CraigOhMyEggo

It's one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say "as long as it's popular it shouldn't be pirated", those who say "as long as the creator is around", those who don't apply a set frame, etc. I've even seen people say they wouldn't dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

Was wondering this in celebration of the fact dolphins have officially been confirmed to have their own translatable proto-language, a longtime speculation we kind of already knew and which fulfills a friend's prophecy. It's common to train animals to perceive and perform art, and/or for them to already have a sense of what it is. Give an elephant a brush and a canvas and they'll paint glyphs of other elephants, chimps can draw avant-garde "masterpieces", and pigeons can even be trained to recognize the difference between good and bad art.

Dolphins surpass all of these animals in intelligence. But there's just one problem, they live underwater. And water tends to destroy most art mediums. Paper canvases shrivel, residue washes and floats away, hammers made for sculpting tend to strike softer, sculpting ice floats, fashion requires sources of fabric you can't get underwater, you get the idea. A dolphin's life is Murphy's Law for an artist. But for an artist, if there's a will, there's a way, and humans are known to challenge what we expect to be ways in which art can be created, such as with crop circles, Nazca lines, shadow art, and soap sculptures made from microwaving soap into molds. What improvised method/means of artform would you coach dolphins to do who want to be artists if you had to do so in some way?

I might covertly edit this post for clarification, but basically my concern goes like this.

We have all seen it, we're watching a commercial for a fancy new site and at the very end they say "ask for parents' permission before joining".

We like to think the collective exists for all mankind, the final bastion of stoic cosmopolitanism and truth. But there are times when you may think "err, maybe not this person".

I have a friend who is registered for a certain service and likes it a lot, and recently got scared out of her mind because a relative of hers who has autism and doesn't understand so much as digital etiquette got banned from the same service due to getting scammed and just kept re-registering and getting re-banned over and over because this was an example of an inexperienced mind who had all the resources to break the norms, and several times the people in charge of the service thought about banning the whole family (I am in fact active in a certain community that is full of this kind of poor soul). This at one point got me thinking, how helpful it might be if we federate everything in existence, similar to Neopets services which gave you a different experience depending on your registered age group. You could have "the kids corner" or "the autism corner" or even an animal corner or robot corner or alien corner, a seeming limitless potential, fediversal accommodations to the different types of minds out there, with people not having to worry about what trouble is caused by their youngsters and whatnot because they have "the kidernet" which connects to the other "nets" and can keep them out the same way.

Does nobody think this? I personally think we should fediversify existence itself, with language and identity being one useful example.

As someone with good parents, I get very demoralized hearing about how ungodly awful most peoples' parents were. It's so ubiquitous that I almost (almost but not quite) subscribe to the philosophy my friends have where they hold that children should (literally) be raised "by the village" rather than by two parents, which in theory would minimize the effects of one imbalanced mind having full control over the children.

Lately I've been reading a lot of books on narcissism and have been picking up on the idea/notion/possibility/viewpoint that narcissism is a spectrum like autism is. In autism, which itself is incredibly common due to the fact that it's multiple genes/processes/whatever performing multiple parts of a spectrum (think a carpet representing humanity and a shattered cup on the carpet, I use the shards in this visual to represent pieces of the spectrum scattered across humanity, apologies if anyone thinks a shattered cup seems like a negative comparison, I don't), you have the majority of humanity having some variance in it, which goes to demonstrate there's no such thing as a neurotypical. As in, if a scouter was invented that instead of scanning your power level scanned your autism level, everyone would have their very own signature number. ~~I would be over 9000.~~ Same with narcissism, if this view is correct, as it would be another shattered glass on the carpet that is humanity, with the shards from both glasses overlapping in their territories (which when you think about it makes the family dynamics in The Good Doctor all the more awkward, it's one spectrum at odds with another in a show where the main character is a medical savant with autism). And again, not trying to make an awkward comparison, I have friends who openly confess to me they're deep on the narcissism spectrum, and these people at least are trying their best in life, as well as showing narcissism is a neutral condition that just happens to seem more negative in modern urban situations.

Consider this the sequel to my last such question which had a similar idea to it. What's the most narcissisty your parents ever come or came, even if you hold them in generally good regards?

When I say honor, what I mean is the idea of every individual being called to answer to everyone else. You know, the kind of thing you see from the Klingons. "You are thirty and unmarried, you bring dishonor to us" or "shame on your family for eternity because you were arrested for terrorism" or "what a disgrace you are for not having the skillset of your parents". This goes deeper than that though, sometimes it's more subtle, for example you might run into old classmates and all they want to know is how your brother is doing, or people keep telling you that you should live up to your sister or they might put you in some kind of shadow.

People who defend honor will often say "it is the masses who have spoken, enough said" but do you consider this self-explanatory and why? Because I have many questions sometimes that get no answer that seem to undermine the very justification of honor, for example... what defines a member of an honor culture, is the internet seen as a valid method of manifesting an honor culture, does an honor culture that faces a schism and breaks off from another become a dishonorable honor culture or equally valid, who was the first person to believe in certain ideas from which the honor culture got its conclusions, how did said person justify their ideas, is it dishonorable to find loopholes in the rules of the honor culture, are you dishonored if you save the life of someone who is seppukuing, what if this person happens to be the emperor, etc.

As kids, we're told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these "qualified" adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here's my favorite from a friend.

Suppose there's this site I really like, and I like the fediverse, and I think it would be awesome if they joined the fediverse, to benefit everyone involved. Is it like how it was in the Zorro movie where they vote California into the US, Zorro swipes all the voting boxes with a Z, and everyone cheers, or is it not possible for just any random schmoe site to join?

They're semi-famous now, but it was actually a friend of mine who originally wrote them. They're a list of ten rules of thumb to go by when using the internet. They imply things like the potential drawbacks of assuming someone's other identities, how to caution against archive forgery, when the best time is to complain about mods, etc. and serve as a go-to for advice on interpersonal relations when indirect contact is at play. Written in the style of a Greek philosopher, they were written in a setting where people were committing massive collateral damage with their animosity/gullibility/skepticism and they have paved a better modus operandi than many contemporaries can. Confidently asserted but open to at least some change, what would you add?