forevergreenyon

5 ms·

1.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
ah, I was thinking in terms of UK laws when I wrote that... I suppose America is still chief imperial hegemon... imma go check myself in. bye
2.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
I wonder why are such sayings NOT persecuted as libelous; then again I think they have bigger fish to fry now (i.e. bigger crimes to punish i.e. scihub) but it makes sense that they should pursue such sayings because prestigious magazines a
3.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
are you british?
4.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
what worries me is that it'll realtime correct what I say into what I mean so perfectly that I won't be able to learn to do it on my own. Once our capacity to 'self-correct' (which is the essence of healing) becomes unus
5.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
so I can sign a contract to get rid of my right to say/write whatever I want but I cannot sign a contract to "sell myself back into slavery"???
6.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
future online tutorial: "How to 'write' your first "hello world!" program" step 1: find the "hello word!" app in the store step 2: buy it step 3: done! you're now 'programming' your dev
7.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores. I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the on
8.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
this is unnecessary, of course I know this. It's the reason Americans are now engaging in 'health tourism' a.k.a. going anywhere else in the world to get health care, specially when they know the specific procedure they need.
9.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
I'll venture a guess: For the human individual person, the interests (the goal) is to care for their health; but amazon is a corporation: for them the real goal is profit, not health. I'm saying that for the human the incentives s
10.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
call me old school, but it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated (recreated or reproduced by technology) while the 'creator' in practice whomever owns the 'licenses'
11.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
your mental health?
12.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
but at some point you must think more deeply about what illusions are in a grander sense... this is a jumping off point into considering your own mind as an illusion. your own self with its sense of personhood: i.e. yourself as the it-eleme
13.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
arguably, this is a good thing
14.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
this wouldn't be as funny if it weren't somewhat plausible... :/
15.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
time to make amendments! just like once upon a time it was constitutional to own slaves and now it isn't just think about the monetary cost-savings! (nevermind the human misery)
16.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
they're families, lineages, of people living off 'having power' (but really, authority and prestige) the time has come for them to remember what power is (without authority)
17.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
the future of interaction with computers is not programming languages but App stores. Want to print "hello world" in your terminal? gotta buy the app, or be 'subscribed' to your operating system. Gotta get ready to have
18.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too. but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more impo
19.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person My opinion is that "of course" they are; but that this also poses a challenge to our pre-corporate notion (conceptualization) of personhood. My chosen way to make sense
20.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
senators also use money, lots of it, way more than average. so my question is still valid
21.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
but where's the money in doing this? no money, no nothing.
22.
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
> 2. The federal government then later realized that free breakfast for poor kids was a good thing, and re-implemented it I have a more cynical worldview. they always knew that free breakfast was (indeed, is ) a good thing, but it was