aldous

Nine new reservoirs are planned by 2050 apparently. But as general point reservoirs are...

a) only part of the solution (water reuse schemes can be much cheaper and more effective) b) really difficult to build! Finding an appropriate location (google the Tryweryn reservoir in Wales for an example of the consequences of building one in a problematic location), planning constraints, environmental impact and subsequent pushback from locals and environment groups etc etc.

I don't disagree the UK needs more of reservoirs but they ain't trivial things to build. A good overview in this news article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k147dkgx8o

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Surely in most instances it is easier to just bash out the email plus you get the added bonus of exercising your own mind: vocabulary, typing skills, articulating concepts, defining appropriate etiquette. As the years role by I aiming to be more conscious and diligent with my own writing and communication, not less. If one extrapolates on the use of AI for such basic communication, is there a risk some of us lose our ability to meaningfully think for ourselves? The information space of the present day already feels like it is devolving; shorter and shorter content, lack of nuance, reductive messaging. Sling AI in as a mediator for one to one communication too and it feels perilous for social cohesion.

Yes, good points. It's not a wild stretch of the imagination that Mr P and gang are actively trying to drag China into the Ukraine conflict and I'd imagine Beijing is pretty pissed off today about being (ostensibly) implicated in this sabotage. So the usual underhand scheming from the Kremlin imho, don't fall for it. China and Russia's relationship is very complicated of course and there's many a convincingly analysis out there that predicts conflict between them in the near future (an example flashpoint being Siberia).

The article explicitly references donations to the Democrats too btw, the authors overarching point appears to be this idea that the vastly wealthy consider themselves above the state and the rule of law. This is not a new phenomena, history is resplendent with examples of the abundantly rich desiring, obtaining and then exercising absolute power. Spoiler alert: it usually doesn't end well for the populace at large or ultimately themselves. I'd agree with the authors point about the ostensibly short sightedness of Elon et al's seeming desire for a rich absolutism: they are barking up the wrong, unsustainable tree. A well functioning and financially supported democracy is very very good for the economy and good for them! A better provision of public goods, infrastructure and a healthy populace is very very good for business isn't it? Democratic decline also brings with it instability, anti competitive kleptocracy, stagnation, and consumers strapped for cash; not the ideal conditions within which to sell their services. Which makes me wonder: is Elon's current political posturing not really based on any canny reasoning, but just plane old reactive emotional impulse. I really wouldn't be surprised if, as the author suggests, Elon's perceived Biden snub is really a big part of this or at least behind its genesis. Which is a good final point on unchecked power and its pitfalls, who wants to be at the mercy of an individual's emotional petulant whims, compulsions and outbursts? Surely none of us right?

Checking my news feed it is intriguing to see how little exposure Kirkpatrick's statement is getting verses the media frenzy that followed David Grusch and his cohorts outlandish congressional hearing. I guess this is a great example of Kirkpartick's point about the modern media cycle driving stories faster than sound research. Farcical. Surely such time, money and effort could be better spent fixing real tangible problems as opposed to investigating fanciful stories, conjecture and sensationalist nonsense? I can't see any chat here too on HN compared to the debate previously about alien remains etc. This quote from the article stood out for me:

"Members have a responsibility to exhibit critical thinking skills instead of seeking the spotlight. As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded “whistleblowers” in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their “evidence” and statement for the record despite numerous invitations. Anyone that would rather be sensationalist in the public eye than bring their evidence to the one organization established in law with all of the legal process and security framework established to protect them, their privacy, and the information and to investigate and report out findings is suspect"

Good points. I guess a counter is if seemingly 'cast-iron' pledges are put out there for the electorate (such as the scrapping of tuition fees) and people subsequently turn out in big numbers to vote for them (this was the year people were turned away due to large queues forming at the polling stations - obvs not all students voting for Lib Dems but you see my point) it's understandable that people will expect said pledges to be delivered on. The Lib Dem’s flagship political broadcast was titled “Say goodbye to broken promises” for example. The ire is understandable, whether one agrees or not.

Clegg's credibility in the UK is pretty poor due to some well publicised policy u-turns during his tenure in political power, most notable being tuition fees. He went from hero to zero very quickly over there, becoming almost an archetype of the slimey, untrustworthy politician.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/12/nick-clegg-...

I like to collect music and have been building a library of certain genres. I had been buying a lot of vinyl over the last few years but recently I’ve been getting back into CD’s in a big way because of how cheap they are second hand. Like you say, a couple of decades ago one could pick up a stack of second hand vinyl for next to nothing and the current market for second hand CD’s really reminds me of those days. For example, I picked up a recent album I’d been after on CD, second hand, for less than 10% of its price on vinyl (again, a second hand copy). The disc arrived in excellent condition with detailed sleeve notes and photos, plus it was a remaster so probably sounded better than the vinyl copy anyhow and is potentially more durable. I get the aesthetic appeal of vinyl of course, but gazing at that disc as I slotted it carefully into the player, made me think what a fascinating artefact a compact disc is too.

I remember Fireworks very well and completely agree it was exceptionally well optimised for UI. As well as the ability to easily edit both bitmaps and vectors, the combination of frames and layer sets nested within the frames allowed for super rapid iterations on layouts. The export features were super optimal too at the time. Rather irrational of me, but I took the slow death of it rather personally and never forgave Adobe.

It’s an investigation by the common definition. You know Mueller is a Republican right? What do you think it is, can you expand?

I’m not on about the “collusion” accusations (I agree we have still to see hard evidence of this though I’d suggest it may be forthcoming). I am specifically talking about the idea that a Kremlin initiated campaign of influence is the stuff of memes. I also agree to a degree with your assessment of Mr Putin and I am not seeking to imply or promote the simplistic Bond villain caricature (read above, I am not saying this at all). Finally, ref your point about “histrionics”… the concept of “fake news” and its use as a rhetorical tool is, I believe, insidious and I would classify as dangerous in the way it is being wielded. I’m obviously not saying challenging a point of view is dangerous!? Where did you get that from? Why would I come to a site like this if not to have my views challenged? I’m very interested in having my viewpoints challenged, thank you very much. Shutting down discussion with accusations of “fake news” is exactly my point.

My point was that dismissing the ongoing investigation and its emerging findings as a “meme” implies it is un-substantive and trivial when this appears not to be the case. Conflating all the multiple stands of a complex and far reaching investigation as “fake news” is, I believe, dangerous and reductionist. For example, Muller’s 37 page indictment against the Kremlin’s Internet Research Agency and its leadership and affiliates is detailed and has been widely reported on. Mounting evidence suggests we are talking about something significantly larger in scale than the $100,000 advertising campaign. Is the US not right to investigate it and the press to report on it? Isn’t this in our, the publics, interest? Using terms like “fake news” and “meme” in such a context is unhelpful and I believe dangerous. I increasingly see the term being used to shut down debate, undermine opposing viewpoints and sow doubt. It is myopic and doesn’t help discourse and I think we'd all do best to drop the term. I’m assuming we both want to know the truth right? I know some argue that the concept of absolute truth itself is a fallacy but I don’t subscribe to that, do you?

Some fair points, though I don’t agree with all of them. What are your thoughts on the DNC hack and subsequent leaks btw? It seems reasonable to credit the disclosure and the way the Trump campaign encouraged it and then capitalised on it as significant. 12 alleged Russian intelligence officials have been charged as part of Mueller’s investigation. Also there was the the Internet Research Agency "troll farm", based in Saint Petersburg and the alleged intrusions into state voter-registration systems. It’s a combination of all of these events that I believe is making it ‘loom large’ and it’s fair to say this transcends the categorisation of ‘meme’ doesn’t it? What do you think?

Hmm, I’d add that being owned by corporations does not always equate to being controlled. Editorial policy will be set by a range of people within these organisations, it can be very complex this chain of command, and the degree of influence that the board will have will vary considerably. I’d also posit that the current negative press around Facebook is of its own making to varying degrees and is the result of various substantive academic studies. The media would be doing us a disservice if they did not report on such things, as they are there to mediate, create awareness to the public against malpractice, accountability etc. This generalisation of ‘MSM’ is reductionist and not an entirely helpful to me. It is also the language that Trump and Alex Jones use and that is something that makes me very wary.

You make an interesting point about expanding social spheres and influence, nice. However, do you really believe in this concept of a conspiratorial all powerful MSM, that spans the political spectrum and co-ordinates efforts to refute viewpoints they disagree with!? How would such a cabal work? With respect, it sounds a bit infowars/trumpian to me.

Yes, indeed the genius of spreading propaganda this way is that it is often disseminated through personal networks, increasing its potency as a wealth of cognitive biases come into play. And how on earth can these campaigns be mitigated? The buffer of ‘mainstream media’ no longer appears to exists as it once did with the concept of ‘fake news’ etc very effectively delegitimising the concept of a reliable resource for information. The smartphone mightier than the sword. Weird isn’t it looking back on those halcyon days of early FB/Twitter? But on reflection, it’s totally logical that social platforms would ultimately end up being leveraged in this way.

In regards to point 1, Facebook was indeed lauded at the time as a catalyst for the Egypt revolution (more so than Twitter). A good illustration of this was the Egyptian guy that named his child “Facebook” in honour of its role in the uprising.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/21/egypt.child.fa...

Are you referring to the Kremlin? There is a wealth of allegations of such activities attributed to them:

The most infamous (and heinous) oft sighted example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

And there are plenty of more recent allegations such as the framing of North Korea for the attempts to disrupt the Winter Olympics:

https://www.wired.com/story/russia-false-flag-hacks/

Parkland shootings etc etc

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/22/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-the-parkland-s...

Do you know the song "Quick Canal" by Atlas Sound? It articulates some of the sentiments in this thread beautifully.

"I wanted to live the life of a prince Because I thought saints were born saints So, indeed, we didn't stand a chance

Insalubrious offshoots of nature With heart & mind of our own All the daughters, all the sons Taking centuries to unearth the creature

Heralding a stage Where consciousness is higher Taken through a costly process Of success & failure

I thought saints were born saints I looked in the dirt & found wisdom is learnt Through a costly process Of success & failure

Oh, wisdom is learnt"

https://youtu.be/RwjUyrp7-aI

Thanks for replying. I was however hoping for something more substantive though.

No it isn't. They are arguably currently at odds with the Conservative government over a range of issues. Do you know how strict the BBC's editorial guidelines are and the procedures they have in place to try and ensure impartiality?

I’m not sure I completely follow the implications in your reply tbh, it seems a little reductionist. Are you disputing that RT is a propaganda arm of the Kremlin? As stated above the Kremlin are quite explicit that this is indeed the case. Your point about us vs them… yes, indeed, thinking like this is indeed unhelpful and perilous, and one would be prudent to avoid it. However, the framing of geopolitics as ‘us vs them’ is concept that people like Mr Putin and his ilk fully leverage, propagate and exploit, it’s a core part of his strategy for the retention of power; Putin very much thinks in terms of “us and them”. The ‘West’ is far far far from a perfect entity/system whatever you want to call it, but the autocratic systems in place in countries like Russia are really incomparable with the freedoms enjoyed in the west.

I don’t quite follow your last sentence, can you elaborate? How could this approach be practically adopted? What check and balances for example?

“perhaps by not thinking in us-vs-them terms but viewing all such organizations as somewhat suspect and determining a personal ethical/philosophical position and developing the ability to discern lies from truth based on the net-sum of available facts and historical understanding of reporting bias and self-interest of the various news sources involved, and using this discernment to evaluate such situations against the aforementioned ethical/philosophical position..”

I agree counter balance is indeed healthy and I think generally, in the west, we are served a wealth of different viewpoints on any given issue, so much so that we can take it for granted. My point above was that RT, in the Kremlins own words, plays a core role in their wider global strategy and it absolutely plays a part in undermining the west.

For my own reference, could you supply some links to support you assertion that the American press is highly influenced by American intelligence? My perception of the US press is that this type of manipulation is really not prevalent on a large coordinated scale.

“they only want to undermine the credibility of everyone else”

It’s reasonable to assume this is indeed one of the objectives behind RT, undermining western news media. In 2008 the Kremlin had TV-Novosti (RT is a brand of TV-Novosti) on its list of core list of "core organizations of strategic importance of Russia" for example. Just look at the guests they have on there to perpetrate narratives against governments and cultures they see as adversary.

From Liz Wahl who resigned from RT on air, blaming it for propaganda:

“They get these extreme voices on that have this kind of hostile toward the West viewpoints towards the world, very extremist. These are the people that they have on. And when I was on the anchor desk, they would instruct you to egg on these guests and try to get them, you know, rallied up, to really fire off their anti-American talking points. Listen, I'm all about exposing government corruption. I'm all about being critical of the government. But this is different. This is promoting the foreign policy of somebody that has just invaded a country, has invaded the country and is then lying about it, is using the media as a tool to fulfill his foreign policy interests. And RT is part of Putin's propaganda network and it's very, very troubling in the wake of what is going on in Ukraine today.”

I was pondering this too. In a general sense, the ol’ Kremlins digital savvy, often attributed to Mr Surkov, seems very impressive, horribly insidious as it is.

Troll army operations: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/th... Initiatives around cryptocurrencies, https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-the-kremlin-suddenly-ob... Reappropriating and leveraging web vernacular https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-kremlin-crafted-takeaknee-...

How does the West counter it? How do we, humble internet users sucked into the melee, keep our heads and distinguish fact from fiction? It’s a profoundly deflating landscape out there at times but equally utterly fascinating.

The UK mainstream press are reporting it: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21599061-kremlins-belli...

One could argue that jingoistic chest beating, on both sides of the divide is lamentable.Would we not do well to remember the unprecedented difference between our world today and that of the past; all our nations are more tightly entwined, economically, socially, culturally. Understanding and promoting this mutual dependence seems crucial and pressing to me. Can World Wars be won in this day and age? Is there any rational alternative to our peaceful mutual coexistence (a messy, muddled morass of a coexistence but one none the less). All this rampant 'nationalism' from all camps is dangerous, IMHO. Remember how the cosmopolitan european community was destroyed by World war 1 and a shift to nationalism, xenophobia and prejudice filled the void. Can we not learn from our collective past?

Indeed. It seems reasonable to postulate that a more 'unconventional' use of a nuclear weapon is the more likely scenario today. The documentary 'Count Down to Zero' discusses such scenarios (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/) at length and the impression left is somewhat terrifying. The solution? I haven't the foggiest as global disarmament seems unrealistic but the aspiration to progress beyond these ghastly devices as a global community is surely a sensible and just one.

A valuable point worth noting in relation to this is the fact that Jesus, in the new testament, specifically dismisses such practices as stoning:

John 8:7. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_him_who_is_without_sin_cas...

It is one of the central tenets of Christian faith that one should not judge others. Quotes attributed to Jesus explicitly state this many times in the new testament.

This resonates with me. Twitter was my compulsion, until I realised what an absolute time sink it had become, whilst equally becoming an increasingly inane and frustrating experience. I logged out and never went back (almost 2 years has passed I think) without the slightest inclination to return.