Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)R

rottingleaf

@ rottingleaf @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
2012
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Doge reportedly using AI tool to create ‘delete list’ of federal regulations

    Jump

  • Anyone who says “regulation is bad” is attacking the problem with too blunt an instrument.

    I agree.

    The urge to get rid of regulations is either driven by corrupt profiteering or by an ideology that’s too crude for the real world.

    It might also be driven by the feeling that it hits your enemy more than it hits you, but that was back then. Now it doesn't, because the enemy has converted their regulations into real-world power and can scrap them all and still have it.

    BTW, I agree about "too crude", actually ancap as it is itself doesn't pretend to be anything else. That's why I like it very much - most cases of marxism etc are directed at some imagined and idealized real world, or a miraculous solution allowing to introduce them in the wild and let them work. Ancap (just like left anarchism) explored mechanisms which can never be made 100% pure in reality, but benefit everyone when created. It's more about designing new social systems than about ruining existing ones.

    Which is why I don't like people making an association between ancap and Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand is a fan of monopolies and hereditary oligarchy. Ancap in its pure form has no levers for an oligarchy to maintain itself. It defines finite non-human-created resources as common, so its treatment of oligarchy is no different than left anarchism's treatment of oligarchy.

    Getting back to regulations, I've recently had a wonderfully simple idea which doesn't even seem that crappy. Separate all law into the constitutional part (and maybe some intermediate kind requiring longevity and not too complex) and the usual part, and scrap the latter and start anew with a bunch of referendums every 10 years. One can devise a system where representatives are elected into councils (ranked choice voting, proportional system), a few dozens of them with a few hundreds people in each, and each council decides on its own part of the laws (of course, using advice of invited lawyers and such), and then a referendum approves or rejects those projects. Where those are rejected, the process is repeated until there's an acceptable variant.

    To make the laws used in daily life simpler and more democratic. Right now malicious parties can slowly skew laws in their favor over many decades. In such a system only the popular perception and shared knowledge will survive those many decades, while the actual law will be decided upon democratically. Thus a solution to one time's problem won't become a problem for another time. And the legal corpus will be compact, similar to that of western countries in 1950s.

    A lot of today's problems is just legal legacy and sneakery. This way stuff that's obsolete and stuff that has been sneaked in won't have any effect on modern application of rights.

  • Doge reportedly using AI tool to create ‘delete list’ of federal regulations

    Jump

  • That's not how I meant it when 10 years ago talking about regulations being a bad thing.

    I meant starting with copyright =\

    "AI tool".

    I live in Russia and I'm pissed that they are making its gang in power look almost competent in comparison.

  • The Future is NOT Self-Hosted

    Jump

  • I would say the future is in pooling resources.

    Like it happens with torrents. As one p2p protocol very successful.

    Self-hosting not applications, but storage and uniform services. Let different user applications use the same pooled storage and services.

    All services are ultimately storage, computation, relays, search&indexing and trackers. So if there's a way to contribute storage, computing resources, search and relay nodes by announcing them via trackers (suppose), then one can make any global networked application using that.

    But I'm still thinking how can that even work. What I'm dreaming of is just year 2000 Internet (with FTP, e-mail, IRC, search engines), except simplified and made for machines, with the end result being represented to user by a local application. There should be some way to pay for resources in a uniform way, and reputation of resources (not too good if someone can make a storage service, collect payment, get a "store" request and then just take it offline), or it won't work.

    And global cryptographic identities.

    Not like Fediverse in the end, more like NOSTR.

  • Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Embracing China’s Controversial ‘996’ Work Schedule

    Jump

  • Honestly even in the late 90s it was going down. I don't think DEC or Amiga or something else cool you can remember have anything to do with the Silicon Valley.

    After the original Intel and other hardware things fame, it's a place that mostly collected parasites living off the dotcom bubble and then profanation and oligopolization of tech. The least important part - the companies making suddenly popular user applications and websites. Their main effect was negative - they reduced diversity, competition and redundancy in that.

    In any case ... "AI startups".

    I'm so morally prepared to dance when that bubble finally bursts. A lot of today's rattling of sabers depends on the promise of AI workers, AI drones, AI everything so that a crime would involve only a few real humans.

  • Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Embracing China’s Controversial ‘996’ Work Schedule

    Jump

  • Suppose I agree, but the plant is cool.

    Mega-NPP maybe?

  • Why does technology create new problems for each one it solves?

    Jump

  • Not really, there's an OR logical element present in our world.

    Divide et impera, applied to engineering. For 80% of things this fast cool solution works, for 20% the simpler one works. The aggregating element to make using both in their own situations transparent reduces reliability just a bit, but the efficiency gain is visible.

    And the "80%" and "20%" solutions can further on too use such unifying elements to aggregate different solutions for them. To improve efficiency without additional failure points (except for aggregators).

    Nobody does that because the "80% solution" producer wants to capture you, they don't want alternatives, they want power, and it's a honeypot.

    It's up to you the customer to understand this. In the classical model. Also see customer associations, which are like unions inverted. Isn't it funny how we have big businesses organizing, but not labor and not customers? While for them it's much more important.

    As you can see, the aggregator is very important here. We need standards, so that all social media would compete with other social media in one interoperable world with standardized interfaces, all search engines would compete with other search engines in one interoperable world with standardized interfaces, all file hostings ... you get the idea.

  • Why does technology create new problems for each one it solves?

    Jump

  • Technology is developed by people to fulfill their goals, more interest - more power - more developed technology.

    Hence big tech is where it is, and meshnets-p2p-cipherpunk is where it is.

  • Why does technology create new problems for each one it solves?

    Jump

  • I don't think a socialist society without propaganda would be much better or worse than a capitalist society without propaganda.

    The differences would be almost decorative, so the socialist variant can be represented as a market of ideas in many democratic organs, with those people more successful by accepted criteria getting more resources allocated to them "for merit".

    Or the capitalist variant can be represented as a system of efficient resource distribution via accepted universal equivalent, with voluntary associations and public morale acting to help those in need.

    Those would be both comprised of humans, so without propaganda you'd have normal human hierarchies, human inequality and the resistance to it, human groupings and human hostility, all the same.

    Provided, of course, that both are democratic. Otherwise you'll have Stalin's time Soviet bosses with their palaces and lovers and cars, and you'll have Nazi Germany's industrialists, the former as accountable as the latter and the latter as much part of the state hierarchy as the former.

  • Tens of thousands knocked offline after software failure at Musk’s Starlink

    Jump

  • SpaceX does launches and Starlink does satellite internet.

    I think all the Musk hate here misses that moment - SpaceX does what it's intended to do which is amazingly cool all by itself, Tesla made electric cars more popular, and Starlink made satellite internet more popular.

    These are good.

  • Musk’s Starlink hit with hours-long outage after rollout of T-Mobile satellite service

    Jump

  • Musk yes, but there are quite a few Ukrainian servicemen not happy, I think.

  • Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Embracing China’s Controversial ‘996’ Work Schedule

    Jump

  • USA hasn't yet built anything like "three gorges" hydroelectric plant, tho

  • Silicon Valley AI Startups Are Embracing China’s Controversial ‘996’ Work Schedule

    Jump

  • Authority is the right word, nothing in this is about actual products or traditional economic value.

    It's feudal (or crook) impression economy. That "AI" is liked by people who can afford to continuously waste money on it. Such schedules are liked by the same people. They are the "Silicon Valley elite" or whatever.

    I've read once a description by Russia's ambassador to Persia during Qajars how this historically worked.

    So - Qajar Persian court, they've received, say, 2 (I don't remember, maybe 6) modern (for that moment) Russian cannons as a gift. What do they do with the cannons? The cannons stay with the court and are shot for fun at an empty ground with no aim, while the whole court and the monarch moan "ja-a-a-n" with every shot.

    It's the same. The oligopolization of tech has made these people so much money and connections with other such people who have money, that they don't care about results at all. It's all shared impressions of what they "already have". They don't have to "run to stay on the same place". They don't have to compete - they collectively own search, social media, what we use instead of pen and paper, everything.

    Or a more traditional example (I might have gotten the years wrong, but I think the idea doesn't suffer) - a bunch of knights in XV-century tournament armor are not a very good army compared to cuirassed musketeers with a wagenburg and actual discipline, but the societies are built the way that those real soldiers are very rare, expensive and present only in select important areas during real honest-to-god war. While on their tournament the gentry may pretend it's still XII century and they are competing in useful things.

  • 'Clanker' is social media's new slur for our robot future

    Jump

  • Oh. I want a droideka bodyguard.

  • What's the "keeping it real" history that Americans are taught the whitewashed version in school?

    Jump

  • I mean, such things can be false flags. It wouldn't make sense, the Confederates were much weaker strategically and knew it.

  • The Death Of Industrial Design And The Era Of Dull Electronics

    Jump

  • Disco Elysium is a more recent look.

  • “You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for”, President Trump says

    Jump

  • The situation has been made possible by the enormous trust in progress and "technical fashion" that existed recently, that seems to be drying out.

    Say, 10-15 years ago offline-enabled means of communication were a matter of toys for people with no clear idea of future.

    Now people going to protests use them, and the dangers of mainstream Internet services and platforms are also common knowledge.

    So there is some immunity being formed. It's even better that this happens slowly. I would be worried if this were some fashion spreading rapidly, but now we can see one crowd using Briar, another crowd using Bridgefy, another crowd jumping on Jack Dorsey's Bitchat, LoRa and Meshtastic growing in popularity, all those things picking different approaches to the same goal, which signifies evolutionary convergence onto a commonly understood set of problems.

    People who were simping for corps no longer do. People who were simping for social media no longer do. People simping for Apple and Google and MS seem to be a rare kind now.

    The response is happening.

  • “You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for”, President Trump says

    Jump

  • Yes, there are people who want to have authority and think that if they got to the very top - Google, Meta, whatever, or some government, - then their ideas about authority have become law.

    In fact, of course, they are just jerks who'll drop the soap at every step in prison for the rest of their lives when the problem is finally rectified, and it's being slowly rectified.

  • “You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for”, President Trump says

    Jump

  • Yes, one would expect human intelligence to benefit quite a lot from free access to information.

    Become a more common occurrence too. Possibly an effect much stronger than that of AI requiring lots of computation with unpredictable shittiness of the output.

  • Switzerland plans surveillance worse than US

    Jump

  • Yeah, so the difference in what I'd like from what you describe as existing is:

    The representation should be spread thinner over the population, and with separate organs voting on separate kinds of matters. Ideally so that most of the population would have some short experience in participating in at least one of those organs by reaching the age of 30. Experience is needed to make your last paragraph less problematic, and wide participation - to gain that experience first-hand and also to make it very expensive to blackmail\bribe\threaten enough people. This might also make a referendum an event a bit more rare, because it won't come to that.

    In general it's very cool that such a system even exists as a proof that nothing is impractical about it.

  • Switzerland plans surveillance worse than US

    Jump

  • Fully direct on a Nation state level would maybe be possible now with the Internet.

    That's my point. It might seem dangerous to rely on the Internet for such basic matters, but it's already being used to great effect to undermine all democracies. So there's no choice, it's like an arms race. (Still, probably for elections it'd make sense to have a countrywide parallel intranet, so that someone's error in setting up a BGP router wouldn't disrupt it.).

    But yeah, this system has it’s weaknesses with complicated or emotional topics. But then again, we are all humans.

    That's the other side of the problem - modern easiness of propaganda.

    OK, I live in Russia, just rather sad to see how many other countries are slowly drifting in the same regrettable unsavory direction.