> Information wants to be free (as in libre) in the same way water wants to flow downhill
Water flows downhill to maximise entropy. The equivalent for information is dissolution into randomness. If anything, by this analogy, the “freedom” that involves information being copied and transmitted is the equivalent of pumping water uphill.
And I disagree about the work when it comes to information. Our natural inclination as humans is to share things we find interesting. Like "check out this song" or "check out this article". I don't think this takes much work. It just happens. In this sense the information is free like the stream is free to flow through the hills.
On the flip side there is substantial effort put into impeding this free flow of information with schemes like DRM. Similar to building a dam. But once cracks form the free flow resumes.
Continuing the water analogy you could say there is also substantial effort put into building the infrastructure to make information accessible to many more people. As a library is to a city's plumbing infrastructure.
When the phrase was coined in 1984 [1], it was a valid hypothesis. The last forty years have given evidence for the null.
The more plentiful information has become, the more we've sought (and in some cases, needed) to corral and control it. Sometimes for our own purposes. In many cases because absent such archiving entropy takes its toll.
The problem with "information wants to be free" is it presumes a natural force which doesn't exist. There also isn't a natural force that wants to make DRM and NFTs. But there is one that wants to forget, to corrupt and re-interpret. (There are very human forces that wish to control.) Sit back and let information do what it wants, which is precisely nothing, and the forces that beckon us into control and forgetfulness will win.
You seem to be referring to the United States' First Amendment, whereas freedom of speech is a western liberal value. The parent comment was pointing out that Zuckerberg does not uphold the value.
Yeah doors/small and uncomfortable. I wish I could drive people (makes more) but at the same time I got my car for me. It's not a fancy car I wish, once I'm not in debt/have more money I want to graduate to cooler cars like a Lotus Exige.
As an aside, delivery can be fun as far as exploring a city and meeting random people (mostly the food workers) but it's a way to get out. I am destroying my car though putting like 1000 miles a week on it or more.
I think once I'm out of debt I won't drive/donate plasma anymore and just use my spare time for other things provided a have a good paying job like I do now.
I would think the burden is on them to prove that you were. They were just digging for a reason to deny the claim.
If the police report mentions an second individual in the car unrelated to you then they might start digging around for your name in Uber or Lyft, but most of the time that is probably just a standard question to screw over the unwary.
You can use this same technique to view glasses-less 3D (stereoscopic) images. It's also fairly easy to create your own. Take two photos but offset the camera lens by approximately eye-width. Open the image editor of your choice and place the images side-by-side. View the composite image cross-eyed and you are now viewing a 3D scene.
Also worth noting there are 2 versions of this kind of cross-eyed focus depending on whether your eyes are focusing on a point in front of or behind the actual image. This determines which side the left and right eye images should go on in the composite. I find it easier to focus on a point in front of the images but IME most examples online are for focusing on a point behind the image.
Quoting myself from a previous post, I think we can solve several problem at once; including funding the sites you visit. Now I just have to get off my lazy ass and build it.
“
I’d like to see more work put into finding ways to utilize the work from PoW. For example I have an idea to use Monero’s CPU-favoring PoW for PoW based DDoS protection as seen in Tor [0]. When a user accesses a website they are given a PoW challenge to complete. This challenge is actually for a share of mining rewards as in P2Pool. The mining reward share would go to the website operator. This would harmoniously improve several things about the web. First, it would help protect websites against layer-7 DDoS attacks. Second, this L7 DDoS protection reduces the webs dependence on companies such as Cloudflare, the internets biggest man-in-the-middle. Third, it provides a way to pay website owners costing the users a small amount of their computers time and energy in much the same way as ads do currently. Fourth, it reduces the webs dependence on advertising as the way to fund your website. Fifth and finally, it helps secure the web-native currency in which website operators would be paid and which others can use for whatever they want.
> try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago
I assume the implication here is that the thing they said 10 years ago was less inappropriate back then. So how do you predict sensitivity changes 10 years in the future to limit your speech today? Even if you delete posts after, say 1 year, archives exist. Shouldn’t you just not say anything if you’re afraid of this? Maybe discussion of self-censorship like this will be taboo in 10 years and the ship has already sailed.
I wasn't implying that it depends on sensitivity changes, although that is possible too.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
My thought was more about time and distance. Something can be unpopular or even wrong when it's first said too. People are dynamic and change over time. The mechanism of change is living their lives.
Taboos can change as well, so there is a motivation to steer clear of controversial topics in recorded media. You can use discretion to judge risk. It's unlikely that someone's going to fire you for discussing ice cream in 10 years.
Yea, that's also a big danger: A totally innocent or trivial comment written today might be taboo in 10 years, and some future justice warrior is sure to dig it up and use it against you, and you have no idea what is going to be taboo. Maybe in the far future, owning pets will be taboo, and all the pictures of me and my dog are going to be dug up and used to shame me for violating an animal's sovereignty or something.
There is no way to know what people are going to get offended about in the future, but the clear trend is people getting offended about more and more things over time, rather than fewer and fewer things.
