belochka

I've just realized what this family of technologies is - it's an attack at capitalism.

That word is hated here, but it's generally a good thing, with one condition.

When things marketed are something possible to supply an instruction for and to teach the customers basics of telling good stuff from bad stuff, sort of good lightbulbs versus bad lightbulbs, good radio receiver versus bad one, not very deep knowledge, but high school understanding of electricity, mechanics, chemistry, stuff like that.

So most of all it's a family of technologies good for generating "something" that looks plausible for a person about things they themselves don't do. Meaning - deceiving laymen.

So, for the commie types, it's partially good news - it's their part of history finally, and partially bad news - cause the flood wall they were trying to break because they thought it spoiled the view is being finally broken from the other side by a stream of sewage.

Just a random passing thought.

Sue them.

I mean, should if you can defend your rights. Anyway, posted from Moscow, Russia, so I'm stopping.

Quality control was there because competition and customer agency were there.

Now your typical customer is an ape. They are less brain than what Apple stuff was intended for in the 00s. By far.

Quality and competition are reliant upon customers with agency. While customers are now the kind of people who are secretly thinking they are almost there in inventing a warp engine, because Claude told them so.

No they can't, this is a good faith problem. Fundamentally. You can invent all the words you want and any law will somehow be a couple of terms short of covering the particular description exactly and without doubt.

You can't solve this with properly formulated laws, you can solve this with a sufficiently participatory legal system, and British legal tradition is better for that than Roman legal tradition in the first place, but it still is derived from popular power.

In other words, from societies forming the responses by networks of sufficiently pissed citizens.

The alternative was the government and big fish being interested in doing the right thing somehow, not the case here.

This, I think, is related to how all over the world laws have become very precise, literal and with plenty of special cases, which wasn't the case in the 60s even in socialist countries.

To replace good faith mechanism with literalism, which allows with sufficient power to create cases immune to law, because some special cases are not written into laws yet.

Also that naturally makes legal proceedings more expensive.

Watch lists are so 1937. The whole point of building datacenters for that kind of thing is to not have the separation between people on watch lists and people not on watch lists.

So nobody should be ashamed by your measure. We live in a wonderful time when, instead of selecting few suspicious individuals to monitor, you can monitor everyone automatically and don't have that risk.

It's like lossless encoding, like FLAC, versus lossy encoding, like MP3. It's better to have the former if your resources allow it.

Watch lists have that downside of being a Russian roulette, what if your watch lists give you a wrong impression of the society outside the watch lists? You might think you have it under control, while you don't.

With everyone being monitored if you think you have it under control, you really do.

That just was a bit too expensive, but times they are a-changing.

That's really nice, isn't it?

Yes, of course it's a surprise that people from a fighting military's most important branch won over a bunch of lazy peacetime professionals from a military of a country that doesn't have hostile neighbors by land.

That was sarcasm!!! I don't get where's the "new" in such news.

That's not what US military is doing anyway, with supreme logistics and air supremacy putting army into such a situation would be a deliberate choice.

Somehow people sharing your point of view in my experience are mostly men and mostly imagine it as lots of handsome young-looking people walking around in half-transparent elastic body suits in some future where everyone is "fixed" to be fit and look nice. And in that kind of sci-fi books somehow women are prevalent among characters, but the leading ones are men.

You get the general idea, yes?

I'm a very social awkward person, but honestly that worldview hints you should get out more. Again, I should follow my own advice, but.

Some progress is good.

There are two parts to this:

0. Ethics, a doctor would be expected to know better,
1. Reality, where eventually such things will just stop being 100% percent visible, and thus will happen again and again with impunity.

So, first, doctors shouldn't do that, second, ban or not, this will be happening all around us, no exit.

Cool. Proper devops like in ads. Just those people I compare myself to when having impostor syndrome trips.

I mean, these things happen, that's just bitterness.

Open discovery is a hard problem.

If that seems pseudo-science speak to seem smart, I mean that you need some prior trust. Just like with PGP. Some axioms. In year 2002 those axioms were people you meet IRL and links you saw printed. Now these have been erased as a Web discovery mechanism, so to not compete with search engines and platforms. Links are login-walled and short-living most of the time. People are discouraged from making their own pages and sharing links.

My Kademlia experiment is more working than not, slowly moving to split core and UI there, to have replaceable cores. Want to try F2F. Especially since it even looks more like something that would work F2F way better. I've learned that I'm not as smart as I think while making it. Still don't have anything resembling indirect reputation, but eventually I want to make that, for some kind of "public" media, where you need to filter the sewer stream.

(No, I won't share, it's a P2P program written in TCL/Tk, entirely, not just UI, except for some bindings in C that weren't done by someone else. It seemed easier to start with, with asynchronous style being very easy there, but I've recently tried writing some other thing in Python and realized just how easier and faster Python is due to everything not being a string, however boring that critique of TCL would seem.)

No it wasn't. It was about a group of people trying to create/design a digital currency, with an open ending that really looks more like "they decided that won't work anyway", or even tossing the weapon aside like Luke in Star Wars : RotJ .

I hope you can see the difference.

Neal Stephenson is a really good author in the sense of doing both, describing accurately the thrill of creation and discovery or at least being able to touch that with your mind, and also not allowing that optimism feel something to really transpire. The main characters are optimist, the author and with him the reader are not.