Where can we find your source code, and if the answer is “nowhere”, then why do you call yourself FOSS?

Strong traditional scandinavian name

Danfoss.dk

Grundfos.dk

Means “river,” except not like e.g.

Mississippi is a river, slow and meandering. Instead, a raging torrent through the mountains – this is Kjosfossen (The Kjos River) in Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjosfossen

So that’s what “FOSS” is.

I have a joke on shieldfoss.tumblr.com:

My social media strategy did not include a Tumblr slide yet here we are.

Except that’s not really a joke, I did sit down and think through a social media strategy and part of it was the user name. I wrote down several traditionally scandinavian/viking things and combined them. For those names that sounded good I checked if @name was available on twitter and whether name.com was an available domain. If I liked it and I could get the domain and I could get the twitter, it went on a short-list. Shieldfoss won out – I had others I liked slightly more but either the domain or the twitter handle was already in use.

Some other contenders:

To think! I could have been @argumate‘s @ShieldMate if shieldmate.com had been available but alas – it was taken by domain squatters.

sevzem:

rusalkii:

maddeningscientist:

trickytalks:

bluehawkdustorm:

speakertoyesterday:

maddeningscientist:

empathy2000:

So like, where is rationalist adjacent tumblr going after tumblr ends??

tbh i expect that it’s just going to kind of dissolve, or at least fracture

wordpress isn’t good for the kind of community we have, diaspora* kinda sucks, there’s several groups trying to make tumblr-like platforms but i don’t know if any of them are going to be any good or if people will be able to coordinate on one (soup.io kinda sucks too, frinstance)

tumblr is also good at like…  attracting new people who would fit the community, in a way that i don’t think other platforms would be.  and it optionally provides streams of content that aren’t related to the LWsphere, which is probably important too.

Ouch. And I was only just learning the art of knowing people on here. Where else am I going to talk to more intellegent autistic poly nerds? Hopefully at least some relationships survive.

Hmm. If they want to shut it down, maybe they will entertain an offer.

Wait, what’s getting shut down how?

*bangs fists on table*

IRC! IRC! IRC! IRC

#lesswrong and #rattumb are already things.  you can go poke at them if you want.

While I don’t think tumblr will get shut down soon, every single thing we could use I could think of:
Wordpress/some other similar blogging platform; too much of an Actual Blog thing
Diaspora; apparently terrible?
LessWrong itself; very Craft, we’re very Community. Also, based on the survey, there seem(?) to be some plans to revive it in some manner probably inconsistent with all of ratt descending on it. Also also, a ghost town at this point.
IRC channel(s); not enough of an Actual Blog thing?
Slack(s); need a specific invite, also not really an Actual Blog thing although that could theoretically simulated with personal channels, eats the archives
Twitter; character limit. We will all die of frustration in five seconds.
Reddit; someone ( @thathopeyetlives?) suggested individual subreddits for each person. This doesn’t sound workable but I don’t really know Reddit, so don’t take my word for it.
Everyone moves to the Bay Area; everyone is basically already there. Zero problems with this one, I propose a migration.

(Some of these I don’t know very well, I’m just going off what other people have said.)

i’m gonna make a thing at some point, when tumblr dies yall can migrate to my thing

#rattumb suffers from the fact that you can get banned from #rattumb. On glorious tumblr, I just don’t follow people I don’t want to read.

ilzolende:

thymoss:

ohai-ohia:

inertialreferenceframe:

zaataronpita:

misandrwitch:

pluspluspangolin:

headmeetsdesk:

fuckyeahdiomedes:

zaataronpita:

misandrwitch:

zaataronpita:

misandrwitch:

auetafefe:

misandrwitch:

i also don’t like the idea that in the future in a lot of narratives, star trek included, theres no more religion in general??? 

like slow down john lennon we’ve lasted this long i don’t think we’ll be gone in 2234 i want muslim space explorers :((

and c’mon dudes everyone wants to see rabbis arguing about when sunset is *in space*

muslims would definitely do that to lmfao

NEVER ENDING SHABBOS IF THE SUN DOESN’T SEND.

Or is it never beginning…

imagine ramadan lmao oh my god

I think we’ve found the reason why there are never Jews and Muslims in space…

I’ve always wondered how muslims in sci-fi settings go about praying toward mecca when they’re on the other side of the galaxy. I mean, do they need to be precise about facing mecca, or would it be ok as long as they were facing in the general direction? Because with the distances involved, if you’re facing just slightly the wrong way, you might be praying towards Alpha Centauri instead or something.

Maybe they’d invent some sort of compass that always points exactly towards Mecca.

…man that could be a huge point in the story

Precise, elegant interstellar navigation systems that came about because of Muslim space travelers making scientific breakthroughs in order to create that compass

And the entirety of the rest of the spacefaring world is drastically altered and improved by the research they perform and technologies they create.

And even you were able to pray in the right direction, how would you know when to pray? 5 times a day, right, but what’s a day in space?

ThIs is awesome

I mean, from a Jewish perspective, if you were praying from the other side of the galaxy, it would be enough to pray towards Earth.

Just as when Jews around the world pray towards Jerusalem, it’s enough if you’re west of Jerusalem to pray facing East and if you’re east of Jerusalem West and so on. But really, you’re praying towards the Kotel (Western Wall) and not just towards Jerusalem and Jews in Jerusalem pray towards the wall.

So praying towards Earth, knowing that Jerusalem is in that direction, should be enough.

Maybe same with Mecca?

THERE IS A BOOK WHERE THIS IS A THING THAT THEY TALK ABOUT.

I just can’t remember it because I just woke up and haven’t had any coffee yet. But, here follows a list of novels that I can think of off the top my head (that is, I can see on my bookshelf) with at least incidental portrayals of Judaism/Islam in the future. (All of these, are to my very much non-Jewish, non-Muslim, non-religious eye, reasonably positive/substantive? That is, the religious identity of a character/group of characters is important to who they are in a non-offensive/stereotypical way. But I might be missing something more subtle than I can detect.):

  • Roma Eterna, by Robert Silverberg
  • Hyperion, by Dan Simmons
  • The Last Colony, by John Scalzi (and I think the two books that come before it, too. I can’t recall if Islam or Judaism get mentioned specifically, but he makes a point of establishing that existing earth religions go out to the stars along with the rest of our culture.)
  • Ender’s Game/Shadow and Sequels. (I hesitate to put these here, because I’m almost positive they’ve got to be offensive to someone. Or possibly everyone. I’ve seriously soured on Orson Scott Card as a writer and human since I was in high school and read these.)
  • I’m sure there are tons more, but I am still sleepy.

reblogging for reference and also because the discussion is awesome

this borders on blasphemous but oh my g o d and what about prophets and sacred places in every galaxy and intERSTELLAR PILGIMAGES

there is at least one important space muslim in accelerando, and weird religious law antics are included

In the Raj Whitehall series by S.M.Stirling and David Drake, the muslims pray towards the site where the colony ship landed because no matter how the planet is turned, that spot is metaphorically closes to earth, IIRC.

sevzem:

It is an ironic twist, given the cultural politics of psychedelia, that drugs should
be a fundamentally authoritarian concept. But there is ultimately no way to
avoid the conclusion. It’s the entire point of Moldbug’s red pill – the idea that the
neoreactionary argument is an inevitable process, and that once you take the pill
you cannot be unconvinced. Or consider Land’s description of the process of
being convinced by neoreaction: “the spirit of reaction digs its Sith-tentacles into
the brain.” (Yes, we’re mixing our franchises now. Clearly our red pill’s more a
drug cocktail.) This isn’t just a neoreactionary thing either – Land’s imagery is
only a few doors down from Terrence McKenna’s suggestion that DMT is an

alien intelligence’s attempt to communicate directly with the human brain, and
we might also point at William S. Burroughs’ allegorization of his heroin
addiction into his paranoid world of linguistic control machines. My point here
isn’t some monstrous offspring of psychedelia; it’s that psychedelic horror is a
real historical phenomenon, and arguably much larger than the cuddly tie-dye
psychedelia of popular culture.

It is probably relevant that my old writing method (and still the most productive one I’ve found) involved consuming immense quantities of tobacco, blacking out at a keyboard for several hours, and waking up to find a complete post that I did not recall writing.

Moldbug and Land both use arguments I’d have used at 13 when I first found Skibet chat:

“You would agree with me if you understood me.”

A++ rhetoric, would use again.

sevzem:

im not gonna do it but there is a good far-right argument for polyamory that no one has made yet

Assuming you mean “should be legal” rather than “is good,” I don’t think this is far-right but it is definitely alt-right:

The government has no legitimate interest in what I am doing with other private consenting citizens.

kaminiwa:

shieldfoss:

rendakuenthusiast:

isaacsapphire:

transientpetersen:

One day you are called from your morning coffee and chair by the sounds of a dispute coming from the school yard. In the center of the play area, three children are arguing loudly over a rudely carved wooden flute. Each is quite passionate in asserting that, while the others have compelling arguments, the flute should rightfully go to them as their claim on it is the strongest. You want to be fair so you conduct an extensive interview with each and the following story comes out. None of the children disagree about these facts, only their relevance.

The first child is from a poor family (henceforth ‘the poor kid’). They don’t have much in the way of possessions so they have become used to improvising toys. One such favorite was a stick that they found on their distant grandparent’s property. The poor kid was usually to be found swinging it around and playing swashbuckler on the playground equipment during recess. The second child (‘the rich kid’) finds this most annoying and prefers not to use the areas where the poor kid is playing as a result.

Last week the poor kid comes in to school without lunch. They’re looking really hungry so the rich kid offers to trade a spare sandwich for the stick that has been annoying them. The poor kid agrees and the traded sandwich makes for a very satisfying lunch. The third child (‘the crafty kid’) happens to be sitting nearby and takes a liking to the stick. They ask the rich kid if they can use the stick to help with a personal project. The rich kid is in a good mood and hands it over.

In the intervening week, the crafty kid carves the stick into a rough flute. It is rudimentary to be sure but functional. Today, the crafty kid brought the flute in to school, the other two saw it in the school yard, and the fight broke out.

If the rich kid gets it, they will play it on and off for a few days (they are the only one of the trio that knows how to play) and then it will end up in their locker with the rest of their toys (because they don’t like to share what’s theirs). If the crafty kid gets it, they will examine it for a while to take notes about the carving process and then throw it to their dog to chew up or throw it out (like many artists, they hate to see their practice pieces). If the poor kid gets it, they will use it like they always did and go back to swashbuckling (in the week since giving it up, this kid couldn’t find a suitable replacement and misses playing their favorite games).

You’re an impartial observer. You don’t owe these kids anything and never expect them to be of any use to you in the future. At this moment, you’re more concerned about making the headache go away but you do want to be fair.

Alternatively, you know the rich kid will say good things to their parents, who have influence on the school board, the poor kid is your cousin, and the crafty kid lent you a full range of tools last month when you needed to do some emergency classroom repair.

What do you do and who has the best claim? Do you expect other observers to agree with your assessment? In a perfect world would you expect to generate objective agreement or is this situation truly pathological?

Amartya Sen created this example to illustrate how different moral frameworks truly generate different answers even in non-extreme situations. I consider this an excellent thought experiment for understanding how complicated justice can be and how mutually contradictory our current systems are.

Wait, somebody thinks it isn’t morally the crafty kid’s?

Yeah I kinda want to form communities where people who don’t think the crafty kid has the best claim can’t join and only live in them. Just my gut reaction here.

That’s a really interesting though experiment.

I’m not sure if the stick is the rich or the crafty kids’, though, because:

They ask the rich kid if they can use the stick to help with a personal project. The rich kid is in a good mood and hands it over.

Was that a transfer of ownership or a lending? If somebody asks me if they can use something of mine (and I feel it was clearly the rich kid’s before the project) for a crafts project, whether or not it becomes “theirs” is very very fluent – like, if somebody asks if they can use one of my chairs for a project, I would be very disappointed if I got anything but a useful chair back – though possibly modified/decorated – and would not have any implied change of ownership. If somebody asked if they could use my tools in a project, I would not expect to get any screws/nails back.

Counterpoint: If it was still just a stick, I’m pretty sure the rich kid wouldn’t care about getting it back at all. He wants it because the crafty kid turned it in to something cool.

Of course, you could let the crafty kid study it and then hand it off to the rich kid. The crafty kid explicitly just wants to study it for a bit before parting with it…

I actually don’t really care about neither the crafty nor the rich kids’ opinions, in so far that they are in agreement about the facts of whether it was a transfer of ownership or not.

If it turns out that they do agree about the wording but not about whether it was a transfer of ownership (That is, “Can I use” was the explicit wording, not “can I borrow” or “can I have” and they disagree about the meaning) then yeah I’d give it to the crafty kid, probably on the understanding that the crafty kid owes the rich kid a stick but not a stick that he has transformed into a flute.

But if it was explicitly a loan, then it’s still the rich kid’s stick no matter how amazingly transformative the crafty kid has been.