California HSR has been a zombie project for a while. Even before Musk was a factor, there were annual plans but nothing ever got done, year after year. It’s probably going to take intercity projects to become popular and economical for something as ambitious as long-range passenger rail to actually receive serious attention.

Splitting individual atoms isn’t that difficult, you just need a neutron supply and some material (paraffin wax works) to slow them down and it will eventually happen at least with uranium. Doing it reliably and efficiently is a much harder problem.

Sure but what degree of influence is actually “radicalising” or a point of concern?

We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can’t just force people to accept them.

I think a good example of this was the “fall” of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn’t care because they never cared about him.

“A deradicalising effect”

I’m sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.

I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.

If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren’t the radicals you need to be concerned about.

“And those people diffuse back into the general population”

Because that doesn’t happen to a greater degree when exposed to the “general population” on the same website?

You’re literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical, you’re not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

Some people (like myself and other scientists/mathematicians), write software for specific fields so if you follow them you find it out what work they are putting out, and issues they find in other software etc.

“Arab spring …” So you cite an example of social activism that disastrously failed (by your own admission) to justify a similar action by your hand?

Even then it doesn’t disprove that individuals that contribute more are statistically more likely to be noticed when absent. If you want to have an impact, especially a positive one, it helps to not have anger as your sole motivator.

“So there is no ruling class”

What exactly is a ruling class to you? There will always be a deciding group. Even in anarcho-fantasies that rule by consensus there will always be a small group that refuses to negotiate, they become the ruling class in that circumstance. So do they get deported to an archipelago for refusing to come to a consensus? Don’t the deporters become the ruling class then?

Any sort of organized society outside of intimate groups needs some sort of hierarchical decision making. It’s one thing to advocate for positions to be more logically allocated, and another to be completely destroyed.

“Don’t put words in my fucking mouth”

I’m impressed that you aren’t apparently a hypocrite by holding others to a logical standard that you don’t follow. Unfortunately that logical standard is that being angry justifies spreading textual diarrhea all over Lemmy.

How do you abolish the profit motive? It’s literally just the motivation to benefit from a transaction.

“Put the ruling class in work camps”

So create another ruling class to imprison these people? Do the new ruling class have to be subject to imprisonment as well? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is now oppressing the previously wealthy? Shouldn’t they also be subject to imprisonment for abuses?

“At least that way my vote might mean something”

And it will mean more depending on how much you contribute to society.

“I’m so tired and angry all the time”

So am I. I’m so tired and angry, I have no recourse but to criticise you. Oh, that’s not a legitimate reason, you say? My mood doesn’t justify my behaviour you say?

Pretty standard in manufacturing sector. There are so few people with the skillset and reliability to operate a factory, that they perpetually pay out overtime because they really have no other option.

You joke, because you have nothing to contribute. You’re not demoralised, this has no effect on you.

“They murder us… nothing but meat” And you are offering alternatives how? Stop pretending to be outraged when you care so little that you can’t even be bothered to investigate the causes of issues and proffer solutions.

It’s okay. The thing is when running an attack are you going to permutate through every combination of characters, or are you going to use words from a dictionary first? correcthorsebatterystaple (not a dictionary word) is better than antidisestablishmentarianism (a dictionary word) but in a realistic attack concatenating dictionary words is going to be the next step.

CamelCase directories and snake_case files.

Sure but, this isn’t about the actual language. For instance I like Ada, there isn’t a lot of public support for it and you’re mostly left with the RM and GNAT manuals. But none of this is relevant to Ada as a language. Which was really all I was saying, you should probably split complaints about the ecosystem and the actual language affecting viability.

You realise that most encryption can be decrypted by third-party? Many cryptography libraries have huge flaws, even the Handbook of Applied Cryptography was encouraging using Damgard et al’s parameters for prime selection even though the original authors never claimed the accuracy that others assumed (without basis). Even now, can you guess how many cryptography libraries would be broken if someone found a BPSW pseudoprime? And we have arguments that they probably exist, but crypto developers just ignore it either out of ignorance or laziness.

In summary, it’s all theatre, you just want to deny access to enough parties that it makes you comfortable.

Pretty sure syntax is the only one that is even related to what a language is. All the rest are just ecosystem development primarily effected by popularity.

Encryption only works if certain parties can’t decrypt it. Strong encryption means that the parties are everyone except the intended recipient, weak encryption still works even if 1 percent of the eavesdroppers can decrypt it.