Notices by Jan Koekepan (jankoekepan@freehold.earth), page 2

Ladies and gentlemen, I've gone crazy enough to put myself through the agony and ecstasy of hosting a music show.

Not just any show, a psychedelic show devoted to freedom of thought. So if you dig trippy music, wild spacerock or just a general freaky good time, please consider tossing a dollar in the tip jar.

Thanks!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jankoekepan/psychedelic-concert-experience

@zaitcev I said compAnding, not compOUnding.

@zaitcev What you could do is take a leaf from audio engineering, and compand the signal. Compress the quiet element, expand the loud bit. You will get artifacts, but it should be a cleaner signal.

@kaniini Makes sense to me. Bidirectional reference is good enough for identity, if you care about it.

@sim It's also a problem for polyamorous people that can't get their relationships recognised. Basically., the current system is rigidly hidebound.

@augustus People that call Trump Drumpf are usually the same people that would scream blue murder if one objected to invented names from misunderstandings of other cultures, or just plain Ellis Island reconstructions of names being unearthed.

@sim But that problem already exists. Look at polygamous marriages, when people travel to the west.

@sim Fair enough, then let them call themselves married - but with no secular repercussions, positive or otherwise. What would matter would be the domestic partnership contract.

@sim How about each religion decides what a marriage is for that church, and administers the use of the term under canon law for their own field, but doesn't get to regulate domestic partnerships? That way a catholic church could regard someone as married to someone else, long after the domestic partnership was dissolved.

@sim Of course, one aspect of rectification would be to re-assess how marriage is valued as a social institution at all. Should it be held to be separate from generic contract law, and what terms would be regarded as unconscionable?

You may recall that one of the big debates around the time of the gay marriage wrangling was whether or not the state should be involved in defining marriage at all - and no few people said that it shouldn't.

@sim I think that it may have to start with re-examination of the marriage contract. Who is promising what, to whom, and what values or penalties accrue to wronged parties? Right now that's largely managed by a mess of common law, blended with well-meaning fiddles from people too distracted to do root cause analysis.

@sim The usual argument put forward is that the interests of the children, if any, are paramount. This immediately leads to a sort of weird dynamic in which the parties to a contract are not judged by their conduct with respect to the contract. The incentives are all wrong. If you want marriage to be justifiable for men, there has to be some kind of grounds for honourably washing their hands of a shit situation.

@sim Yes, but the problem that arises is that, short of cases of outright abuse, you end up with the same set of rules and discussions regardless of whether it's two good people that just grew apart and didn't violate anything, or one person that tore up any conception of what a marriage is. There's no opportunity for proper management of context.

@sim Worth mentioning: this is usually in "no-fault" divorce jurisdictions that don't try to determine who did what wrong, just wrap up a marriage by a standard ruleset.

@sim Depends upon jurisdiction. Not universally true. But it's an interesting example of a case in point.

@sim Interesting question.

One possible start would be to recognise the respective interests of parties to the marriage. For example, in many jurisdictions infidelity is not regarded as cause for divorce any more. This is a major consideration for men who might unwittingly raise bastards - a not insignificant investment of time and effort, and by the traditional understanding of marriage, not what they signed up for.

Just one example.

@chazcon There's also been an expansion of what almost amounts to correspondence classes for schools - essentially a distributed curriculum, administered by parents. The homeschooling field is turning more and more welcoming.

In WA at least the teachers' unions are (measurably - listed as the biggest lobbyist by dollars) exercising huge power, and have made it deliberately difficult to homeschool, but have failed to stem the growing trickle.

@chazcon Where I live, more and more people are going for homeschooling, and not a few of them have described it as them going on strike against the school districts.

This week's OHC entry:

http://compo.thasauce.net/files/Koekepan_-_Disharmony_beneath_Harmony(OHC515).mp3

@lexi Gar nicht neu, nur mehr deutlich erkennbar.

Dass es heute erkennbar ist, mehr als zuvor, sei ja ein Vorteil.