OK. Suppose so.
I've just been reminded that in the wonderful 70s people felt a bit similarly suppressed and the future dim as compared to 60s as we do now as compared to 00s.
Nothing is new.
What is important, though, is that nothing existing has been given to us be benevolent or harsh, kind or cruel gods. It has all been built by people just like us.
To dream and to work are the most important parts.
Strong means attractive. Not getting pummeled in WWII and making some profits, being complicit in some crimes (turning back Jews), and in general being on top for many decades make you look strong.
Democracy is an infant still learning to walk.
Bullshit. It's older than gunpowder.
And this argument has been used for every political system in history. Even in USSR in materials approved by censors it was normal to joke about it.
You plug the holes and add new institutions for oversight.
Why don't you do that with real-life mechanisms? A moving part of a machine has corroded enough to have a hole unintended by design. Go on, plug it. Oh, it's better to replace the part.
That aside, I think you've missed my specific arguments, not providing any of your own. Those things about participation as wide as possible and rotation. This means that there should be as many political roles as possible (of a delegate or of a secretary or of anyone), often rotated, with the same person not being able to hold the same or similar post for longer than N months, and with sortition based on some pseudo-random mechanism (pseudo-random to be able to check the results for fraud). To reduce the power of any single delegate or bureaucrat and to make lobbying, bribing and blackmailing them harder. To simultaneously make the population more politically literate - by almost every citizen, ideally, participating in some kind of daily decision-making work. Not voting once a year (at best) from among choices given to them by someone else.
That's what con artists do - provide the victim with an illusion of choice.
You don’t shoot the damn baby and start over because you know how you’d force everyone to do it.
That's exactly what you do. One consistent system does one thing by design. Another consistent system does another thing by design. Something in-between organically evolved does neither. Evolution is the survival of the fittest - fittest for survival. So an organically evolved system is approximating the optimum of power. The status quo.
What it does not approximate over time is any idea of public good. That would be nuts - so, metaphorically, you've built a wooden bridge, do you think it'll become more or less reliable over time under snow and rain and sun? Is a 100 years old bridge better than a bridge just built and tested?
And the optimum of power is formed by the existing system among other things.
Which means that it becomes more and more static and degenerate.
I disagree with both.
They were good enough as PDAs, those keyboards' buttons usually used for navigation are not much different from what's normal under Android now. Fit in one hand, convenient display angle. They were just ergonomically all around better.
iPhones and Android phones I still have anxiety using.
Those phones were really convenient, taking just as much place in your pocket as needed, screen covered from being scratched by keys and other items.
Actually convenient keyboards.
It's just that why make ergonomic, optimized for the task, price-efficient things when a piece of useless crap called iPhone makes you more.
I swear, for market economies to work you need to outlaw advertising.
There were not "affordable", they were allocated. One could somehow improve the chance of being "given" that via connections.
And if you changed a workplace, it could be taken back. It wasn't yours.
Except with supposed technological advancement and bigger efficiency it's supposed to become more affordable on a competitive market, yet it doesn't. It just becomes cheaper for the construction companies.
Soviet serial housing was better planned. There were intended green spaces and microdistricts (those didn't turn out very well, it became apparent that they are convenient to small crime).
It's not really "capitalism", it's an oligarchic system where everybody having power feels that it's very good for them. Ask Sergey Brin if he wants to change anything. It's the same in construction and everywhere, because why wouldn't it be - an oligarchization of one sphere of economy leads to the same in others.
At the same time the ideas of authority and law in the Soviet space were kinda similar to what your "land of the free" is developing now. Easy to forget that in USSR your boss knew all your history of past employment, and when you'd be leaving could write something so nasty there that you'd never work anything better than janitor after them. Or that a kid living with their family in one small room of a communal apartment in a Khruschev-era serial building could go as guest to a kid living with their family in a three-room apartment in a Stalin-era special building, both given by the state, see and eat something there that they would never at home, and that was the normal degree of inequality in the USSR.
BTW, yeah, I've gotten a taste of mentioning the Soviet elites the justice against whom still hasn't been restored in any way, - so my family lived in a two room apartment in a Stalin-era building (my grand-grandfather was a railways analog of an infantry general, and my grandmother is one of the architects of the Boguchan hydroelectric station), and judging from Wikipedia, Sergey Brin's family lived in a three room apartment in such (it's also there who his parents were). That's about who those immigrants were who could afford to be otkazniks for a few months\years before leaving for the USA. Jackson-Vanik was basically targeted at a small subset of the Soviet elite with Jewish ancestry. Soviet antisemitism was sort of a Soviet version of "first world problems". Again, my grandmother's sister's family also emigrated then.
And in western stereotypical portrayals of "how people live in (ex-)USSR" of late 80s and early 90s they too often show such living places. As if that were normal.
Yet the absolute majority didn't.
So, one of the reasons Putin could do what he did, - the absolute majority saw how people who didn't live too badly in the first place got an opportunity to be "liberated" and play "discount USA", while their own workplaces which would feed them somehow stopped doing that.
It's a very particular feeling of collective injustice when those who benefited most from a system dismantle it and blame it on those who benefited less.
So, getting back to Soviet bloc housing, interpeted as Khruschev-era. It wasn't so bad, considering the green around and the fact that people would move there from actual wooden barracks. And Stalin-era housing wasn't bad at all and still isn't.
No fucking way, but mah direct democracy ...
So. Switzerland doesn't really have fully direct democracy in the necessary sense. It's still an old nation-state with laws made in the olden day when you had to compromise. There are many cases where the "direct" part is optional and requires interested people to assemble signatures yadda-yadda. Not good enough to counter a campaign for legal change with a goal. That aside, its system encourages it to have politicians as a thing. Which means that for some issues it will always drift shitward.
It also has separation of 3 kinds of government by degree of locality, but not separation of the "an entity ensuring food safety can't regulate telecommunications" or "an entity regulating police labor safety can't regulate riot police acceptable action" kinds.
(Which is why I usually refer to my preference for a kind of "direct democracy" as a revised one-level Soviet system with mandatory rotation, plenty of places and sortition to state worker roles, despite that not having very good connotations.)
There is also the fact that during Y2K, we didn’t have as much reliance on computers.
And we still shouldn't.
Uniting the reliance upon long-range electric connectivity (radio, PSTN - but that now depends on computers too), the reliance upon computers (like mainframes), the reliance upon microcontrollers, the reliance upon personal computers (like Amiga 500), the reliance upon fast encryption helped by computers, the reliance upon computers used for mining cryptocoins or some beefy LLMs, the reliance upon computers capable of running Elite Dangerous, and the reliance upon computers capable of running devops clusters with hundreds of containers, - it's wrong, these are all different.
An analog PSTN switching station shouldn't care about dates. A transceiver generally shouldn't too. A microcontroller doesn't care which year it is, generally.
With an Amiga 500 one can find solutions, and it's not too bad if you don't.
The rest is honestly too architecturally fragile anyway and shouldn't be relied upon as some perpetual service.
That's also why LARPers of past scary people tend to be more cruel and trashy than their prototypes. The prototypes had a bitter solution to some problem, the LARPers are just trying to be as bad or worse because that's remembered and they perceive that as respect.
That'd be because extrapolation is not the same task as synthesis.
The difference is hard to understand for people who think that a question has one truly right answer, a civilization has one true direction of progress\regress, a problem has one truly right solution and so on.
I personally think that the additional component (suppose it's energy) that modern approaches miss is the sheer amount of entropy a human brain gets - plenty of many times duplicated sensory signals with pseudo-random fluctuations. I don't know how one can use lots of entropy to replace lots of computation (OK, I know what Monte-Carlo method is, just how it applies to AI), but superficially this seems to be the way that will be taken at some point.
On your point - I agree.
I'd say we might reach AGI soon enough, but it will be impractical to use as compared to a human.
While the matching efficiency is something very far away, because a human brain has undergone, so to say, an optimization\compression taking the energy of evolution since the beginning of life on Earth.
And why is "non-biological" a limitation?
something that cannot, even in principle, be replicated in silicon
As if silicon were the only technology we have to build computers.
By the way, nobody is forced to become a politician, so yes.
They might agree.
Everything FOSS and a good regular security audit
Permanently Deleted
Sharks are cooler.
Permanently Deleted
I would cut the shapes of prehistoric sharks in cardboard in my childhood. Have a pouch of those somewhere.
They were really beautiful.
None. I'm using "compromise" here in the sense of compromising between democracy and elites, with the world order normal 200 years ago. Today those compromises don't work because of technological progress and different makeup of societies.
Just like those in the USA.