the moment AI is capable enough to replace every knowledge worker and all knowledge workers are fired and/or dead the AI companies will just hike up the price for access to their bots until every company is paying at least as much if not more than what they were on human workers.
It doesn't work out for the owners of the capital. Their wealth is entirely based on their claims on future production that is consumed by people with money.
Then it's on to centralization of the "human" components of the workforce into company towns, robot armies and competition for natural resources that will be processed from raw.
"The public having access to information on what corporations plan to do in their communities and having the ability to vote to against what corporations want is a blight on the democratic process" is a crazy stance to take.
What you call "a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands" I call "We the People" and it should fall to them to decide what happens in their own communities. It's legal for me to put a hot tub in my living room. My family doesn't have to let me put it there. It's legal to pave over city park in my community and turn them into parking lots, but the people in my city should have a say in that.
"They get paid anyway" yeah not really. Businesses have margins and marketing budgets. There's only so much you can spend on ads and if those ads don't convert, you go elsewhere, you literally have to. You spends less on Google ads and more or Meta or other channels (influencers, marketplaces, etc. etc.)
Google has to be careful, ads that convert less are less valuable (duh) and what happens is not "well the business will just buy more ads", but "well the business has a 35% gross margin and marketing expenses already account for 20% of gross profit, they can't just buy more ads"
Sorry I can't view the article b/c of the paywall also because Jeff Bezos sucks.
But the Iranians aren't stupid, they just moved the research to "military sites" and then denied access. Sometimes I think the UN and some of these agencies are run by people who grew up in very manicured gardens with their fancy law degrees and filet mignon and can't use their imagination to understand how someone might deceive them lol.
But this still begs the question - why do we need to have some sort of deal in the first place? Why does Iran of all countries need to have this special treatment where they threaten to build nuclear weapons unless we all do or give them something. Other countries don't do that.
> why do we need to have some sort of deal in the first place? Why does Iran of all countries need to have this special treatment where they threaten to build nuclear weapons unless we all do or give them something.
Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty ages ago which put certain limits on what they could do. Other countries had growing concerns that Iran wasn't living up to that treaty, and those violations (plus some other stuff) resulted in a bunch of sanctions being placed on Iran.
Eventually Iran got a president who requested an international agreement that would ease both the sanctions Iran was under and the fears other countries had over their nuclear program. After lots and lots of negotiations they settled on the Joint Plan of Action which did a pretty good job.
I don't think Iran was being treated as all that special here and we'd see similar events play out if any country under the NPT started building up its nuclear program, especially if other countries thought that country was unstable/terroristy enough that the idea of them having a bunch of nukes was extra scary AND they also felt an agreement could be reached that would help make them less frightened.
Sorry I do not follow this line of reasoning at all. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then they started a nuclear program, then they wanted some sort of special treaty, and yet they aren't being treated specially or differently than other countries?
Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it?
The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really long. There's lots of special provisions for making sure Iran does what they're supposed to do and detailing what would happen if they don't because they had a sketchy history, but otherwise it just meant that Iran followed rules just like other countries do and they weren't punished like other rule following countries weren't. It took a new agreement to get there, but things were basically back to normal
If it's just standard treatment can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules?
Why not just not have a treaty and they just follow the rules? I think you're jumping through some hoops here to justify the need for the JCPOA when at the end of the day Iran needs to simply acquiesce to the international community and no longer pursue nuclear weapons. Of course they also need to stop murdering people throughout the region too. Nuclear disarmament is just one step.
Iran themselves said they enriched uranium up to 40%-60%. The US offered "free nuclear fuel forever" to get them to stop and they also refused. I can find sources for you if you'd like but both of these were widely reported.
> can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules?
First, keep in mind that Iran is very different today from when they signed that treaty. It was signed before the Iranian Revolution. A lot happened between the signing and when Iran approached the international community. By comparison, North Korea violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty too, and sanctions were put them as well, but they never came back to the table to reach a new agreement with the rest of the world (although they do have some kind of deal with russia I think)
Iran also didn't even want to "just keep following the rules". They accepted extra rules because at that point other countries didn't trust them. We don't monitor other countries like we did with Iran under the JCPOA. Iran wasn't demanding that we give them a bunch of free stuff either. They wanted sanctions lifted, but not even all the sanctions Iran wanted lifted were agreed to.
Other countries don't get to just tell other countries what to do. All we can do is encourage them to do the things we want by making offers or punish them for not doing what we want through things like sanctions. I mean, technically we can also use the CIA to interfere in their government but we already did that in Iran and it hasn't worked out so well for anybody.
Iran had reached a pretty good agreement with the world on the future of their nuclear program. It wasn't perfect for anybody, it was a compromise after all, but Iran followed the new agreement. Then Trump threw it all away because he was convinced that he could make a "better deal" and that was when the US offered Iran weird things like "free nuclear fuel" as part of Trump's new deal. I guess Iran just felt that Trump's deal was garbage even with the random extras Trump tried to use to entice them to go along with it. Frankly, considering how often Trump cheats people, I wouldn't agree to a deal with him either.
> Iran also didn't even want to "just keep following the rules". They accepted extra rules because at that point other countries didn't trust them. We don't monitor other countries like we did with Iran under the JCPOA. Iran wasn't demanding that we give them a bunch of free stuff either. They wanted sanctions lifted, but not even all the sanctions Iran wanted lifted were agreed to.
I don’t want to go in circles here so I’ll pull this piece out because it’s the crux of the issue. Iran should not pursue the development of nuclear weapons. There is no need for a treaty or special treatment. They should simply not do it. That’s it. We don’t need to have a pretty good agreement. They just don’t do the action. The world distrusts them because they’re earned that distrust.
If that's true, it's insane that it worked. It should be obvious to not take orders from twitter. There's a chain of command for a reason and random people on social media are no part of it. Sounds like the opposition forces would have to be so stupid that any number of Looney Tunes style tricks would have worked. Maybe next they can send out a rabbit in a dress to make opposition fall in love with it.
I just realized how much money one could make by hacking Truth Social and posting some "truths" under Trump's account. It's a relatively new, relatively complex platform; surely there are bugs.
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of Yemeni society. Arab political structure is based on tribal loyalty. Leaders of tribes pledge allegiance to other tribes or coalitions of tribes. They're not part of the same command structure because such a thing does not exist. Usually instead of being defeated tribal loyalties change with the political winds and tribe leaders neogtioate with other leaders. Twitter is also ubiquitous in Arabia and the natural place for political announcements.
While that's helpful and insightful, it's not hugely the issue.
The military units are not very well organized, they don't have clear and stringent command, control and communications.
They understood a regional commander to be fleeing, units fell back.
This is kind of stuff is absolutely as old as time, and it's #1 rule in conflict aka deception.
The parallel would be reproducing a General's order to withdraw - meaning the command would have legitimacy among troops and junior officers, believing their own commanders were just out of the loop.
And yes - their command structure will be de facto organized along social lines, but it's more descriptive.
AoW is one of the most important historical treatises, it's not just 'something that was written in history', maybe the oldest true 'textbooks' of objective knowledge, and also realpolitik. Also there's hints of metaphysics in there, in a way. It absolutely stands up today.
The very first work of the Western Cannon: Trojan Horse.
Information / espionage and deception has made most of history; Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander etc.
A fun exercise would be to look at battles of history from the lens of information warfare and deception, and contemplate the outcome without it.
Not the military stuff but Arab tribal society, read "The First Muslim" by Lesley Hazleton, about Arab society around the year 600. It's an absolute eye-opener.
> The US President routinely announces policy decisions on social media…
Yes, our current President also does stupid things, and our military forces shouldn't be using his incoherent ramblings on Twitter to make snap judgements on the battlefield without checking with their chain of command either.
> ...and our military forces shouldn't be using his incoherent ramblings on Twitter to make snap judgements on the battlefield without checking with their chain of command either.
You mean the chain of command that has been purged of experienced professionals?
You don't come back, you slide back to normal country status while 2 generations of people pretend you're still an empire until you really can't anymore.
Weird. A spike in blood pressure maybe? Can you do reproduce it consistently on purpose with an alarm or by holding something as you fall asleep that will make a loud noise when it falls?
I'm with you. WebGPU has been used to compromise and fingerprint systems. Firefox (and related forks) are usually able to disable this kind of insecure fluff but it'd be nice if other browsers did as well.
>On the other hand, disabling WebGPU is offering entropy for fingerprinting, too. A vanishingly small % of users will have done so.
I think near any anti-fingerprinting efforts though presume some floor level of system security and stability. If some particular hardware exposure feature lets attackers run arbitrary low level timing and hardware testing code or crash the system or break the sandbox the game is likely over for most people.
An extra bit of entropy isn't meaningless sure, but at some point there should be some weighing of absolute attack surface against it right? Some features just seem inherently anti-privacy/anti-security and one might just have to try to deal with that via other approaches.
Hopefully, but it's good to have it disabled as well so that your system isn't screwed by the next zero day and to help cover you in case the fingerprinters manage to find a technique to get identifying data from WebGPU that your ad-blocker hasn't accounted for. It's a constant arms race after all. Hopefully the ad-blocker is still feeding them randomized data even with it disabled, but otherwise other randomized data points should keep your fingerprint unique even if a lack of WebGPU support stays consistent.
WebGL is also a major security risk that has been used to compromise many machines. The world didn't end, but many people have been hurt because of it. I disabled WebGL the moment support was added in firefox too.
Anyone who has used a nice Japanese toilet knows the US is behind in terms of bathroom tech, but personally I'm glad that nothing my bathroom is controlled by app and that I don't have to spend my time worrying about what time of day it is when I want hot water or air conditioning. I hope my power company never decides to start with "surge pricing" so they can hike up my rates any time it's too hot or cold outside.
Solar + batteries is cheaper than ever. Americans are often full preppers and DIY but when we speak about energy autonomy and efficiency they immediately get some weird allergy.
Absolutely in that case it would be more for fiddling and having a conversation starter with friends. It also depends on how reliable your grid is etc.
What kind of electricity usage do you have? Because a used electric car probably around 20k provides you with easily 50+kwh in car to grid, + you get a working car for free.
reply