Posts by crimsonseal15

Politicians are perpetually playing catch-up with technology, completely ignoring the fact that many of us have been living with these tools for ages.

I get why politicians struggle; they’re often tech-illiterate. But what I can't wrap my head around are the tech-savvy individuals who actively cater to them, essentially sucking up just to influence how certain technologies get regulated.
In my view, these people are working against their own interests. Honestly, it's embarrassing to watch them humiliate themselves like that.

Perhaps the person behind a system like this isn't actually chasing a paycheck. They might just be looking to establish an international service that simply doesn't exist yet. It could be about creating jobs—both for themselves and for everyone else.

Thanks for the response,
So, you're saying it's impossible to have a legitimate corporation without an actual owner behind it.

I suppose it’s unlikely we'll see a total global shift toward Blockchain overnight, but I can definitely see certain sectors building out these specific economic models. Honestly, isn't that essentially the core mission behind almost every coin out there right now?

Are there actually such things as companies without owners? When I search on Google, I keep seeing mentions of "ownerless companies" or even "algorithmic companies" being touted as the future. I also recall reading somewhere that there are already firms operating without traditional ownership in the USA. Does anyone here have any deeper insight into how this works?

The internet itself isn't the silver bullet, but certain technologies built on top of it—likely emerging after that book was released—could certainly become the answer.

For instance:
- Tech that guarantees anonymity, which essentially protects free speech through tools like Tor.
- Tech that can actually generate new livelihoods, such as cryptocurrency and decentralized business models.

At the end of the day, people will likely keep taking selfies and happily living as products for corporations like Meta or Google; if they’re fine with it, I don't have any problem with it either.

It seems like you're being influenced. Is it this forum itself, or just your own perspective? I honestly can't tell who's pulling the strings here. I’m feeling a bit conflicted about it all.

But there’s this certain force—I think the term is a "bond"—that exists between a person and the dice. It can be subtle, or it can be incredibly powerful.

So, I’m curious to get everyone’s take on this Russian reversal: the dice control the players. Have you ever spent time in a casino or playing those e-sports titles? Or maybe just caught a glimpse of kids glued to their phones, all acting according to the level of freedom those dice allow them.

So I’ve been reading through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology, but I can't seem to track down the term "innerweltlich." Is that actually a specific part of Heidegger's terminology, or just a general way of putting it?

If a simple object—like a die—can't exist in the same way as Dasein, would we call its mode of being "being-in-the-world," or is there a more precise term for that?

How do you say "struggle" in the original German?

How can we tell if something actually "exists in the sense of a struggle"?

Amanda Jackson5 said:In what sense, exactly?

It’s essentially an extension of our nervous system—a digital prosthetic, if you will—that doubles as a medium for constructing reality itself.

So, we’re really going to sit here and debate the entire foundation of the monetary system? It feels a bit like trying to argue about the structural integrity of a skyscraper while standing in the lobby, wondering if the concrete was mixed correctly. It’s a massive, sweeping concept that most people only notice when the floor starts shaking under their feet.

I don't think that analogy actually holds water, mostly because there are just too many moving parts that don't line up.

I mean, whether the technology views us as its tool or as an extension of itself. Think of it like a Monopoly piece being used by players during a game—it doesn't feel any resentment about it. Or like those old "Russian reversal" jokes where the situation flips on you.

Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

Location isn't just determined by GPS; you also have to factor in the distance from the base stations within the game mechanics

ironcyclist58 said:Nah, it’s happening in real-time. They pull that data by tracking people's phones while they're out on the road.

That sounds exactly like something Google would pull off. But how does Alibaba actually know what the traffic is like? I always assumed there was some kind of radio service where sensors just broadcast the data.

Flying said:In theory, sure, but free speech isn't an absolute right. You can still be prosecuted for inciting a crime, defamation, hate speech, and things like that. The real difference between a democracy and other systems is simply that you aren't thrown in jail for criticizing the ruling party or the system itself. It basically serves as a necessary pressure valve for society.

In theory? For instance, try shouting "Allahu Akbar" in Israel, or screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
It honestly feels like free speech lacks any real logic.

Even if we allow people to criticize the party in power, it doesn't solve much. If someone decides to abuse that loophole,
like if they redefine what "criticizing the government" actually means to turn it into a criminal offense, then we might as well say goodbye to any semblance of free speech altogether.

Exactly. You’re basically buying yourself a dose of endorphins—that pure happiness hormone.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don’t really fit into the whole theist, atheist, or agnostic labels. To be honest, I couldn't care less about the answer to whether God exists or not. I’m perfectly fine with the idea that I might just cease to exist one day, and even if there were an afterlife, it wouldn't exactly blow my mind. Because of that, I struggle to wrap my head around these kinds of debates. It leaves me feeling like I’m missing out on something vital—some fundamental human experience that everyone else seems to be sharing. I guess I'm just a little confused. 😁

dontgiveafuckizam?