Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
176
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Yeah, it's pretty dated, and some of it just doesn't work. If there's a newer version, it's probably classified. Though, the stuff in the back about office work and everyday type stuff still applies.

    Really, I think it should be used as a starting point to start thinking about resistance. For example, although not specifically mentioned, an IT tech can "accidentally" misconfigure a service to make it unavailable. Similarly, if you're a straight white male, you can raise a pride flag or the flag of a Central American country. It's not illegal, and it can force a small amount of resources to be diverted to investigating you rather than a minority.

    There are a million ways to creatively resist that also don't cause collateral damage. The goal is to sap their resources and morale.

  • Everyone can do something, even if it's small. Simple sabotage like non-compliance, malicious compliance, malicious incompetence, "forgetting" in a way detrimental to the government, even just vocally/visibly supporting minorities and denouncing the current government helps.

    Not everyone realizes this, but if you spread the word on these simple methods, we can slow them down and frustrate their plans. And that is an act of resistance, too.

  • We can! Everyone can take part in small acts of resistance. If you haven't already, the OSS (precursor to the CIA) circulated pamphlets in nazi-occupied countries to help ordinary citizens fight the nazis. Here it is if you're interested: Simple Sabotage Field Manual

  • That's sad. It was really disheartening to see the amount of preemptive cooperation.

  • From my experience, some are and some aren't. It's a numbers game, and hopefully the ratio is positive.

  • The sad thing that this was not Trump; he just signed the EO. He probably doesn't even know this lesson exists. This was some mid-level officer trying to hew to the EO and a memo from the Acting Secretary of the Air Force. The fact that it was this fast shows how many people all over the government are willing to comply with these immoral orders.

  • We’re in a weird fucking situation and we’re all about to learn how we’d have acted if we lived in 1930s Germany. Will we be the cruel ideologue who actively causes harm? Will we resign in protest and become essentially irrelevant? Will we try to work within the system to prevent small cruelties while supporting large cruelties (i.e. Schindler)? Will we apathetically continue to support the economic system of cruelty? Etc…

    You're right. The best thing to do, though, is resist. Simple disobedience will slow their plans. There's so much power in simply not cooperating and being a nuisance. If you haven't read it already, the OSS (precursor to the CIA) has a great guide in simple sabotage for everyday people (Simple Sabotage Field Manual) that when done can stymie them. This was written back in the '40s during WWII to help occupied countries resist.

    And I agree that there are some people in ICE trying to lessen harm. To that, I say that we should find them and support them and give them whatever aid. That goes for anyone who works in the federal government. A low level person at State can "accidentally" approve changes to trans people's documents. An office worker at DoE can ask annoying questions and derail meetings. It's little acts of sabotage that when added up can bring this to a screeching halt.

  • Shed hair? Go to jail. Have dandruff? Straight to jail. Cut yourself and bleed? Believe it or not, jail.

  • Honestly, in like 40-50 years, I imagine that "red hat" will be a term with a similar connotation. We're on a very dark path.

  • These militias are absolutely unhinged. The reporters and especially the mole deserve medals for this kind of reporting. I hope this makes some modicum of difference.

  • The thing I'm heartened by is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of LLMs among the MBA/"leadership" group. They actually think these models are intelligent. I've heard people say, "Well, just ask the AI," meaning asking ChatGPT. Anyone who actually does that and thinks they have a leg up are insane and kidding themselves. If they outsource their thinking and coding to an LLM, they might start getting ahead quickly, but they will then fall behind just as quickly because the quality will be middling at best. They don't understand how to best use the technology, and they will end up hanging themselves with it.

    At the end of the day, all AI is just stupid number tricks. They're very fancy, impressive number tricks, but it's just a number trick that just happens to be useful. Solely relying on AI will lead to the downfall of an organization.

  • Yep, that's more or less it. To add insult to injury, he wanted someone higher in his chain to fight for him or at least tell him he was a good boy. No one did, and his superiors basically shrugged and said, "Guess you should have had a tie or whatever." And he took that personally.

    The sad thing is that it's a super relatable story. Everyone has been in his place at one point or another where they've essentially been set up for failure. Normal people, though, would just get over it and turn it into a funny story down the line about the stupid indignities of their position. It really shouldn't be a villain origin story.

  • Mabus was a Surface Warfare Officer for two years and attained the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. Granted, to make JG, all you need to do is have a pulse, but he still was in the Navy.

  • A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

    Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." There are a lot of stupid people in the United States who would vote for Trump. His campaign was directed at turning out low-propensity, low-information voters, and the type of voter who would cast a bullet ballot are low-propensity, low-information voters.

    Why do you assume it’s not nefarious?

    The past two elections are regarded as two of the most secure in history. Plus, if there were actual malfeasance, I very much doubt that Trump, knowing his famously insatiable ego, would not allow his popular vote to get below 50%.

    In the end, investigate away, but nothing will be uncovered, just like in 2020.

  • The Trump campaign was heavily courting low-propensity, low-information voters. The bulk of spending was in swing states. People who are more likely to cast bullet ballots are low-propensity, low-information, and/or single-issue voters. All I'm getting from your argument is that the Trump campaign was effective in their strategy.

    So, go ahead and investigate, but the result will almost certainly be that the election was secure.

    The sad truth is that there are many disengaged, low-information voters who were swayed to vote for Trump.

  • Things can be anomalous and abnormal and not be nefarious. Abnormality isn't evidence of criminality. So, why investigate? Because the number of bullet ballots is slightly higher? A more reasonable explanation is that some people cared more about president than other down ballot elections.

  • I can’t talk about Picard, but Discovery has a series of really interesting ideas that were completely destroyed by the overwhelmingly bad details.

    This is it. Both series had season plots that would have made for generally decent two-parters back in the '90s.

  • Second watching SNW! Really fantastic show.

    I disagree that it recaptures the vibe and tone of TNG/'90s Trek. I'd say it's much more like TOS with weird (in a good way) plots and swashbuckling adventure. '90s Trek felt much more grounded and more taking-itself-seriously than TOS or SNW.