Dark Enlightenment

[Meizirkki]

Are social skills are part of intellectual capacity? You got to practice yours

Fuck social skills, the "code is the law". The truth can be abrasive, yet the code is going to win if correctly designed.

I can (will) kick your loser beta-male, ass with algorithms. Don't you know you are controlled by alpha-males and always will be. Of course as a beta-male you can't even admit this to yourself.

Ego is for Little People.

Right, if I were wise enough I would have never replied to your post in the first place, because now I have to join you in the "wanking to my own IQ" group when I point out that:

Your first sentence in OP is not something "an A-list person" would post. To tell most readers that their IQ is not high enough for your thread is nothing but a display of your ego.

That first sentence in the OP was a litmus test to see if you are beta ("B-list") or alpha ("A-list").

Okay, so it was a test? What if I tell you my post was a test too?

You sent a post of flames, swearing and threatening to kick my ass in response to my lame nitpick.

Which "list" were you in again?

[1714030283]

1714030283

[1714030283]

1714030283

[1714030283]

1714030283

[1714030283]

1714030283

[AnonyMint]

Hissy fits are for cats and bitches.

[uranian]

I read this despite your tone, Anonymint. Starting off by insulting your readers is I guess a good way to thin the herd to those who can see past their egos.

I have voted yes to all. I've recently moved from the realisation that income tax is not just theft, it's actually murder, if you assume responsibility for your financial life. Last I looked the estimates were of a million dead in Iraq alone, and that doesn't include all the birth deformities and genetic degradation caused by the use of depleted uranium. The relevant response is what do we do; I've skimmed your recent posts, and I think that we share a common understanding, in that the only sensible response to the premises of DE is to stop feeding the beast. Hence a truly anonymous cryptocurrency is the way to go, because as long as we are forced to give up any of our income to those who kill for profit and pleasure, there is no exit. I think as an aside that using exchanges as a type of mixer is a way to do this, but we need a currency that is resistant to centralisation at both the mining level and at the exchange level. Nxt is interesting in the decentralised exchange, but I can't claim to have paid enough attention to know whether it's genuinely viable.

[Wilikon]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5475483#msg5475483

Gavin could possibly have received a National Security Letter but would be compelled to answer "No" if you asked him as Linus Torvalds did while shaking his head "yes".

Let's not demonize him. He is a public figure. He is a human who probably who cares deeply about others (Sociopaths are very small percentage of the population). He probably has rationalized his situation so he can remain sane.

Satoshi solved the Byzantine Generals' problem, which had no known solution since its discovery in 1975. This enabled decentralized trust of untrusted (uncertain if can trust) peers.

Gavin as well intentioned as he may be, must be considered an untrusted peer. Thus the system of a controlling foundation is not to be trusted.

Actions speak louder than words. Judge by the merits of the action.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code"-- Linus Torvalds.

Normally we assume the code can't lie, due to the Linus rule (coined by Eric S Raymond), "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

You can see several things above I learned from ESR's blog and comment threads.

• The link to "Normally" about Trusting Trust.
• The Linus rule.
• The importance of the Benevolent Dictator (there is our Contentionism CoinCube)
• Discussion of sociopaths.

P.S. The Linus quote I first saw on a girl's facebook, lol. 

What was so funny about the quote being on a "girl's facebook"? My IQ may not be too high as I don't get it.

[AnonyMint]

One of the core principles of Dark Enlightenment is the "Damned Fact" that we are not equal, and recognizing the failure that is the power vacuum of democracy which promotes and caters to these anti-*-isms Prima Donnas. Worse actually, it is very damn good that we are not equal, because a uniform distribution would be dead. Luckily we are diverse, and in fact every human is unique.

I originally inserted the opening sentence of the OP in an edit when I saw several people had read the thread and not voted nor posted any commentary. It occurred to me that it was likely their anti-*-ism irrationality was causing them to immediately dismiss the science and move on. So I inserted to challenge the reader to find the highly intellectual meaning.

Of course (even I didn't intend it) it ended up being a litmus test because those bitchy (yes something women sometimes do) Prima Donnas instantly fell into their irrational anti-*-ism reactionary zombie programming (and that includes that anti-*-isms directed "philosophy" that is taught in schools) totally unlike a man, who prioritizes production, rationality, and treats war as a very serious matter of last resort.

One of the Damned but true Facts is that women typically (not all and not always) are much more prone to follow authority and use emotional tactics for short-term gratification. This is because their evolutionary strategy is different than men. But beta-males are so weak that with socialism peaking, they've almost been transformed into women, which is another reason we are headed for a massive global reset soon. Nature needs to cull the population of all these men who can't produce and waste the time of productive men in hissy fits. Don't accuse me of advocating that which will happen naturally (as if I am in control  ). I am not. I just recognize reality.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424861

BobW on 2014-02-22 at 18:55:02 said:

@Winter

Men do not work in pre-agricultural societies. They hunt, they fish, they rumble with the neighbors, they may play at a craft. None of those things is work.
Agricultural societies got men to work by making sex and marriage contingent on it. Now that bargain is breaking down...

...

I don't give a horse's ass about your hissy fit comments other than it confirms the Dark Enlightenment. For me you are useful as dirt. If you want my respect, then focus on learning, production and lose the nonsense politics.

What was so funny about the quote being on a "girl's facebook"? My IQ may not be too high as I don't get it.

A Damned but true Fact is there are very few female programmers and even fewer of them actually produce and don't cause major problems in the work place.

I met this lady who is reasonably intelligent and I was surprised when I saw that Linus quote on her facebook and I got inspired thinking maybe she and I could talk programming shop. Later I discovered this was just like social badge for her, and she wasn't at all really interested in computer science. She was more interested in finding a boyfriend, social life, and eventually a husband.

I laugh because I as a prolific programmer for 3 decades first became aware of that in that way rather late (2012 I believe). It exemplifies that I've had my head in the sand w.r.t. open source movement while I was busy actually producing instead. Seems I've caught up now on the social knowledge and need to be that productive Ostrich again.

Most likely you were offended that I would laugh thinking I was laughing at the girl, because your anti-*-isms bitch programming has turned you into a reactionary fool. But hopefully that was not your motivation for asking, in which case there are still a plurality of offended readers.

[Spendulus]

...
Of course (even I didn't intend it) it ended up being a litmus test because those bitchy (yes something women sometimes do) Prima Donnas instantly fell into their irrational anti-*-ism reactionary zombie programming (and that includes that anti-*-isms directed "philosophy" that is taught in schools) totally unlike a man, who prioritizes production, rationality, and treats war as a very serious matter of last resort.

One of the Damned but true Facts is that women typically (not all and not always) are much more prone to follow authority and use emotional tactics for short-term gratification. This is because their evolutionary strategy is different than men. But beta-males are so weak that with socialism peaking, they've almost been transformed into women, which is another reason we are headed for a massive global reset soon. Need to cull the population of all these men who can't produce and waste the time of productive men in hissy fits.
....

Bullshit.  Just get a Maserati.

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/03/03/hypergamy-cars-and-phone-numbers/

[AnonyMint]

...
Of course (even I didn't intend it) it ended up being a litmus test because those bitchy (yes something women sometimes do) Prima Donnas instantly fell into their irrational anti-*-ism reactionary zombie programming (and that includes that anti-*-isms directed "philosophy" that is taught in schools) totally unlike a man, who prioritizes production, rationality, and treats war as a very serious matter of last resort.

One of the Damned but true Facts is that women typically (not all and not always) are much more prone to follow authority and use emotional tactics for short-term gratification. This is because their evolutionary strategy is different than men. But beta-males are so weak that with socialism peaking, they've almost been transformed into women, which is another reason we are headed for a massive global reset soon. Need to cull the population of all these men who can't produce and waste the time of productive men in hissy fits.
....

Bullshit.  Just get a Maserati.

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/03/03/hypergamy-cars-and-phone-numbers/

That is not a refutation, rather it is congruent with the thread on Dark Enlightenment. Perhaps it would help to do some background reading of prior ESR blogs on hypergamy (and you will likely find James A Donald's comments on them, as well my comments either as "shelby", "jocelyn", or "JustSaying").

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site:esr.ibiblio.org+hypergamy

A natural contemplates game

[Spendulus]

...
Of course (even I didn't intend it) it ended up being a litmus test because those bitchy (yes something women sometimes do) Prima Donnas instantly fell into their irrational anti-*-ism reactionary zombie programming (and that includes that anti-*-isms directed "philosophy" that is taught in schools) totally unlike a man, who prioritizes production, rationality, and treats war as a very serious matter of last resort.

One of the Damned but true Facts is that women typically (not all and not always) are much more prone to follow authority and use emotional tactics for short-term gratification. This is because their evolutionary strategy is different than men. But beta-males are so weak that with socialism peaking, they've almost been transformed into women, which is another reason we are headed for a massive global reset soon. Need to cull the population of all these men who can't produce and waste the time of productive men in hissy fits.
....

Bullshit.  Just get a Maserati.

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/03/03/hypergamy-cars-and-phone-numbers/

That is not a refutation, rather it is congruent with the thread on Dark Enlightenment. Perhaps it would help to do some background reading of prior ESR blogs on hypergamy (and you will likely find James A Donald's comments on them, as well my comments either as "shelby", "jocelyn", or "JustSaying").

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=site:esr.ibiblio.org+hypergamy

A natural contemplates game

I was not attempting a refutation of the arguments, rather sort of a concise restatement in a much cooler fashion.

[AnonyMint]

But there are better ways to get people's interest and attention than by insulting them and forcing them to have a knee-jerk reaction of a position opposite of yours.

Disagree. It efficiently separated the men from neutered time wasters.

[BitcoinAutist]

But there are better ways to get people's interest and attention than by insulting them and forcing them to have a knee-jerk reaction of a position opposite of yours.

Disagree. It efficiently separated the men from neutered time wasters.

Agreed, now please stop wasting everyone's time.

[AnonyMint]

One important way the Dark Enlightenment applies to Bitcoin. CoinCube you will find the contentionism throughout that linked post.

[Meizirkki]

Is Dark Enlightenment a set of ideas destined to become a real political movement?

[AnonyMint]

Is Dark Enlightenment a set of ideas destined to become a real political movement?

It seems to be against top-down governance, so any politics would be decentralized and fractured.

Thus it is going to sneak up on everyone and will actually already be taking over the world before any one realizes it is.

Actually it already is.

That is why it is so powerful.

http://www.starfishandspider.com/

The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.

[AnonyMint]

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here. This is intended for the high IQ audience of Eric's blog.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg5457696#msg5457696
....

I have long studied the mechanisms of Dark.  For example, the curious Dark Switches on the wall that when turned in the down position, suck all the light out of the room.  These can be noted to be connected to the active mechanism, the Dark Bulb, for for the newly energy conscious, the Dark Noodle.

There is a massively huge Dark which orbits the Earth and vacuums up light on a 24 hour basis.  It was once believed that all of these minor Dark entities originate from the Dark Side of the Moon.  Now we know that verily, it is the Poles of the Moon which shelter the Craters of Eternal Dark, where for billions of years only the light of far away stars has impacted.

Then there are Books, which cannot even be read in the Dark, which proves their transient nature and even worse, computer screens the abject enemy of Dark, intruding into every corner with luminiscent glowing horrror.

Taken together with my immediately prior post, indeed there is always a mathematical dual lurking ("JustSaying" is me).

The (Bright) enlightenment of the Renaissance was to raise society from the dark anarchy of decentralized warlordism a.k.a. feudalism into the collective light of art, culture, finance, governance, central banking, usury and top-down order.

Now the (Dark) enlightenment pushes us from the order into the decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity).

This is the pendulum of Contentionism that CoinCube and I have been theorizing about.

I've stumbled onto an analogy in my recent work on improving Zerocoin. It appears that all public key cryptography hinges on two dual forms, those based on number-theory (e.g. factoring of logarithms or elliptical curves) where the whole is collected into a monolith, or on random oracles where the whole is equipartitioned into its constituent parts (e.g. Lamport signatures). The former is an inductive and latter is a coinductive function (although to make them practical they are not unbounded oracles).

We are headed into the coinductive age where the advances are to destructively peel off freedom from the monolithic whole, instead of constructively structure the chaos in collected forms.

In the small, in Dark enlightenment (phase of the cyclical contentionism model) we have a plurality of inductive structures constructively growing within the context of the proliferation of structures destructively peeled away from the monolith increasing the economies-of-scale in the small (i.e. networking effects). Whereas in the dual of Bright enlightenment, in the small we are destructively peeling away small inductive structures and binding them together constructively to produce higher economies-of-scale in the large (i.e. fixed capital allocation).

P.S. And this post was to get you to realize I was really serious when I said this topic is for the highly intellectual. Please don't be offended by Damned truth.

[AnonyMint]

Now the (Dark) enlightenment pushes us from the order into the decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity).

This is the pendulum of Contentionism that CoinCube and I have been theorizing about.

Except that your analogy is flawed, showing a flawed understanding of decentralisation on your part.

The canonical spelling according to Merriam-Webster and other prominent dictionaries is 'decentralization'.

A far better analogy for "nodes of small independent currency producers and maintainers" would be atomised water droplets which tend to form clouds when there's enough of them.

...

Each droplet has some H2O molecules that are confined at a boundary between a 'soup' of high-entropy free floating H20 and the surrounding atmosphere. The tendency for each droplet to maximise its entropy is what is behind "surface tension". The droplets naturally pull themselves towards a spherical shape to minimise the number of molecules stuck on the surface, which maximises the droplet's overall degrees of freedom.

Indeed and it is analogous to what I wrote, wherein I said the degrees-of-freedom would increase by peeling away independent bottom-up actors from the top-down order, yet these actors would in of themselves show increasing top-down order e.g. a Benevolent Dictator For Life for an altcoin that kicks Bitcoin's sorry little ass. The reason for this is simple. The top-down socialism has maxed out on its ability to increase degrees-of-freedom by providing higher economies-of-scale for its constituent parts. The analogy is if all the world's water was aggregated, the surface area would be minimized but the capacity (i.e. possibilities) of the water to do useful work will have greatly diminished.

You've been reading my theory for several months and you still can't wrap your mind around a very simple and consistent concept.

However, unless there's some repulsive force like an unbalanced electric charge pushing the droplets away from each other (as is likely the case with clouds), they will tend to merge. As the droplets merge, their entropy increases.

Earth's ecosystem is a great example of this, whereby nearly all of the water consists of liquid oceans, not clouds.

Yet the most productive work done by water (not other things in the water) is when it is peeled away for other possibilities.

We truthfully calculate the bath of the ocean provides immense degrees-of-freedom for the other things in the water, yet we don't find all the schools (traveling groups) of fish merged into one school. Ditto birds migrating. Etc.

Now,

decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity).

Can you see where you've been going wrong?
The decentralisation you seek is actually less diverse, not more. A cloud of water vapour has a far greater surface area and less degrees of freedom than an equivalent volume of ocean.

A droplet of water can't do much useful work. A single human can. The is exactly Contentionism in that structures oscillate between different balances of top-down and bottom-up order as they interact with the dynamic degrees-of-freedom in the environment. The human environment has radically changed because we invented the internet, which enables a single human to a lot more productive than in the agricultural or industrial age. For example, I all by myself programmed and marketed CoolPage.com (including the download web page editor with its one-click publishing to the free hosts of that era, e.g. Yahoo GeoCities, which was in some sense the first social network) in 1998 and obtained over a million users and 335,000 verified websites back when the internet was only about 100 million people. Before that, the most I had obtained was about 8,000 unit sales (maybe it was 30,000 including the European distributors I forget) of WordUp in the 1980s due to physical shipment of shrink wrapped software distribution.

Of course I'm not suggesting that decentralised structures don't have their place, but your entropy argument is completely wrong.

The entropy of the water increases as the water molecules move closer together because the forces at the surface are reduced and so the molecules have greater degrees-of-freedom within the aggregate volume of the bath. The degrees-of-freedom for an individual molecule to fly off in any direction away from other molecules is out weighed by the fact that an individual molecule is essentially useless to its environment, thus water molecules have a very high surface tension (opportunity cost) to motivate them to form baths. However, as the baths become too large, the surface tension becomes very small per molecule capita in the bath volume, thus they have a motivation to exit the bath in groups in order to accomplish more useful work in the environment which is higher degrees-of-freedom overall.

This is precisely Contentionism. Entropy is relative like everything else in our universe. This is why sometimes a top-down order is more efficient than bottom-up chaos.

[AnonyMint]

Those expecting to top-down mitigate the effects of the technological unemployment will end up with unstable chaos possibly megadeath.

[CoinCube]

The (Bright) enlightenment of the Renaissance was to raise society from the dark anarchy of decentralized warlordism a.k.a. feudalism into the collective light of art, culture, finance, governance, central banking, usury and top-down order.

Now the (Dark) enlightenment pushes us from the order into the decentralized disorder (where in Shannon entropy disorder means maximizing the number of least probable possibilities i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom and diversity).

This is the pendulum of Contentionism... We are headed into the coinductive age where the advances are to destructively peel off freedom from the monolithic whole, instead of constructively structure the chaos in collected forms.

The fundamental goal is maximizing degrees-of-freedom.
 

Degrees-of-freedom is the number of potential orthogonal (independent) configurations, i.e. the ability to obtain a configuration without impacting the ability to obtain another configuration. In short, degrees-of-freedom are the configurations that don't have dependencies on each other.
...
This universal trend towards maximum independent possibilities (i.e. degrees-of-freedom, independent individuals, and maximum free market) is why Coase's theorem holds that any cost barrier (i.e. resisting force or inefficiency) that obstructs the optimum fitness will eventually fail. This is why decentralized small phenomena grow faster, because they have less dependencies and can adapt faster with less energy. Whereas, large phenomena reduce the number of independent configurations and thus require exponentially more power to grow, and eventually stagnate, rot, collapse, die, and disappear.

As shown earlier in the economic devastation thread unrestrained socialism by its very nature limits degrees-of-freedom. Society is trapped in a cycle of ever increasing economic inefficiency which is the equivalent of a loss of degrees-of-freedom. Our collective lack of understanding of the fundamental cause will result in attempted "fixes" that will worsen the underlying problem.
 
Similarly, anarchism by its very nature limits degrees-of-freedom. Unrestrained anarchism will quickly exceed the error threshold at which point knowledge is destroyed rather then created. Unrestrained anarchism increases short term fitness at the cost of long term optimization/adaptation. In a fitness landscape anarchism steepens the curve driving the population to the nearest local optima. Individuals not at the local optima are destroyed their uniqueness obliterated. This destruction impacts the ability of the system to obtain another configuration and thus limits degrees of freedom.  

For example, there would be gaps (i.e. errors in fitness) between a bicycle chain and a curved shape it is wrapped around, because the chain can only freely bend (i.e. without permanent bending) at the hinges where the links are joined. Each hinge is a degree-of-freedom, and the reciprocal of the distance between hinges is the degrees-of-freedom per unit length. Employing instead a solid, but flexible metal bar, the metal would remain fit to the curve only with a sustained force. The resisting force is a reduced degrees-of-freedom and an error in fitness. Permanent bending to eliminate the resisting force, reduces the degrees-of-freedom for future straightening some of the bend for wrapping to larger curves or straight shapes.

Using this analogy unrestrained socialism is using a solid but flexible metal bar forced to the curve using sustained force supplied via expropriation. Unrestrained anarchism is eliminating the resisting force via permanent bending reducing the degrees-of-freedom for future straightening of the bend. Contentionism is the balance of the two forces. Contentionism is our bicycle chain with hinges.

The optimum should maximize the search done through anarchism subject to constraint via socialism to limit the loss of information already gained.

The role of socialism is to act as a dynamic constraint and smooth the fitness curve. Critically, socialism must be prevented at all cost from warping the fitness curve and creating false local optima. Socialism can only function via expropriation of resources from the fit. If socialism is permitted to create false optima it will progressively pool individuals into this falsehood. The optima can thus only be sustained by ever increasing expropriation on the fit leading to the eventual collapse of the system and the total loss of the dynamic constraint. This way lies the jungle.  

Socialism has been allowed to grow to the point where it has created multiple false optima. These are set to require ever increasing expropriation from the fit. The end result is Economic Devastation. To solve this requires a solution to the power vacuum. I am hopeful that truly anonymous cryptocurrency can help perform this function. The power vacuum starts to break down once government loses the ability to debase the currency. Even a truly distributed non anonymous cryptocurrency that cannot be debased would be a significant improvement over our current system. It would give us an opportunity to retire fiat debt and force governments to tax for their spending rather then simply debasing the currency. My hope is that cryptocurrency will eventually force socialism to live on a fixed income (taxation of the physical economy). Socialism would then lack the resources to create systemic false optima. The danger of collapse would ease and stability of the dynamic constraint would be achieved.

[CoinCube]

Can you see where you've been going wrong?
The decentralisation you seek is actually less diverse, not more. A cloud of water vapour has a far greater surface area and less degrees of freedom than an equivalent volume of ocean.

This is not quite right.

Take a fixed volume of water in a sealed closed container ie no other molecules in the container. No air or anything else to confuse the analysis and no loss of heat to the environment.

When the system is very low entropy we see the water as ice it has very limited degrees-of-freedom.
Add some energy and the ice melts we get water with significantly increased degrees of freedom.
Add some more heat (a lot more) and we eventually will turn the water to gas.

The gas has far more degrees of freedom and potential energy then the water and the water more then the ice.
The analogy of the cloud of water is simply the process of losing degrees of freedom and potential energy in the transition from gas to liquid.

 

[greenlion]

Please tell me this is all just a giant satire, because this is some of the most self-important nonsense wordporn garbage I've ever seen.

You literally could take a Markov bot and feed it bunch of random papers and it would produce something equally illuminating!

[AnonyMint]

Please tell me this is all just a giant satire, because this is some of the most self-important nonsense wordporn garbage I've ever seen.

You literally could take a Markov bot and feed it bunch of random papers and it would produce something equally illuminating!

To an unenlightened, non-resonant transducer (receiver) of a signal, the information can appear to be random noise.

Move on, nothing for you here.