I think you need to distinguish between complex systems, and byzantine systems. You can have complex systems where every piece shares a common goal, but feedback loops are hard. You can also have systems which, if a common goal was shared, wouldn't be that hard to understand, modelize and optimize, but where the actors of the system are not acting in good faith.
And I agree with the above poster: often, a problem is described as "hard" as a way to make an excuse for the agents. Sure, the problem is hard. The reason why it's hard isn't some esoteric arcane complexity, it's that some of the agents aren't even trying.
It is also completely unacceptable to capture the public space without oversight and consent from third parties. If glass users are fine with that, why wouldn’t they accept it for themselves?
The peace process that Oslo initiated is certainly dead. But Oslo itself, as the last bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is de facto the law of the land, even though it was meant as an interim agreement. For better or worse...
People are sensitive to video. Looks at the reaction from the Ring Super Bowl commercial and Nest Camera video retrieval news from a few weeks ago.
Your phone and watch are spyware mostly just spying on you. Sure they could be used to spy on others but the directness of an always on smart glass camera lens in one’s face is a little more jarring.
You're speaking like Hetzner is raising prices to fund Nvidia-laden datacenters, while in fact they're mostly providing cheap servers and their growth is mostly happening because of US admin's insanity.
Memory is going up for everyone, dude. And the people moving to Hetzner aren't exiting US clouds to leave for chinese ones.
> Nobody will prevent you to grow your own food and raise your own cattle like it was the case for 99.9% of humanity's time.
It certainly was not the case in most agricultural societies that people could get their own plot of land that they could cultivate without interference from the rest of the society.
To expect that people able to replace other humans completely for working purposes, especially the kind of people who end up at the head of the kind of company able to do that, would peacefully let the rest of us be, is delusional.
In the terms of Mandy Rice-Davies [1], "well he would, wouldn't he?"
Especially, his claim that the data isn't used for training by companies that are publicly known to have illegally acquired data to train their models doesn't look very serious.
> The instrument remained in the French court until the French Revolution, after which the basso fell out of favor and the “King” was “drastically reduced in size” through an alteration process that “stood at the forefront of musical instrument development during the last quarter of the 18th century
I had to process that sentence a couple of times to understand that the process the author was talking about wasn't the guillotine.
> That's up to the person for the particular role. Imagine hiring a nanny and some bureaucrat telling you what prior arrest is "relevant". No thanks. I'll make that call myself.
Well, no ; that's not up to you. While you may be interested in this information, the government also has a responsibility to protect the subject of that information.
The tradeoff was maintained by making the information available, but not without friction. That tradeoff is being shattered by third parties changing the amount of friction required to get the information. Logically, the government reacts by removing the information. It's not as good as it used to be, but it's better than the alternative.
And I agree with the above poster: often, a problem is described as "hard" as a way to make an excuse for the agents. Sure, the problem is hard. The reason why it's hard isn't some esoteric arcane complexity, it's that some of the agents aren't even trying.
reply