Problem: how do you have an elite murder squad that just kills exactly the people you want and no others? What if grandma gets in the way?
How about Hamed, who might know a guy who knows a guy, who might jeopardise the goals of Murder Squad? How important is not murdering random people vs achieving mission objectives? What if Hamed is a prisoner and slowing Murder Squad down will jeopardise the mission?
It's eerily analogous to the AI alignment problem. It seems like not having hard core elite Murder Squads would be preferable to pretending we can ask people to do their job in a moral vacuum.
I don't pretend to be right on this, and I expect reasonable people to disagree, but if you set up the incentives to prioritise mission success over human life, you will obviously get mission success at the expense of human life and a culture that is proud to kill people to get the job done (thats what makes them different from infantry). "Isn't that what you asked for?"
How much of every corporate job is communicating / consensus vs doing?.
Arguably "content creation" is core to every > middle class job now - you have to get people onboard to get things done. Personally I still think writing is more valuable but perhaps the knowledge creation and sharing (_inside_ companies) of tomorrow will be done by making and watching videos.
I very much do not want to be part of that future, but I recognise it a likely possibility.
Arguably, it's the case today to some degree with company meetings/team meetings/etc. typically recorded for people who couldn't attend live. But it's pretty low bandwidth for most purposes to communicate basic facts in the absence of interaction. I for one rarely listen to recordings of meetings I miss and I assume I'm pretty typical. For many purposes I'd much prefer a 1 page email.
It's like all the how-tos on the Internet that don't really have a visual component but are a video anyway.
>
How much of every corporate job is communicating / consensus vs doing?
From experience as the corporation gets larger communicating and communicating-adjacent activities approach 90-95% of the time. The remainder is doing.
Have you ever thought about your house? The whole damn thing is fuel.
Do you store things in the attic? plastic tubs? How about the basement? cardboard? Do you have wool, paintings, plastic toys, plastic anything, wooden anything? Look around you and the places you keep things. Oh my god curtains they are more or less just flame conduits.
Your couches, your clothes, everything around you is fuel for a massive fire. It can be a bit scary when you really evaluate it. I bet you have never thought seriously about the risk before.
Admittedly at a city level, 3 kilotons of ammonium nitrate in a strategic location should definitely have set off some real thinking but on a personal basis most people are surrounded by fuel and don't think about it at all.
> Have you ever thought about your house? The whole damn thing is fuel.
analogizing a house, the purpose of which is to store and house human occupants, ran by non-professionals, to a dock store-house that houses hazardous compounds and is staffed by employees is pretty useless.
Yes, most everything is fuel.
Storing large amounts of explosive chemicals is beyond the scope of purpose behind a household.
Dock storehouses routinely deal with hazardous/dangerous goods. They are built to do so with the premise that the staff that run them will follow strict (and in most cases clearly written) guidelines.
In other words : I don't need to demonstrate explosion-readiness as a strict rule before home ownership -- but most countries require groups that house and manipulate explosive or combustible goods to demonstrate both their skill in manipulation, and their disaster planning in the worst case.
I think they were restricted in what they could do. There were repeated reports of danger, and they even asked the army to store the AN. I think the failure was higher than warehouse and port authority; they correctly assessed and reported the risk, but no action was taken.
This is also true for your computer hardware, the software you run, the medicines you take, the food you eat, the water you drink...
I guess my point is that that human trust is so pervasive and fundamental that there are diminishing returns to eliminating it.
What will always remain in style I think is accountability. So trust, but have supply chain integrity such that you know who it is that you're trusting and who is responsible when things go wrong.
I wonder if a hybrid approach between disposable and "keep cup" could work.
The "default" takeaway option could be the short-lasting paper cup.
For car, office or just comfort, you could have a squashy, silicone (stands high temp) outer that would usually only need to be cleaned if the inner cup fails.
A silicone shell with disposable inner would work well for me, at least. The shell would rarely need to be cleaned and can be easily pocketed.
Users everywhere have had to put up with U.S law for a long time. The laws and norms of the USA are more or less "fully baked in".
Try posting a nipple or copyrighted track, for example.
If Facebook had come from a different place, all songs and body bits might be Ok but perhaps discussion of government would be banned. I can't tell if that would actually be a better facebook than the one we got.
I think you don't give American companies enough credit when it comes to appealing to various countries laws and opinions. It is disingenuous to say Europe or the rest of the world does not care about copyright when they have historically and increasingly laws that are as strict if not stricter than the US' when it comes to preventing copyright infringement. [1][2]
Nipples do reflect American sensibilities although it is understandable that many companies do not want to go down that road as it could lead to becoming distributors of porn. I think you will find that many countries outside of Europe agree or don't think that these rules go far enough.
> It is disingenuous to say Europe or the rest of the world does not care about copyright when they have historically and increasingly laws that are as strict if not stricter than the US' when it comes to preventing copyright infringement. [1][2]
Those laws are to some extent pushed through by the US in international treaties on behalf of american copyright holders.
Equating nudity with porn is maybe understandable as a business minded precaution ; It's not less revolting to do so. The fact that many non-european countries would like to deny the freedoms hardly won decades ago is not something that american companies should be happy to share value with either.
Cultural relativism will have you banning much more than a nipple if you decide to go that way. Good for business, but not what we should thrive for.
There is a big difference between “treated as porn” versus “this part of anatomy is specially evolved to be inserted into the mouth of an infant, so we don’t care if you show pictures of that exact scenario”.
I agree bans on images of nursing are absurd, but I am not sure you can make an appeal to evolution - genitals also are 'specially evolved' but also not postable in many places...
If my sentence had just been “nipples are fine because they evolved”, that would be a reasonable counter; it is what they have evolved for that makes it weird to censor them as they are censored.
I think the point is that viral "dying oceans" memes and stories may be undermining conservation efforts.
They are too emotionally powerful and pull our collective focus away from the science.
It frames the problems we face as impossibly bad and tragic, which makes some people give up, while others want drastic experiments that can cause more harm than good.
I think this is characteristic of the time we are in. People, being connected by the internet, have a new level of awareness about the world around us.
We don’t yet (collectively) know what to do with this knowledge. It is a reorienting time. Memes are one way people are trying to orient, they are probes being sent out to encounter reality.
But I agree with what you’re hinting at, we will step out of this place with concrete meaningful steps. And science is a very good way to find meaning.
It’s not really awareness though, it is tragedy porn. People like feeling “woke” and everyone is very willing to sell that to them. Just write stories about how something people are doing is ruining something people are worried about. It doesn’t have to be particularly true.
This cheap “awareness” doesn’t help solve problems, it creates conflict between people who like the tragedy stories and people who don’t like them, neither group really having much understanding or ability to think critically about the issues at hand and then... The only thing that gets talked about is the conflict and the taking of sides.
Personally, I think “creates awareness” vs “creates conflict” is a false dichotomy. It can be both.
But... isn’t your comment doing just the thing you are saying is destructive? Are you woke to something here, which is animating you, and it’s not exactly based in evidence?
I read that page through, and didn't find it particularly compelling. Do you have anything that isn't 5 years old, and that doesn't try to talk around the issue by redefining terms?
What I mean is that when I think of when I would say "the ocean is dying," I'm referring to things like declining fish populations, coral reefs dying off, and the oceans themselves getting warmer and more acidic.
These things are undoubtedly happening. We have measured them, and we are causing it. Your link seems to say something like "the ocean isn't dying, because we still can do something about it." I'm not particularly concerned with this "ocean health index" they mention. I am not concerned with what we "can" do; I'm only concerned with what we are and will be doing. And, at this rate, what we are doing is not enough.
The point is that the oceans are large, there are different concerns, and conditions vary across location and species.
If you want to answer a question like "how healthy are our oceans?" you need to first work out what that might mean, and then measure that systematically like the project I linked you to.
Why do we need to attach a number to it for it to be a valid concern? The ocean is undoubtedly changing in ways that, if allowed to continue, will cause massive ecosystem damage, leading to secondary effects on land, such as increased warming and higher CO2 levels. Why is that not enough to convince anyone who matters to do anything?
There is plenty of data. We've known this day was coming since the 1970's. Economic interests be damned, we need to do something now to avoid the collapse of civilization.
You need a way to sync them on multiple computers, use them as a guest (eg when you've borrowed a machine temporarily), do recovery flows, manage their regeneration and rotation, generate unique certs per site, basically all the management hurts. As a web site, you also have to teach everyone in the world how they work, and who wants to be the first to do that?
One day WebAuthn might be usable for all the things. I want that to come soon but it is not here yet.
They produce IP (researching and producing very clear instructions for fixes) and manage supply chain (trusted replacement parts & tools, worth more vs aliexpress equivalents because they endorse them).
The things they make money off are largely substitutable. Their value add (well deserved IMHO) is trust.
The network effect is also at play here. It's a community-oriented operation, in a sense it's similar to GitHub or Wikipedia - their repair guides are actually on an open wiki that everyone can edit, and users have contributed a lot of guide as well, and nearly everything is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.
Don't underestimate the value of consistency. If I buy an iFixit toolkit I can be fairly confident that there won't be wobbly bits, oddly creaking plastic, the grip will be the same across the board and that the steel will be of reasonable quality.
Apart from it not really being in anyone's financial interest - not content providers, copyright holders or advertisers, it would be viewed as a security risk if anyone could easily do that - e.g: https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/4/18294951/austral...
The idea of using multicast in this way also ignores some of the actual good features of HLS, in particular the ability to adapt content to a specific user's device and Internet connection.
How about Hamed, who might know a guy who knows a guy, who might jeopardise the goals of Murder Squad? How important is not murdering random people vs achieving mission objectives? What if Hamed is a prisoner and slowing Murder Squad down will jeopardise the mission?
It's eerily analogous to the AI alignment problem. It seems like not having hard core elite Murder Squads would be preferable to pretending we can ask people to do their job in a moral vacuum.
I don't pretend to be right on this, and I expect reasonable people to disagree, but if you set up the incentives to prioritise mission success over human life, you will obviously get mission success at the expense of human life and a culture that is proud to kill people to get the job done (thats what makes them different from infantry). "Isn't that what you asked for?"