Who could have guessed a significant portion of the population wouldn’t magically find their attraction to people exclusively split along a very specific line of biological and social characteristics in over 99% of cases? What a shocking revelation that maybe a lot of people just like who they like regardless of gender or sex.

Personally, I expect to see this number of people outwardly identifying as bi significantly rise as time goes on.

Here’s the same Obsidian Canvas document open in Obsidian, and Hi-Canvas: (*just realized the last connection is missing, that was user error while taking the screenshot, disregard)

They’re not fully cross compatible, but as another user mentioned, the open source spec being worked on is picking up steam as the Open Canvas Working Group (OCWG) and even larger industry canvas platforms are trying to make the format something they can easily import and export in that open format.

So hopefully you won’t have to worry about migration much longer :)

While that’s technically possible, it’s very difficult, and in my opinion, highly unlikely.

• All notes are stored in markdown, which is compatible with any other markdown-compatible app. It’s not just a note format, it’s a fire exit.
• Even the canvas files are now having an interoperable format created, with other industry-leading canvas style software, and that whole process was started by the Obsidian team voluntarily
• All plugins must be open-source unless explicitly and clearly stated, and such plugins are only listed on a case-by-case basis, which makes even additional plugin-specific functionality added to Obsidian easier to port over to other software if Obsidian ever does lock things down
• They don’t have VC investors, and have mentioned a few times that they won’t be accepting investment in the future, since they don’t exactly have very high costs. They’re explicitly anti “VCware.” Features like Sync that depend on their server hosting bill being paid are only used by paying users, and most users will never have to use Obsidian servers past downloading and updating the app, and installing a few plugins of a few megabytes in size. Costs aren’t likely to rise in any substantial way, and their team is small enough to make it profitable to operate at their existing scale.
• Actions like this are literally proactively recognizing that something wasn’t in line with their manifesto, and wasn’t beneficial for users, so they’re removing it. Companies planning to enshittify don’t usually remove enshittified/negative features they already have before re-enshittifying. They want you used to the enshittification from the start.

Quick everyone, start talking about high speed rail!

Maybe we have the slightest shot of actually building out, y’know, cheap, fast, effective mass transit for once?

A few reasons:

1. Market prices are more often determined by speculation than actual intrinsic value. People will say that the market is “efficient” in the sense that everything is valued efficiently based on the value it’s worth, but take one look at meme stocks and you’ll see that prices can easily be influenced by large volumes of purchases instead of any actual intrinsic value in the corporation being invested in. A lot of money being funneled into index funds can lead to the price of stocks continually increasing without actual value of the underlying companies being taken into account as much as you would think.

2. Fascism is supported by, and continues to support capitalism. Corporations benefit from capitalism, especially under a system where safeguards are removed and businesses can make larger profit margins as a result.

3. A lot of the changes Trump is making hurt working people, but don’t hurt corporations. (and often even help corporations directly) For instance, he’s making union busting easier, knows that any tariffs can simply be passed on by the companies without shrinking their margins, (just costing you more), is cracking down on legal immigration to the point that illegal migrant workers are even easier to exploit with the threat of deportation, etc. A lot of the bad things Trump is doing will only affect us, not corporations or the capital owning class.

You know, offline features like seeing how long your device will stay on to tell you how long your device will stay on. Everything you need!

Buy overpriced ugly truck from an outward Nazi

Cover it in shiny gold wrap to draw even more attention and be obnoxious to anyone who doesn’t want to be blinded on the road

Be surprised when people don’t like you

???

The only beneficial use I’ve had for “AI” (LLMs) has just been rewriting text, whether that be to re-explain a topic based on a source, or, for instance, sort and shorten/condense a list.

Everything other than that has been completely incorrect, unreadably long, context-lacking slop.

It’s whole deal is “declarative” system configuration. Essentially, it means if your config file is identical to someone else’s, your systems will have identical software/dependencies, and everything should, in theory, run the same, generally speaking.

So for instance, to install a package, instead of running sudo apt install nameofpackage, I would just edit my NixOS config file to have the line pkgs.nameofpackage in it, run a command to “rebuild” my system using sudo nixos-rebuild switch, and it would automatically be installed.

That’s not the whole of it of course, but that’s just a general overview. It’s really good for if you’re running multiple systems that need the same software, because all you need to do is copy the config file over, run sudo nixos-rebuild switch, and the systems now have identical software.

Oh yeah, and you can also easily rollback. If you break anything, you can, while starting to boot NixOS, just select the previous configuration, start your system, and any changes you’d made to software/settings will just be undone. It’s great for troubleshooting.

AFAIK NixOS also has the largest number of supported packages out of any distro.

Other nations that did away with smaller denominations simply round to the nearest denomination of the smallest unit they have available (e.g. $0.05), so $0.96 would come out to $0.95. When using card, prices stay the same, since digital money is easily divisible into smaller amounts without needing to worry about issuance.

There’s also the collective cost argument, which essentially means that since this cost to produce currency is a direct inflationary impact on the money we all hold, and is an expense by the government, which represents the populace, then if a penny costs $0.03 to make, if it takes you more than, say, 10 seconds to get pennies out to pay with them, your hourly wage is actually higher than the time you wasted just fiddling around with that penny.

Can we make a penny for less?

Probably, but what’s the point even keeping the penny around if it’s fundamentally useless to most transactions? Nobody can buy any individual item with a penny anymore, nobody pays for any items with a combination of just pennies since they’re still too tiny to easily amount to a value that’s worth your time to count (e.g. counting 25 pennies to buy a lollipop is extraordinarily tedious compared to just pulling out a single quarter, or two dimes and a nickle), and their primary purpose at this point is just to account for businesses pricing their goods at one penny under the nearest dollar amount to trick your brain into thinking it’s cheaper. It’s a fundamentally hostile currency to store, use, and receive change in.

If a penny gets used 4 times it covers its cost.

It does not, because each use does not generate $0.01 in revenue for the government. Let’s say it costs $0.05 to make a penny. Every 20 pennies produced collectively costs everybody $1. It doesn’t matter how many times that penny is used, because it still costs 5x more to produce than it will provide back to the government, as a result of its existence. Even if it’s used 5 times, will the government get $0.05 as a result of that? Of course not.

Let’s say each penny costs $1,000 to make. Making 1,000,000 pennies would cost a billion dollars. That means to produce $10,000 in pennies, you’d devalue everybody’s money, collectively, by $1B. Obviously, pennies don’t cost this much, but at scale, I hope you can see that even the estimated $0.037/penny it costs adds up to significantly larger amounts, and those amounts do have a meaningful effect on the economy.

It’s a matter of inflation. If it costs more to produce the money, but you retain the same demand to use money, then you will cause inflation, because you will have to create more currency, to fund the creation of currency.

It’s not a matter of cost-per-use, it’s a matter of cost-vs-revenue.

True, but I’m of the belief that we’ll probably see a continuation of the existing trend of building and improving upon existing models, rather than always starting entirely from scratch. For instance, you’ll almost always see nearly any newly released model talk about the performance of their Llama version, because it just produces better results when you combine it with the existing quality of Llama.

I think we’ll see a similar trend now, just with R1 variants instead of Llama variants being the primary new type used. It’s just fundamentally inefficient to start over from scratch every time, so it makes sense that newer iterations would be built directly on previous ones.

So are these techiques so novel and breaktrough?

The general concept, no. (it’s reinforcement learning, something that’s existed for ages)

The actual implementation, yes. (training a model to think using a separate XML section, reinforcing with the highest quality results from previous iterations using reinforcement learning that naturally pushes responses to the highest rewarded outputs) Most other companies just didn’t assume this would work as well as throwing more data at the problem.

This is actually how people believe some of OpenAI’s newest models were developed, but the difference is that OpenAI was under the impression that more data would be necessary for the improvements, and thus had to continue training the entire model with additional new information, and they also assumed that directly training in thinking times was the best route, instead of doing so via reinforcement learning. DeepSeek decided to simply scrap that part altogether and go solely for reinforcement learning.

Will we now have a burst of deepseek like models everywhere?

Probably, yes. Companies and researchers are already beginning to use this same methodology. Here’s a writeup about S1, a model that performs up to 27% better than OpenAI’s best model. S1 used Supervised Fine Tuning, and did something so basic, that people hadn’t previously thought to try it: Just making the model think longer by modifying terminating XML tags.

This was released days after R1, based on R1’s initial premise, and creates better quality responses. Oh, and of course, it cost $6 to train.

So yes, I think it’s highly probable that we see a burst of new models, or at least improvements to existing ones. (Nobody has a very good reason to make a whole new model of a different name/type when they can simply improve the one they’re already using and have implemented)

Nix is definitely where I’d bet on good GUI development, if I had to choose. I’ve had my own issues with NixOS in the past, primarily due to me simply not being able to fully grasp some of the language for configs, but I’d definitely assume that GUI editing would be much easier due to the more predictable nature of the config files.

To be fair, honestly, I’d like to think that Fascists at least know that $0.03 > $0.01 is a bad trade.

The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support “pedophiles” (by which they mean “trans”). Or supporting “enemy invaders” (by which they mean “immigrants”). Even mentioning “Luigi” could qualify as a violation.

Nazism, however, can be more objectively defined than single-word terms, as you’ve used here.

For instance, if someone says the words “Heil Hitler” while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn’t exactly room for a fascist to go “weeeeelllll but you saying ‘black lives matter’ with your fist up is the same thing, actually,” if the law explicitly states that saying the exact words “Heil Hitler” while raising your hand in that salute is the specific thing required to get you imprisoned. Laws can be more objectively defined than “pedophiles,” “supporting enemy invaders,” or “Nazis.”

Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.

Nazis simply ignore the law. Trump is quite literally doing it right now, He’s passing executive orders he doesn’t actually have the legal capacity to enforce, which is then leading to things like congresspeople being prevented from entering buildings they have a right to enter, or databases being given to people without legally required security credentials. They don’t care what the law was, they care what it will be once they’re done screwing with it.

Whether or not you pass a law prohibiting explicit behaviors that are categorically harmful to society will not change whether or not they are then capable of manipulating the laws to do what they wanted to do to you regardless.

It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power, and having the ability to misuse any laws or power they may have in the first place

That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.

And yes, it obviously does. You stated that we should not censor Nazis because Nazis in power later on could use that law to suppress others. The same logic applies to any other regulation or prohibition. We shouldn’t pass gun control legislation because it’s possible someone uses it to take the good people’s guns away. We shouldn’t imprison people for rape because someone could redefine what rape means to mean non-married people having sex. We shouldn’t jail pedophiles because they could redefine trans people as pedophiles simply for existing.

It’s the same logic all the way down. There is nothing different when it comes to imprisonment for Nazi-aligned speech/actions, or other dangerous speech/actions. All of them can be prohibited to an extent, even though there’s a possibility that the power dynamic could then be reversed later on by the same group of people being prohibited.

Look, I’m not going to keep going on this because I think it’s clear neither of us are changing our stances. Send a reply if you want, I’ll gladly read it, and give it some thought, but I’m done trying to continue a conversation if you think we shouldn’t try to stop Nazis because Nazis could possibly get in power and stop us instead. That applies to any regulation against any group that could possibly come into power, and I would encourage you to look back at the examples I provided, stop, and think about just how different the logic really is to the idea of censoring Nazis, because I think you’ll find it is, in fact, not different at all.

This argument boils down to “You want the government to do a good thing, but bad people can abuse the government to do the opposite.” Sure, that happens sometimes.

But following your logic, I guess all laws shouldn’t exist then. After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way! This argument is fundamentally unworkable, because it doesn’t just apply to enforcing rules regarding speech, it applies to all rules.

Yes, I believe the government should enforce the standards I believe are correct. No, I do not believe that simply by enforcing such standards the power is magically granted for them to use it incorrectly, in a way that they wouldn’t be capable of had my preferred regulation not been implemented. Whether Nazis are or aren’t allowed speech won’t stop a bad government from simply censoring acceptable speech, if the government is acting in bad faith. They will do so regardless of if anti-Nazi speech regulations were in place prior.

Should we never attempt to implement any positive policy if it grants power that could theoretically be abused?

I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech

Yes, it does. The extent to which I support any individual’s freedom of speech only extends until that speech causes demonstrable harm. Unfettered free speech has no beneficial social utility compared to free speech that has restrictions for things that cause great social harm.

People often get caught up in the idea of “free speech = good, therefore anything I disagree with should still be allowed to be said,” when it doesn’t actually provide any value to let them do so, and actually harms society in the process. People have the right to say almost anything they want, but if we know the things they’re saying inevitably lead to fascist systems of power that oppress and kill millions, then restricting their free speech as much as possible is always justifiable, because doing so directly reduces the chances of people dying unjustifiably.

the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition

The government rarely actually steps in, even in cases of demonstrable monopolies. This is very easy to see in our world today, and will always be the case as long as you live in a capitalist system. Capitalism grants power to the capital holders by allowing them to buy the means of productions, restricting the power of workers to mobilize against corporate action, elect representatives not favorable to capital owners, etc. It causes anti-monopolistic tendencies to waver, because in a system built on being able to buy up businesses, capital concentration is the design, not just an unintended side effect.

if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place

A group of people do not need to be the majority of the population to hold drastically more wealth, and thus a direct ability to impact the choices of businesses. See: the top 1% of wealth holders owning 30% of wealth, and the bottom 50% of wealth holders owning just a few percentage points.

Critically though, we need to look at the possibility of such a drastically negative outcome occurring in both of our possible systems. In mine, Nazism simply is not given a chance from the start. It is not given the opportunity to even attempt a power grab, because those who publicly spread the ideology are imprisoned.

In yours, they are given the ability to spread their ideology, still get employment and buy goods at sympathetic businesses, can gain functional societal acceptance by accumulating wealth, and so on. Your system does less to stop Nazi ideology from spreading than mine does. It is fundamentally less hostile to Nazis.

Now, I’m going to try consolidating my responses to all your other replies in this one comment, since I want to try and keep this tidy.

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

They can do so, but they are less effective. We as a society, generally, hold distaste for people who do murders. If we lived in a society where nobody was ever imprisoned for murder, would we see less murder? Of course not, because the only consequence to doing so would be social shunning, but you would still be free to do whatever else you please in your life, and if you’re a person that doesn’t care what people think of you, or can surround yourself in a community of like-minded murderers, then social shunning does nothing to disincentivize you from murdering more people. Imprisonment exists for a reason, that being it is more effective than other means of preventing behavior, such as social shunning.

The exact same logic applies to Nazism. The ideology, after spreading far enough and gaining power, inevitably leads to outcomes that most of us would find highly undesirable, such as the genocide of entire groups of individuals, and thus should be treated as such, with the strongest force possible to reduce the chance of it spreading by as much as possible.

I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

Sorry if I was unclear by what I meant here. I meant specifically that imprisonment isolates you from the rest of society, by locking you up either in a cell block with very few other people to communicate with (relatively speaking) or by putting you in solitary, with no people to communicate with. You objectively have less ability to interact with other human beings, and have been “shunned” as a result. Or at least, you experience similar effects. (Social deprivation, being placed in situations only involving other people rejected from the common populace, etc) Again, apologies if I was unclear.

It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

I understand this point a lot, and I do think it’s a quite justified opinion to have. If we can’t be certain our views are moral, we want to do what requires the least harm to come to people, in case we’re wrong.

This

I fear tyrannical overreach

is a good fear to have, but if this logic was applied consistently, then we wouldn’t imprison anybody, for any offense, because we can’t actually be 100% confident that we were making the right choice in imprisoning them. As I mentioned earlier, we already know what Nazi ideology leads to in the end, we’ve seen its effects before, and with the rise of fascism in America with Trump’s second term, we’re seeing it begin again.

Just like how we could observe that murder negatively impacts the wellbeing of local communities, and societies as a whole, we can observe that what tends to arise from Nazi rhetoric also produces those same outcomes. For instance, Trump’s new executive orders are doing things like cutting billions in aid that currently keep many people alive in struggling countries, who are now likely to die from a lack of aid. His policies will be resulting in a significant shortfall in spending on critical programs people need to stay alive, like Medicare/Medicaid, are cutting funding for research that develops critical cures for people’s health problems, he’s actively stripping policies that level the playing field for disadvantaged groups which will only result in their overall relative share of wealth going down over time, not to mention his billionaire supporting policy that’s actively funneling more of the few percentage points of wealth everyone not in the top 50% of people has to the top 1%, which will only make their lives harder.

We see the outcomes, more concrete moral biases we can often feel more confident in (e.g. less death is usually ideal, people should ideally be healthy and happy, etc) back up why those outcomes are wrong, so we can then feel confident in saying the thing that caused those outcomes should be legislated against.

If you believe Nazis are a harm to society, and we have all our concrete understanding of their misdeeds to back that up, then it is no different from any action we take against any other bad action to say that they should be imprisoned for the harm we know they do to society.

I understand it’s difficult to support something that you could end up being wrong on, that ends up overreaching, but if you do nothing more than the social shunning that already happened just recently right up through when Trump entered the Oval Office, then you get fascism, and we’re seeing, yet again, the harm that fascism causes.

Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective?

Fines are generally not as effective as we’d like, because fines only affect the poor. If you’re wealthy, a fine is nothing to you. If a working class person espousing Nazi ideology were to be fined, say, $10,000, that could possibly make them bankrupt. If Elon Musk was fined $10,000 every time he said something directly aligned with the Nazis, he’d still be a multi-billionaire.

Now, sure, we can adjust fines as a percent of income, for instance, which helps, but generally speaking, the loss of autonomy (imprisonment) discourages bad behavior more than the loss of money, thus it tends to be a better way to prevent given behaviors from occurring.

I’m not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons […]

I understand, and I agree to an extent, but I think if the problem is the for-profit prisons, we should focus on not having for-profit prisons, rather than not prosecuting what should be crimes just because the current prison system is quite bad.

[…] with non-violent offenders.

Nazis are inherently violent. They may not directly harm an individual, but the ideology revolves around harm coming to other groups. (e.g. how the Nazis killed Jewish people, advocated for the death of homosexuals, etc) When someone supports Nazism, they directly support an ideology that effectively mandates the death of many.

In the same way that I believe health insurance CEOs should be considered murderers when they deliberately implement bad algorithms that deny claims for the sake of shareholder profit, even though they didn’t directly cause a death, I believe that people who support ideologies that can lead to the death of many should be treated maybe not as someone who has done a murder, but as someone who allowed the means for a murder to happen, knowingly, gladly, and deliberately.