there is not almost any attempt to organize public participation. Except maybe admin posts with discussions in comments. Also users can vote with their feet.

I agree that the admin instinct is mostly honest and democratic and they should be regarded for their work. But the instance governance is mostly autocratic. And this kind of structure usually devolves in despotism, since power corrupts.

Would be nice to see an institution-based instance, with a constitution, elections, balance of power. Would be a great social experiment!

This is really interesting, also in comparison to governance of “traditional” social networks.

I would not be surprised if someone did scientific research about it.

An interesting difference is no need to fight for land and resources, anyone can go and create another microstate.

Still, there is some benefit of larger states, they can resist spam better. But as much as they implement spam filters in the code, smaller instances can them. Political benefits of open source are real.

It’s just going to be other bots fighting the little flying ones. Little air defence, or other flying bots. This technology is another next step in warfare for sure, but it is not unstoppable like the video shows.

Drones and AI is the new shape of the arms race.

Big states will be ahead like with other tech. US Senate will be safe.

Another way is to restrict and regulate the technology. Luckily the chip manufacturing is not something which a small group can do in their backyard. Right now the chips can make their way anywhere despite sanctions but sanction implementation is being improved.

Good question, every war ends in some kind of negotiation, even for surrender. I think when Russia loses, Putin is unlikely to keep power, and some sort of agreement will happen without him.

Strangely, in chess, there is almost never a man category. There is everybody and there is women. wikipedia . See also motivations why and arguments against. It’s tricky.

What are people of good faith going to do about even a small fraction of those who disagree?

There is also “us” which is a larger “me”. Large problem like unintentional geoengineering needs large “us” to control and reverse. There are political implications of this kind of “us”.

If we are talking about giving an example, while I agree in part, I also find there are people more popular and influential than billonaires. Half of the top 10 richest people are not really public personas at least from where I stand. Conversely, you do not need to be billionaire to produce 10000x CO2, you need some money but not that much. These people need to be also in attention focus. Even just middle upper class who like to fly a lot, the difference it makes is huge. Billionaires do their own part, but through ownership of large companies and their relation to customers, I think is more important way in which they make a difference.

How about stopping other individual from doing some things? Else this strategy is self-defeating, those survive who will not follow it. Writing a comment about it actually counts for conviencing others, but should this fact be one of the points?

At least in Europe it’s ok, golfstream will shut down and we’ll be under a glacier. Climate change is not just warming, it’s volatility.

hey, but how far does your backyard go? Don’t you feel at least for your city, your country? Why not something bigger?

Most companies do not optimize to exist long term. Another, longer lasting, entity needs to take charge of this. Like humanity itself, except it needs some organization, reflecting legitimate consenus. The problem is that it needs to be enforcable, and world govenment with punitive powers is not an unproblematic idea.

I think one big problem is that Earth has become too small, but this fact and it’s implications did not quite get absorbed. People act on in instinctively by favoring space exploration, but it’s pursued by most adventurous ones, and not in unproblematic ways.

Companies sell to people though, who willingly buy from them unsustainable products. But I think it’s a bit much to expect people make this choice every day, I prefer at least for some things make a regulation. It’s like “normal” pollution, we do not expect people to figure out which company relies on less toxic leakage, why is CO2 pollution any different?

Hate to be devils advocate here, but even if billionaires contribute 1000x each, there is just one of them for 1000x1000x1000x1000x people so in total their contribution does not matter. What matters is their business choices which favor unsustainable practies for billions of people, so eventually they have a huge effect, just not directly.

I can not object to fact that the war not good, but the impact on emissions is not so simple. There was a decrease in all kinds of activities in Ukraine, reducing consumption. Also a lot less fossil fuels are burned, and solar power is found to be more resilent to attacks due to it’s distributed nature. However, I suspect, overall it is still bad for the climate change.

Glaciers are just flowing and retreating in summer. That is the major reason some stuff reappears this time of year. Also there is slower process due to climate change of course.

I thought this is an example where standards in part converged naturally. But I agree that regulation was fundamental part of this process.

Phone and laptop chargers converged from numerous standards to just a few all on their own I think, no?