CraigOhMyEggo

joined 11 months ago
 

This was always an issue in Rome. People were afraid their heirs would turn out to secretly be wannabe dictators, and you couldn't do anything about it since you were dead. How would you go about making sure your heir was as close to your vision as possible, both outwardly and in their desires should they be emperor?

 

This was always an issue in Rome. People were afraid their heirs would turn out to secretly be wannabe dictators, and you couldn't do anything about it since you were dead. How would you go about making sure your heir was as close to your vision as possible, both outwardly and in their desires should they be emperor?

 

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not talking about the movie/show The Watchmen. I'm referring to the ancient philosophical question "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" or "who watches the watchmen". Go read up on that elsewhere.

For those of you who don't know and need a summary here, it's a question often posed in reference to the fact that the person or people in charge of making sure the rules are honored have nothing preventing them from disobeying the rules. There's never anything preventing the person guarding your treasure from stealing some of the treasure, for example.

What's the best remedy to this that you can think of?

 

I ask this during a time when it has become trendy to "expose" the inner workings of so-called cults. Ever since Leah Remini started doing her exposé gig with her time spent in Scientology, different people have come forward claiming to have been in cults, sometimes seeing cults where they don't even exist (which is why I've often joked this is the "new new atheist movement" or the "Mephistopheles panic", a joke on the fact it's just another Satanic panic). The comments section never sees it my way, but I can see through a lot of these cough cough Alyssa Grenfall cough cough

However, nobody in this part of the media has ever been known for complete honesty/accuracy. For example, there were survivor tips that used to circulate on there for people who were stuck in the desert, and many of these tips, such as vaporizing your pee to drink it, would most likely kill you.

But there are many of you who have expertise or opinions that draw you against some people more than others. What such people do you disagree with or object to the most?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

That's considered a soap opera?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah, just free love.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

It's not as if, when a group gets too big, it's not natural for sectarianism to develop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That's the argument though, they're already being pit against each other, with people already fighting over who is worthy to say "I have autism".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

A few reasons.

  1. The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.

  2. The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that's a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.

  3. Knowledgeability isn't as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.

  4. It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.

  5. So that people don't pose a hassle to administration.

  6. To bring people together.

  7. Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.

It's no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Once upon a time, I took a Communist Manifesto out of my local library, which I later discovered was a fake, and one of the tenets called for communal hooking-up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But where does the communal part come in? Are people sharing their clothes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

But does the transport cost money?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If I may ask, why do they require you to be a resident of your city? I work at a library and we allow universal access. We don't even ask for library cards anymore.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

In such a system, people would still have their own devices that can connect wirelessly to a library, even from outside the building (people who live immediately near the library I work at get free wireless internet, at least from 10 to 8), it's only the signal that would come mainly from the library.

Another factor that comes to mind that I forgot to mention in my other replies is that the internet comes from undersea cables that are long enough to wrap around the Earth 180 times, which then enters into servers which then enters into cable lines which then reaches peoples' houses, and these are all an absolute hassle to maintain, both because of wildlife attacking them (yeah, a single fish can take out a country's internet) as well as bad actors, and on the cable side, bad weather can take them out. The service strain would be a lot less if we didn't try to put too much on our plates, allowing more maintenance to be maintained.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That much is true, but if it's done strictly like that, it would ruin the point.

view more: ‹ prev next ›