EMIRELADERO

These numbers are seem pretty low compared to what I was able to achieve specifically around windows kernel, win32k<->win32u to be exact.

Care to give more context to this? Seems interesting

Material that shouldn't be published for any reason is already subject to a sealing process. What else is needed?

Funnily enough, Orwell actually reviewed We in 1946: https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/zamyatin/english/e_zamy

Things aren't as hopeless as you assume.

I read this essay a few months ago which calmed those doomsday theories for me somewhat: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Extreme control of movement and sleep including deprivation of it for arbitrary amounts, constant lighting, no outside time, nothing to do for months at a time, lack of nutritious food, all those things in combination constitue torture under most modern definitions.

Why do you believe mantaining an acceptable level of peacefulness requires torture?

Could you tell me how actual torture helps that system, and why exactly you can't take it away without disrupting the harmony?

It is definitely possible to hold people in detention without torturing them while also getting acceptable results.

That's a false binary. European nations manage without either of them for example.

Even granting that (which... no. How is it true? Any evidence?) it's still less inhumane than what Japan is doing here. The conditions amount to torture.

The fact that many people opt to falsely plead guilty and get a reduced punishment in a society that highly values honor and saving face should say a lot about it.

Direct torture is certainly less humane than abandonment.

They would have used the "ghost user" strategy.

"Perrin now offers a different framing. “Article 8 ter, which I had adopted, was not at all aimed at obtaining encryption keys but at introducing a ghost participant into a conversation before encryption,” he says. The “ghost participant” approach, sometimes called a ghost user proposal, was floated by GCHQ in 2018 and rejected by every major privacy organization, civil liberties group, and security researcher who looked at it. The idea is that the platform silently adds a third recipient, an invisible intelligence agent, to a supposedly two-person conversation. Users never see them. The encryption technically still works, except that one of the parties is the state."

It's not about the displacement of workers. It talks about a fundamental principles-level objection to unbounded "progress". It's not an absolute argument and Orwell himself says so, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Try reading it here: https://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/11.html

The virtues you mention are not a consequence of the tortuous treatment described in the post though. Conditions could rise to Western humane standards and the underlying Japanese culture that allows for such peaceful living would still remain.

Pretty much any cognitive thing we do manually could be done in software.

Yes, although I suggest being careful with that kind of thinking.

https://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/...

Still, that's no reason to accept a return to that state of affairs. Progress happens slowly and imperceptibly, but on a grand scale it does happen.

You can mitigate malware while still allowing for the same level of end-user control as the manufacturer. Look at Windows itself! People getting infected on up-to-date installations is a rarity nowadays, all without draconian lockdown policies.

It's not about "design", because the iPhone is perfectly capable of running arbitrary code, it just refuses to do so if you're not Apple.

The situation is such that the legal owner of the device has less power over it, post-sale, than the company that made it.

That reason alone, the imbalance of power, should be enough to support abolishing those restrictions, preferably by law.

To be clear: this is something that should be beyond market forces, and it should apply to anything that is sold to consumers and can run code. The end goal should be that no user remain less powerful, in terms of code execution and access to content, than the manufacturer.

My pet theory is that this has been accelerated due to the cultural rejection of the humanities as worthy of study.

Orwell wrote about this: https://orwell.ru/library/articles/science/english/e_scien

"The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook."

While the article points out many worrying trends which are true, I would caution against making far-reaching predictions, especially if they involve drastic, rapid change.

Orwell warned about this sort of thing already: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Yeah, that attitude is not new.

"The point is that as soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified – still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function."

Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.

Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.

Exactly.

Here's Orwell speaking on the whole thing:

"An argument that Socialists ought to be prepared to meet, since it is brought up constantly both by Christian apologists and by neo-pessimists such as James Burnham, is the alleged immutability of ‘human nature’. Socialists are accused—I think without justification—of assuming that Man is perfectible, and it is then pointed out that human history is in fact one long tale of greed, robbery and oppression. Man, it is said, will always try to get the better of his neighbour, he will always hog as much property as possible for himself and his family. Man is of his nature sinful, and cannot be made virtuous by Act of Parliament. Therefore, though economic exploitation can be controlled to some extent, the classless society is for ever impossible.

"The proper answer, it seems to me, is that this argument belongs to the Stone Age. It presupposes that material goods will always be desperately scarce. The power hunger of human beings does indeed present a serious problem, but there is no reason for thinking that the greed for mere wealth is a permanent human characteristic. We are selfish in economic matters because we all live in terror of poverty. But when a commodity is not scarce, no one tries to grab more than his fair share of it. No one tries to make a corner in air, for instance. The millionaire as well as the beggar is content with just so much air as he can breathe. Or, again, water. In this country we are not troubled by lack of water. If anything we have too much of it, especially on Bank Holidays. As a result water hardly enters into our consciousness. Yet in dried-up countries like North Africa, what jealousies, what hatreds, what appalling crimes the lack of water can cause! So also with any other kind of goods. If they were made plentiful, as they so easily might be, there is no reason to think that the supposed acquisitive instincts of the human being could not be bred out in a couple of generations. And after all, if human nature never changes, why is it that we not only don’t practise cannibalism any longer, but don’t even want to?"

This is misleading though. There is simply no other choice if you want to use mainstream apps. It could be argued (successfully in my view) that any agreement is null and void due to its acceptance under duress.

Users have an inherent legal right to unconditionally access the full advertised functionality of devices they purchase. Any agreement after that is inherently suspect and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was ruled unconscionable by some court if it came to that.

Sure, but that still leaves the mystery of how qualia is generated in a mechanistic manner.

Something the tweet doesn't mention is that the leak may have come from Intel: https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b...

It's DMCA abuse because that process is only legal to use in case of actual copyright infringement, not just any content you might have a moral claim over.

You can see on the email that the "Original work" field is just a link to the BK website.

As an aside, here's a relevant video about the (sometimes not) chaotic nature of double pendulums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjb2OhEQcU

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6Y4lE3LTo

Thanks, but it's not my channel! I just stumbled upon it and made a mental note to remember the repo.

Holy shit, going to the official page[1], there's something that is somehow even worse than the loss of freedom:

"You'll need to prove you own your apps by providing your app package name and app signing keys."

That is capital-I Insane.

[1] https://developer.android.com/developer-verification