Why is that ?

Sunday, 03 July, Year 8 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Competitive play in any online game that includes guilds, raids, what have you - in a word, cooperative play - always reduces to a matter of organisation. It's never a matter of skill. It's always a matter of "getting people to be active", running a voice server, red tape and the general annoyance of a regular job. In point of fact, the difference between the cubical job and the cubical game is exactly nil. Whether you're watching spreadsheets in space or watching spreadsheets in space, you're still watching spreadsheets in space.

Why is that ?

Obviously, game "designers" carry a part of the guilt. They're people living in office farms "designing" "games" for people living in office farms, under the supervision of people supervising people living in office farms. The end result will reproduce those mechanics familiar to the office farmed chicken, necessarily. This is a sad fact, and a much more important, much more valid point of concern than boob plate armor or whatever non-topic the irrelevant gaggle of mayogendered Michael Moore wanna-bes are gargling this season. Stop training the kids to be office drones, yo! Games are supposed to celebrate the special unique excellence of those few that are especially excellent! Not of everyone! Not everybody can reach max level, not everybody should ever see or touch the elite content. Most people should never see the final cutscene on their own, because most people should not be capable of that achievement, because the game should cater to the elite human not to the consumer market. For crying out loud already!

But that part is just a part, and it's not even the larger part. Think for a moment, what happens once a game comes out ? Players try out things, discover the optimal gameplay, and then everyone's forced to follow that, at which point the game's pretty much dead, which is to say all the lamers move in en masse to carebear the shit out of their virtual spreadsheets (in space!) and generally be anti-achieving, obnoxious bores to the power of over nine thousand.

Why is that ?

Players can't shut up about things. The second thing a good player does after discovering a gameplay improvement is - post on a forum. The first thing is cream his pants. He's literally sitting there in soiled underwear explaining to everyone capable of clucking on a forum topic how to do things better. The obvious solution to this of course is Eulora, which is to say designing in such a manner that after a thousand of hours of gameplay, the player hasn't actually understood more of the internal mechanics of the game than when he started.

Nevertheless, why is that a problem in the first place ?

It should be obvious to a pubescent human that there's two fonts of power in this world, which is to say, bureaucracy and knowledge (in reverse order). The staff and the ring, if you prefer Medieval terminology cca 1200. And it should be just as obvious to just as pubescent a human that if you fetter one, you necessarily, necessarily boost the other. Power is a zero sum game, if you castrate the mages you thereby empower the office drones, what's so hard to grasp here ? If "information wants to be free" then thereby and necessarily your ass wants to be run by a social worker sent by Mommy-government to change your diapers and adjust your Welbutrin drip. This is a surprise ?

Yet people engage in a completely insane sort of knowledge sharing, blind and uncaring, broadcast randomly to all comers in such a decerebrated manner utterly reminescent of fish spawning that even the notion of value of knowledge dissolves under the volume of the outpour.

Consumers of knowledge are so few and far between that they expect the emitters to package their knowledge in peculiar manners. And the emitters oblige! They use simpler words and emasculate their work product, like a sort of crazed Shakespeare that bowdlerized himself while living! This nonsense is particularly evident from the vantage of Trilema - every now and againi one of these idiots self-importantly announces to the world his inability to comprehend some article or other, with all the firebrand stemming from a firm conviction that this isn't his fault! He needn't be ashamed that he failed to comprehend written text, oh, no. The text, mind you, the god damned text should have been different. I doubt I've heard anything more ridiculous in my entire life.

Consumers of knowledge are so few and far between that they actually expect a prize for having followed some less-than-absolutely-plain bit, five minutes' worth at best. They want a food pellet, like they used to get in school, they've put five minutes' mental effort in they should get at the very least a new car for this!

Why is that ?

Personally, I blame open source. I think it was a terrible, terrible idea. It is directly and inextricably to blame for the disaster perceived today, where ambitious young lads of either gender prefer murky political work, in the form of indolent gossip and community organizing to actual engineering work. To reading code.

It's directly obvious, kids, like all living things, want food. Papica. They don't want work and they sure as fuck don't want labour. What's the path to easiest food with least labour ? Certainly and surely as fuck not knowledge. That's free, because some idiots (which also happened to be communists - go fig!) decided one day it'd be a good idea to blast the entire world with all their brains' content, whether that world as much as asked for it or not! So then what's left ?

If knowledge is free then knowing is not worth doing, which is how there's absolutely no end of hollow craniums posturing about their "background and experience in management experience spawns many years". A five year old monkey throwing darts at a box full of rabbits intended for dermatologic testing would have produced a more useful, better designed, safer pile of crap than Ethereum. But that's not their concern, their concern is to posture, to call inept nonsense that wouldn't on its own merits earn the name of "ximLbnqNpSqiuPUhgHPQ" by lofty if unearned monikers like "The Dao" and generally carry on in that disgraceful manner.

There's fifty of these idiots at the lowest count, all crowded around USG.MIT's utterly ridiculed attempt to matter in the world today. Fifty. At least. None of them has the first inkling of a clue of the subject matter ; each of them has already spent imaginary adolescent fortunes fifty times, and come up with clever names. You know, for "branding". They've all contributed, and their contribution has cost their [metaphorical] parents north of 300 million to date. A goat would have been a preferable replacement for the lot, for what damage can a goat do ? It'll eat ten thousand dollars' worth of hay its entire life, at the most, which is a whole lot the fuck cheaper than a quarter to half a billion.

All you can tell about everyone involved in Tor is that hey, weren't these the idiots that tried to accuse the founder of rape ? All you can tell about "linux contributors" is that... hey, they're a bunch of idiots that try to accuse Linus of rape. All these schmucks do every day is feminine bullshit and the social media version of office politics.

Why is that ?

Well doh, what would you have them do ? There's absolutely no need to read code because, read my lips, anyone could do that. Why would they do it if anyone could do it ? Let anyone do it then, they're busy. They're busy with more important stuff. Hey, have you heard what MP said about niggers ?!?!?!

Open source ? You lose. But why is that ?

And no, I don't mean "why is it that open source === you lose", I mean why is open source even a thing in the first place ? Well... as it happens the answer is simple, and also obvious, and therefore completely unintuitive to the sort of dumbass that tends to fall for this sort of error.

Here's the dumbass reasoning :

  1. Every other item I encounter is an animal of the same species, age, and gender as I.ii
  2. The disjunction between the contents of my head and the reunion of the contents of all the other heads is X
  3. The value of X for me is Y

  4. Ergo, should X be made available to the whole world, the whole world would be richer by Y * headcount.

For all you know 1 may even be correct. It doesn't happen to be correct, but its correctness is entirely irrelevant to the point. For all you know 2 may also be correct. There's no certainty that it would be, which is how we end up blessed with all the genre fiction crap and assorted self-important fanfic ; nevertheless for the sake of discussing this example let's allow it. 3 is probably more or less in range, which is to say whatever the error, we could conceive of a view zoomed out enough to tolerate it.

Nevertheless, 4 doesn't follow. 4 doesn't follow at all. It is the exact typical error of the infantile mind. You know why children under ~5 years of age fall so much ? It's because they conceptualize the world as a static construction. Everything it sees is, to the infantile mind, as unmovable as scenery in a side scroller. Captain Comic isn't going to push a ledge out of the way. Similarly, the toddler doesn't expect any dynamic equilibrium in his environment, and he will step on a precariously balanced chair with the ease he'd step on granite bedrock. He sees it there, so it is there, so it will support him. Or a tank, really, or anything else. That's the other thing, they keep building these towers that fall down because who could have predicted you can't balance a fridge on a pickled olive ? They're just as non-transparent, what magic is this!

The infantile mind doesn't go away. It just withdraws. The knowledgeable derp is still very much a derp, he's not become a man through spending his youth reading and thinking about things. On the contrary, he's stayed a child. He doesn't, on account of the painful bumps nature provides, expect mechanics to work like in a picture - but this doesn't impede him from expecting economics, for instance, to still work this way. Because nature doesn't provide any bumps he can recognize on that scale, and so there's nothing to fix his toddler stupid. Which is the mechanism through which "intelligent" people in the sense of, useful, knowledgeable monkeys, end up with insanely infantile views of large topics, such as socialism. Heck, Louis Armstrong believed dietarianism to be the solution to all ills. It's in that vein.

But in reality, in actual, dynamic, real reality, 4 doesn't even come close to working, and for many reasons. Chief among them - that if the world's knowledge is freely available, the only remaining hierarchy provider will be bureaucracy. No, social hierarchy doesn't go away. Just like how beheading the king doesn't mean monarchy goes away. It just moves on down to an even shittier form. You don't want social hierarchy based on knowledge, because you're at the mental age of four and prefer to pretend equality with everyone instead of humiliating some, oppressing some, respecting others and so on ? Fine! You'll get social hierarchy on the basis of invidious womanly bullshit. Happy nao ?

tl;dr Forget free / open source. It's bad for the environment and worse for you. Information doesn't want to be free - useless bureaucrats want you to make it free so they get a chance to pretend to power.

  1. Like, every five minutes, especially when something happens. Somehow the derp fails to see the relationship between me and events in a proper causative mold, preferring instead the fantasy where events "just happen", and I, just like him, innocently bystand. Because hey, socialism, that's how it works, all people are equal in their irrelevancy and we all equally own the Sun! Then inexplicably those events keep driving them to Trilema articles and what is this! []
  2. Don't laugh, this is exactly how goats think. To a goat's mind, the caretaker is a goat of about the same age, and of the same gender. Because goats are dumb.

    Not quite as dumb as computer programmers, but still, on the scale of intelligence, quite well subhuman. []

Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

35 Responses

  1. Or, in other words, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow; too bad most eyeballs are utterly, utterly useless" (amended by yours truly).

    To put things in perspective: even if Linus doesn't get accused of rape in the next few decades, he'll still naturally expire at some point, and then Linux as we know it will also cease to be.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    More like,

    Each bug has a proper depth ; to which add a social depth.
    Given enough eyeballs the social depth tends logarithmically to epsilon ;
    Too bad that the seriousness of eyeballing is itself a function of the eyeball count, in the fourth power.

    So, to model this properly,

    • if Eyeballing Capacity (EC) is an individual ability, which distributes on the gauss curve (and see the most relevant genetics of intelligence article) ;
    • whereas Eyeballing Seriousness (ES) is a contextual (of individual user and individual bug) measure, describing the intensity of the application of the Eyeballing Power ;
    • whereas n is the count of individuals associated with a project to any degree
    • and finally B is a matrix of vectorial depths of bugs, consisting of the "proper" part and of the "fitted" part, in the sense that for incomprehensible reasons some peculiar bugs are magically invisible to some peculiar eyeballs irrespective of ES and EC of the eyeball in question (armor piercing bugs!)

    Then therefore,

    • the sum(Bp) is unaffected by n ;
    • whereas sum(Bf) -> 0 when n -> inf by a rule fitted to log(n);
    • whereas ES -> 0 when n->inf by a rule fitted to n4 (yeah, like in the Stefan-Boltzmann law exactly!).

    And it so follows that adding n to a project exposes that class of B with the property that Bp < epsilon and Bf > epsilon, but leaves in place that class of B which doesn't fit this formula ; and, infinitely worse : the societal habit of attempting to resolve problems by n increase drives the social expectation that only problems with a B distribution fitting the formula are resolvable (in the first step) and even properly problems (in the next steps) ; whereas the problems with B distributions not fitting the formula are, you know, for the martians.

    This cleavage is what drives the incredible fragility of the n-societies (also known as slave empires in tmsr parlance) : becoming incapable of even approaching a class of problems is the outward equivalent of losing the capacity for homeostasis, in all times and places a ready synonym for death.

  3. Can we have examples of the B types plox ty.

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 3 July 2016


    High Bp, low Bf type bugs are, for instance, all those games where rules are "easy to learn but hard to master", or, as a simpler proxy, all those games where the kiebitz (Rotwelsch) is dimly regarded. Discussion with your peers is unlikely to make you a better chess player ; studying historical games is a much better approach.

    The absence of cold fusion, provided it is in fact a bug not a future, is another fine example, as is most science. Whence "science is not national - but universal", the idea being that one gains nothing towards his scientific career by being part of a larger or smaller language group, whether the peers he could discuss with are one million or one billion does not significantly improve his changes to crack whatever problem currently on the table. (There is of course some improvement due to the fact that larger populations also tend to have larger people on the far end of the ability spectrum.)

    Meanwhile a fine example of the low Bp, high Bf bug is the "child safe" medicine cap, lighter etcetera. These are in fact a class of deliberate bugs, constructed by a civilisation of the lost not for the direct purpose they declare (keep kids safe!!1) but for the lateral purpose that it reinforces the type of social contract they are built upon ("I would totally have starved without reddit, because they explained to me how to open a can").

    Very much in this vein, the fact that you "just don't" directly point at a black person and go "yo nigger, me Jane!" is entirely of the same substance. Why, pray tell, "you can't do that" ?

    And while we're on it, how exactly is it that misrepresenting manhood in fact as a weirdo in a loincloth and in theory as a thing to be "tamed" by Woman (see "Anna and the King" for the upclass version of this same idiocy) is perfectly fine, but representing woman as a feverish selfish little clod of neuroticisms, ailments and grievances endlessly if loudly complaining that the world will not devote itself to making her happy is not fine ? Where, pray tell, have you learned to make this difference, and how did you learn it ? They're both equally thick satyre of dubious entertainment value, how come you distinguish ?

    No sane person could intuit, or in a deductive manner obtain, the "correct" which is to say arbitrarily selected social convention currently fashionable. Nevertheless, "everyone" knows, and so you needn't think for yourself : just ask an authority!

    Which is the problem here : the slave empire only knows how to solve one subclass of bugs, that's not even particularly interesting. In its quest to maintain relevancy long after the throw-away-by date, they attempt to fill the world with "child safe" caps and hallucinated linguistic problems surrounding random words and then belabour to convince everyone to fixate upon this nonsense exclusively.

    Obviously, your participation in the scheme feeds the demonic construct at the cost of your own life.

  5. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    yes, but no

    without open source there can be no trustable crypto software

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    Of course there can : theory, practice, another practice. Look into La Serenissima, there's a lot you don't know and can't intuit about these things.

  7. Burbick Obobo`s avatar
    Burbick Obobo 
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    @Anonimescu If you're thinking trustable means reddit trusts it, then it doesn't matter. Look at ethereum, they think this shit is trustable. And trust it, with all their accumulated fifty dollars worth of reddit notes.

    Why should rando be able to even talk about crypto software, at all? None of his business. Do you print anatomy books for display in the pig sty? The pig's job is to eat and get fat, not to groh about sausage and butchery.

  8. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    Nice nick.

  9. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Sunday, 3 July 2016

    @ Obobo nice strawman

    trustable here means "can be independently verified"

    at the very least, you'd be a fool to use a crypto library that you have not compiled yourself, from signed source.

    but wait, you say, couldn't you buy code in source form, and use that?

    no, because, for example, I cannot easily verify that others are using THE EXACT SAME CODE

    which means my anonimity is potentially compromised by maliciously induced idiosincrasies in the code I paid for, which could be used to fingerprint said code's functioning and output

  10. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    The only strawman here is your equating "open source" (ie, anyone can see) with "things you compile from source". Also, it's not your job nor your problem to verify what others are doing. Nor, for that matter, is the "open source or else pay for crap" anything but a red herring. Ideally, redditard can not access code for all the money in the world ; whereas non-redditard sees it freely. Such is the brave new world under construction.

  11. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    So open source, but only within a certain clique...

    We all need the redditards (and everyone else) to hide amongst. It is my problem to not use a barium-pilled implementation. It can only be solved by using an open source implementation. It is my job to verify that the implementation is not in any way bugged, and that job is made easier, not harder, the more others are using it.

    Enlightened self interest, what.

  12. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > We all need the redditards

    This is not even wrong. For one thing, there's no "we". At all. For the other, no, nobody needs the redditards. In point of fact, nobody but the niggers can even use the redditards in any way and to any degree.

  13. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    Oh I meant "we" solely as in "crypto users".

    We all have strong crypto, or no-one does.

  14. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    How's this follow ?

  15. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    To take a simple example: you sometimes want to do business with people whom you don't trust enough to share your highly modified rot13 implementation with. You would like them to nevertheless use a reasonably secure implementation. What do?

    In an open source world, the answer is simply: nothing, because everyone is using the latest stable OpenRot13 anyway.

    Another: you find a number of phucked public keys. Given that (as you can easily verify) the open-source implementation everyone uses does not, in fact, ever produce such keys, you can safely assume foul play.

  16. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    I don't as much as want to talk privately to people I don't know. What business ? Nothin' doin'.

    The idea that you'd engage in business with unknown entities is so broken as to denote you entirely misrepresent the concepts involved to the point of being disqualified from even broaching the topic altogether.

    Moreover, there is no such thing as "an open world". The thing you imagine when you say those words has a lot more to do with the things you imagine when you perceive the symbols constructing a "brand identity"* than with any kind of rational process.

    In a star topology, which is what actually happens whenever people like you run around herping about "open society", readily visible underneath if you as much as scratch a little at the thin skin of pretense, everyone is "using the latest" piece of shared delusion. You know, Salem style, everyone's using the latest "antiwitch cream". You can rub it on self, or on the window sill, or on the wife's snatch.

    Snakeoil, all of it, from "tor" to "openssh" to what have you. Constructed, a certain way, deliberately, for a very obvious purpose. Obvious because it is infantile, and obvious in the manner infantile purpose is obvious to adults ; that manner incomprehensible to children.

    Think, for a second : nobody who ever used "the latest version" of anything ever in the entire history of computing was safe. Not once, hasn't happened yet. How exactly do you contort your mind to disregard this trival fact, so as to keep on looking where the hand points, instead of at the god damned sleeve ?

    * To quote a very apt Seinfeld comment,

    The bad thing about television is that everybody you see on television is doing something better than what you're doing. Did you ever see anybody on TV like just sliding off the front of the sofa with potato chip crumbs on their face? Some people have a little too much fun on television: the soda commercial people - where do they summon this enthusiasm? Have you seen them? "We have soda, we have soda, we have soda", jumping, laughing, flying through the air - it's a can of soda. Have you ever been standing there and you're watching TV and you're drinking the exact same product that they're advertising right there on TV, and it's like, you know, they're spiking volleyballs, jetskiing, girls in bikinis and I'm standing there - "Maybe I'm putting too much ice in mine."

  17. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > The idea that you'd engage in business with unknown entities is so broken
    Better sell all your Bitcoin then. Enjoy the comfort and safety of fiat banking, where there are never anonymous counterparties. If you have a gold nugget and I have a barrel of oil, what is there to discuss or know about each other? We make a trade or we don't.

    > an "open world"
    Holy recurring strawmen Batman! I said "open source world" and meant "world where open source crypto exists". Nothing more, nothing less, certainly nothing else.

    > snakeoil
    your WOT-thingy is built on GPG keys afaict. is that snake oil as well? if so why are you using it? if not... well.

    > openssh
    I know all about the backdoors in openssh. I know nothing about the holes in your private ssh implementation that you're not showing me sources of. All I know is there are some. openssh bugs - known unknown. mirceapopescussh bugs - unknowable unknown. Which lib do I trust more? The one I can verify.

  18. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > Better sell all your Bitcoin then.

    How did you figure this follows ?

    > Nothing more, nothing less, certainly nothing else.

    And no different from "a world where spherical cubes exist". Hurr.

    > I know all about the backdoors in openssh.

    No, you don't.

    > All I know is there are some.

    No, you don't.

    > The one I can verify.

    Except you can't. Stop confusing "i could" with "i can", they are not the same, and in fact not even related. This confusion is the mind eater.

  19. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > How did you figure this follows ?
    If your friend A was in control of bitcoin address X yesterday when you sent him some coin via a low-fee transaction, it does not follow that the NSA is not in control of X today, when the miners deign to finally validate your transaction. You are not dealing with a person, you're just driving some software that is talking to other software.
    For that matter, many unknowns are involved in processing said transaction. You don't personally know all the people who control the Chinese mining cartel, yet you are in a very real sense doing business with them every time you use Bitcoin.

    > a world where spherical cubes exist
    we do live in a world where open source crypto exists though

    > confusing "i could" with "i can".
    I actually can though. And should I find a bug, I will push a patch to the "official" maintainers, because it's in my best interest to keep raising the cost of successful exploitation.

  20. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > that the NSA is not in control of X today

    And why do you imagine I'd care ? (Hint : Cauze si scopuri is probably the missing puzzle piece for you here.)

    > we do live in a world where open source crypto exists though

    In the exact same sense we live in a world where spherical cubes exist, and where "America never ceased being great", and Hilary's gonna win, and the polls were right and on and on. I don't doubt you live in that alt-world whenever you close your eyes ; the only snag is, I don't particularly care to close mine ; and the dog is right here.

    > I actually can though. And should I find a bug

    Here's a quick primer on magic as opposed to science : magic actually works on this paradigm where you misspell "could" as "can" and therefore you actually can where afore you perhaps could.

    The "should I" is a dead giveaway - either you actually found all the bugs and have proof of completeness, in which case it's a can" ; or else you haven't, in which case it's, at best, a could.

    Grammar is important, because it works as a co-processor for stupid people : they get to benefit from a little bit of the accumulated intelligence of people that spoke that language before them. Respect it above your mother, it merits.

  21. Anonimescu`s avatar
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > why do you imagine I'd care
    because of your assertion that you don't do business with unknowns. can't have your cake and eat it too. there is no identification baked into bitcoin. you have the key, you have the money. when you use bitcoin, you do business with unknowns. by your own reasoning, you should stop.

    > proof
    color me unimpressed. you don't have proof of completeness (for all that is worth, which is not much because you may very well completely and correctly implement a spec that is itself wrong for the purpose) for any piece of software you have used today.

  22. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    I guess this thing ran about as long as it had steam to.

  23. Burbick Obobo`s avatar
    Burbick Obobo 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    > And should I find a bug, I will

    You will feast on fat cock, Prikoke, while Florian Weimer burns that hole and urges everyone to upgrade to the replacement version.

  24. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 4 July 2016

    Someone should absolutely translate that thing.

  25. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 23 March 2021

    Holy shit that model at #2 is powerful and accurate.

    Go me. It's such a pleasure reading my own old shit...

  26. Actually, Eyeballing Capacity sounds like the perfect Euloran skill! And the whole model kind of screams to be made into a board game with some serious eyeballing graphics, heh.

    Pingbacku' insa e cel mai tare, ca fix asa si este - evilii e curvei!

  27. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 24 March 2021

    Lol curve-i evilii! Macar stim o treaba, machine learning si alea.

  1. [...] Slave empire (2015ish), also spelled USG. See the discussion of n-societies. [...]

  2. [...] actually be powerful. This is the Empire's stake in the game of mediocre self delusion : it gets its agenda pushed a little, which is why you read this nonsense on Conde Nast's [...]

  3. [...] no consideration wasted here on the marionettish "British female" of ridiculous wank in the vein of Anna and the King. Instead, in the confrontation between British and Malai woman, the indigenous element stands its [...]

  4. [...] is to say, in a language spoken by more than goats, 18.5 centuries passed since jesus undertook overthrowingi the old world, pagan civilisation, [...]

  5. [...] "why ?" thread of gadflies led (like they do) to this article (through the unsurprising intermediary of "I guess I'll just pm her"). Yet... why [...]

  6. [...] pushed trinque to expand on a point and not redeploy the suppression machine now. He found an article that someone had been looking for, discussing the toddler's notion of a static world and surprise [...]

  7. [...] that handing it over is handing it over, somehow, and moreover they don't seem to want to. It's the herd animal outlook at work, as ever: people have a strong drive to believe that computers are basically a sort of [...]

  8. [...] really, have any bearing. He's not being assaulted by anything such, so therefore you'd better be the same exact kinda goat. What capitalism ? What supply meets demand ? What curvei ?! That's evilii! Evil, evil, evil, all [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.