gaming.

The scale of it staggers me when I take time to think, honestly. There are entire demographics of people who do nothing but watch other people play games for most of their time. It doesn't occur to them they can actually play games themselves, or look for games, or do anything with personal agency.

Every bill that builds a checkpoint says it is not building a checkpoint.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-surveillance/senate-bill-would-put-age-checks-in-every-us-operating-system

#TheFreeThoughtProject

Someone claimed "There is no special "Marxist" definition of capitalism"

No, there absolutely is a separate definition of capitalism for communists.

"Capitalism is when bad thing", or more accurately, "Capitalism is the capitalist economic system, every system surrounding it, and any negative consequences of those systems"

See, the normal definition is where capital is primarily owned and controlled by the private sector, free competition, and open markets, rather than the government. In it, people are free to sell their labor for wages to whoever they decide to rather than being directed by central planners, and prices are set by markets and negotiation, not by the state. But most people don't see that as a major problem -- When someone hires someone to do their lawn, or buys groceries with money they earned, or when they can save up for something they want, or if they save money and take a risk starting a new business or building a new invention hoping to make it big, that's considered at worst neutral. It's important to understand that pure capitalism really doesn't exist anywhere, so everywhere is a spectrum -- The United States is more capitalist than the Soviet Union was, but is considerably less capitalist than it was in the late 1800s when the state made up a single digit percentage of GDP.

Some examples of things that aren't inherently capitalist which commies like to blame on capitalism:

-State corruption
-Regulatory capture
-Corporate welfare and bailouts
-State-created monopolies
-Inflation caused by central banks
-Police brutality and prison abuse
-War and imperialism
-Human Greed
-Hierarchy
-Scarcity
-Pollution (Ask Kazakhstan how ecologically friendly the Soviet Union was to their region)
-Cronyism
-Bureaucratic alienation
-Consumer stupidity or status competition
-Poor conditions for the common man caused by state policy
-Unequal political power

Most of these things are either inherent to the nature of reality, or human nature, or the product of the state, not inherent to capitalism, not unique to capitalism, or not generated by capitalism alone. Therefore, eliminating capitalism will never fully eliminate these things. Things like human nature or the laws of conservation of mass or energy or finite linear time will always exist driving scarcity. A group of chickens with no concept of trade whatsoever will establish hierarchies and use violence to that end. Most of human history had limited markets and very powerful states that still had greed, pollution, cronyism, and corruption.

In a sense, it's like the counterpoint to the old phrase "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" -- if back then you stuck your neck out and chose something other than IBM, you'd be blamed for every problem that occurred because you didn't choose IBM, even if those problems weren't unique to the system you chose and perhaps would have existed if you chose IBM anyway. In the same way, under capitalism, every problem ends up blamed on capitalism, even things that would exist under virtually any other system because of human nature and the laws of physics.

That broader definition has two effects. First, it allows problems rooted in scarcity, human nature, state power, political corruption and large-scale organization to be attributed to capitalism merely because they occur within a capitalist society. Second, it allows the abolition of capitalism to be presented as a cure for the entire bundle. If "capitalism" is defined broadly enough to include nearly every harmful feature of modern life, then eliminating it would indeed sound utopian. But eliminating private ownership, open markets and negotiated exchange would not eliminate scarcity, ambition, hierarchy, corruption, coercion or political favoritism. It would merely change the institutions through which those problems appear.

I was thinking about Ivan the Terrible. His reign was not capitalist, but he had entire cities of his own people sacked. Why? Because he was terrified of losing power, or more accurately, of being assassinated by people. Such people won't go away under a socialist government, they'll be given more power under socialism than under a more laisse faire government under capitalism. Nominally communist countries right now conduct purges in power games where individuals or groups of individuals are murdered to help the powerful get more powerful. Having another group of elites in the market players won't change that. Ironically, having competition between the groups of elites may (but also may not -- sometimes the common man is caught in the crossfire, or is divvied up as a resource to be consumed, regardless of who those elites are)

Related to my soon to be published next book, it is a modernist conception that you can describe the entire world through exactly one viewpoint that can place everything into one system. We do need the government, and we do need God, and we do need markets, and we do need families, and we do need communities, and we do need private societies, and probably a lot more things. Only in a world where many things can exist and bump against each other can the individual hope to have some liberty to pursue happiness.