As I said elsewhere: that’s no longer a dark forest. The moment one civilisation speaks up, they all know they’re not alone. Then they’re in a different universe, one where there’s no longer a paradox because they’ve found each other.
I remember a writing prompt that talked about how we’re broadcasting all our TV and radio for years then we get a reply that says, “Be quiet, they will hear you.”
Oh okay, so this insular civ broke radio silence to transmit something that will definitely be a big deal and recorded in our news and science papers in extreme detail, and they’re not worried that when the threat arrives they will trace that signal back to them?
I’ve never heard a good explanation for how the dark forest develops and stays stable for any length of time.
Right but that’s fragile. All it takes is one group to break the ice and suddenly they’re all talking.
Also, is the theory that we could live in a dark forest because every single species is insular enough to be afraid of such a threat? That means they all have to believe in the threat and yet also no species is aggressive enough to become the threat. But none of them thinks, “Wait, either we’re alone or everyone is hiding. If everyone is hiding, then the threat can’t exist, so we may as well say something.”
Again, it’s fragile. I find it completely unconvincing.
The Prime Directive concept is way more believable to me, as is the idea that life is just sparse.
Right but then that relies on not existing in a dark forest. That is, you can detect signs of alien life, but then those signs tell you horrible things.
The situation we have is that we see nothing.
I guess the answer is that some civilisations reach a point where they broadcast themselves and get destroyed, whilst other civilisations reach a point where they receive those broadcasts and don’t reply before hearing the other civilisation get destroyed. So somehow they were listening at the exact right moment to discover that others are getting killed without responding, and that happened enough times that there is a whole universe full of quiet civilisations.
I still don’t see the A to B. I cannot imagine any species curious enough to detect alien life and insular enough to not respond. If we got those signs we would reply immediately, almost definitely.
This is one answer to the fermi paradox that makes no sense to me. If we did live in a dark forest universe where everyone was hiding from some oppressive existential threat, how would any of the civilisations learn about it?
They would need to be in contact with one another to discover that other civilisations were being wiped out, but for that to happen, the wiping out civilisation would have to be able to find them as well. If they destroyed civ A, they’d definitely be able to find references to civ B in their ruins, somewhere. I see no mechanism by which a civilisation could observe this enemy in action without being detected.
Unless someone has come up with an answer to this issue, in which case I’d like to see it.
Also, if you can detect them, just telling them that you’ve detected them should change their strategy, because if a basic civilsation like ours can do it then they’re not actually that safe by hiding. The dark forest seems like a really fragile arrangement.
Idk who downvoted you, I guess people who think the problem with Musk is that he’s cringy or like a cartoon supervillain. No, all billionaires are evil. If you think Gates is a good guy that’s because you don’t understand what it takes to be a billionaire, what he does with his “charity”, or the history of how he’s run his business or destroyed antitrust purely because he was embarrassed at how bad he looked under cross examination. He has the charity specifically to launder his image, and as a result he’s found ways to be evil using it as cover that he wouldn’t have found back in his embrace, extend and extinguish days.
EDIT: Also behind the bastards did episodes on both these absolute jackoffs:
Oh dang, that’ll save me a bit of time stripping that stuff out. It’s amazing how easy it is once you have just a little bit of understanding of how URLs work. My most common URL hack is getting youtube shorts to play with full controls. You just replace /shorts/[videoID] with watch?v=[videoID]
I used it today to go through this video frame by frame to discover that she in fact didn’t hit her face:
Immutability is irrelevant if the point is to maintain a record of posts to prevent censorship. The only thing that matters is that some instances keep the record. Bad actors could try to lie about the posts, but that doesn’t delete the ledger from other instances.
And no, no single instance is responsible, that’s what it means to have a distributed ledger. Distributed ledgers are already a proven technology that is extremely robust against censorship. You may have heard of them, they’re called bittorrents.
In fact, federation is also a kind of distributed ledger since once content federates a record is kept by any instance it is distributed to. It’s a solved problem and not even that hard. Synchronisation consists of, “here’s my latest posts, keep a record of them please”. This is such a basic concept and I don’t know why you called it a “single point of failure”. It is exactly the opposite of a single point of failure.
Privacy is not guaranteed even with Monero, and you’re still getting paid in crypto which is inherently unstable because the only thing it is worth is what you can sell it for, so it goes through boom-bust cycles constantly, and the immutability - when forks aren’t happening - only serves to enable scams. To defeat that crypto people have created banks, defeating the point of a zero-trust system.
There’s no public trust in it and it takes enormous carbon footprints to run, so it’s unsustainable on so many levels. I don’t want to support crypto on any level on principle, so no, I don’t want LBRY tokens. A lot of people feel the same way, and looking at the population of Odysee, a large number of the people who are on board are a bunch of right wing assholes.
Peertube is also p2p, so the videos can be hosted apart from the host instance, and there’s nothing stopping peertube instances from maintaining a distributed ledger of references to videos without the blockchain.
Everything you say blockchain does can be achieved via distributed plaintext ledgers. It is solving a problem that doesn’t exist.
As for the earning money part, eventually you do have to connect your personal details in order to transfer crypto to a usable currency, so that problem isn’t really solved either.
That really doesn’t explain how it works. So… the host mines crypto as well as sending you videos? What is the economy supposed to work like? What does the blockchain actually achieve here? Why do people host in that case? Where do they explain this?
Anyway, I’m still not interested in crypto anything. The moment I saw it was blockchain based I noped out pretty fast. I’m guessing a lot of people do and that’s part of why it’s such a reactionary cesspit.
Like we don’t need blockchain for this; regular federation already works.
I think I just realised that the term “conservative” is just a lie. Just like “pro-life” or whatever other BS they come up with, it’s just a smokescreen to cover their real agenda, which is to dominate others.
Unfortunately alt-right crypto weirdos have coopted the term “decentralised”, and so it is with this site. It’s a crypto-based… video… hosting… platform? I cannot for the life of me figure out how it works other than that it mines crypto in the background while you have the site open and if you have an account, you get a cut of the crypto you mined.
I have tried looking into it, but they don’t explain anywhere in their promo materials, it’s literally just “earn while you watch!”, which… yeah no thanks. I’ve been on the internet and paying attention for more than 5 minutes, I know that grift when I see it.
“Decentralised” isn’t enough, you need a way to ban people that is also decentralised, and that’s where federation comes in.
I don’t know if they’re eventually going to coopt “federation”. I wonder if that’s the ultimate test of a social technology - if it can be coopted by reactionaries. The less able they are to do so, the better it is.