HN user
we're full circle from the 40 meter band!
jokes aside, and perhaps romantizicing noisy channels, but the fact that communication was not guaranteed maybe made it more appealing (thinking 56k modems or long-wave radio).
This is interesting. I agree, to some extent, but there's nuance in what do you include in the objectification of the concept. The usual argument, as I perceive it, is that we can be objective if we just quantify protocol interference, or DPI, or bogus DNS resolution.
But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.
If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.
Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
But that is precisely what I was talking about. You do not seem to find any commonality between censoring different categories of websites or apps. As far as I understand it, "media", "gambling", "porn", "politics" are quite common categories when researching (and defining) online censorship. See, for instance, https://censoredplanet.org/censoredplanet
You say "banned", but that is not quite the same as "censored". Just try and search, you will see the US "bans" and China or Iran "censor". Perhaps one regime's "censorship" is experienced as "lawfully banned" from within the context of their legal and cultural system.
And no, I don't see why would I keep my edgy observations to myself. That would be self-censorship :)
Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
There's an interesting cognitive bias in the western media that tends to define freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) as exactly what is perceived as freedom in this side of the iron curtain.
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
You can always migrate.
For additional context (I think some was lost on a bug tracker migration), he's the author of https://gitlab.com/akihe/radamsa, a fuzzer implemented in owl, that was quite popular finding vulns in the chrome codebase some time ago...
I just found out there's a rust port: https://github.com/microsoft/rusty-radamsa
I knew that name (author, and lisp) was familiar: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40054453
The second iteration will be interactive books - like that forsaken episode of Black Mirror was exploring. Taking us one step closer to "Diamond Age". Human connection doesn't necessarily has to be in the plot - the human behind can be at any extra layer.
To be honest, I see a continuum between using spellchecker, grammarly, or anything that comes above. You seed the intention, and you get an improved result - by means of huge datasets.
In a way, the hollywood machinery has been doing A/B testing on the likelihood to get a human brain hooked on the way to tell a story - structurally, there are not so many different stories. This only removes the need to have monkeys at the typing machine.
And yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic. But only a tiny bit. That way you can be sure it's a human writing this.
I agree. It is ironic that, at the very least, a LLM will maybe _improve_ the quality of a particular segment of publications.
this might be helpful: https://fullspectrumresistance.org/the-book/
Better math and even computation doesn't necessarily help in some cases
It is my impression that, at least on the topic of climate modelling, climate change denialism (which, frankly, is less and less common among educated population) was sustained by the rhetoric about models not being certain about linking anthropic change and its effects.
So at least here I see that better understanding (accuracy/reliability) about the climate system (which the azimuth group claims to have contributed to, if I remember correctly) might have a direct effect on, at least, social perception of the uncertainty surrounding science...
Sounds good. Sadly, there's this thing called "hyper-stimulus" - someone mentioned recently "Infinite Jest" and the desire to watch a particular video over and over again. I do think the fear of this thought played a deep role in DFW's desperation.
All this to say: some social attractors are way more attractive than others (that's why they are "dark" patterns). Only physical constrains will do the trick, I'm afraid.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/alerts-watches-and-warnin...
It's a G2 event (moderate). G5 is the highest.
After some custom wooden cases for my ergodox, I'm really excited about the keyboardio model 100 https://keyboard.io/ basically an ergodox with style, and what seems a bit more ergonomy. I laughed a lot with the video for their last crowdfunding campaign, chicken jokes included :D
Solarpunk. Ultra-low-powered whisper radio telecommunications across the globe. People baking ICs in their basements. Hardware that can be repaired for decades, disaster-proof Operating Systems. Text-only protocols, heavily immune to the ad industry. What a time to be alive!
I wonder if some of the nerdiest corners of the internet from nowadays do not make the exciting 90s pale in comparison (all this looks like aspects of a potential renaissance).
As hobbies, they all sound amazing. Even though, or perhaps due to their apparent futility. "Secession from the broadcast" and "the knowledge" come to mind. A possibility, among many others.
You might be referring to some of the studies associated with the "original affluent society" proposal. To think that all basic needs can be covered by a 3-5 hours of work a day is quite shocking for a judeo-christian that has been indoctrinated in the "work as a curse" tale.
For sure it all depends on how you define "basic needs", and how do you divide "work time" from "leisure time".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#%22W...
At some moment I've heard of more recent studies about the myth of the increase in leisure time, but I don't manage to find any good reference now. In any case, I suspect Graeber had a point.
"We'd like this report to help increase climate literacy worldwide."
First time I hear the expression, but it might be key to unlock any action.
I would say there's a big problem when some of those lunatics are at the steering wheel of big nation states.
So yeah, maybe not everyone, but the reward matrix in this game makes very difficult to ignore all of them.
Sure, I know that :)
Today, many people are experiencing very unlikely events, unknown to them and to previous generations. While you cannot experience a trend, you do modulate your perception about what an improbable likelihood feels like. That, I feel, is very powerful to nuance certain varieties of skepticism.
I think people don't vote (or buy, or move) based on documented trends, standard deviations or moving averages, but on subjective perception of what future will be like. That is, inter-subjective bets, updated from day to day.
I guess very few people in certain countries would have bet that they would lose their homes to a summer flood or fire.
I guess you're referring to media jumping too quickly to "bad science" for every single event of floods, drought, fires etc, therefore using fear and producing saturation in fellow citizens.
that said, I honestly have a bad time trying to figure out if there's such a thing as "too alarmist" re. claims like "one third of projected population by 2070 will live in a nearly unlivable earth" https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11350
Direct experience. I guess there always be deniers in the curve of beliefs (deniers of thermodynamics, for instance), but what worries me is the difference between knowing and knowing. Knowing enough to completely switch priorities.
"Don't do PT for other artists, do it for people who will not realize (at least for a few moments) that what you have done is art." https://sniggle.net/Manifesti/poeticTerrorism.php
yes, but please consider that pursuing such disruption and getting a self-taught education might be orthogonal problems. event though there are many resources, I appreciate the effort put into curating a selection of those.
I honestly enjoy how Yasha equates the fact that a project received money from some tentacle of the american government (which at least for me, as an european, is perfectly understandable in a situation of prolonged cold war with Russia and China) to the more spooky hypothesis that the guys behind some of the most vetted open source privacy projects do work for the man.
His well known position (many years of pando) makes me think "yeah, right, just what we need: another conspiracy that convinces people that there's no alternative and therefore any effort to step away from silos does no good to them". Sigh.
The layperson only slightly interested in privacy does not want (or need) mathematical proofs: they operate by trust. Chains of trust in people, friends, activists, journalists or self-proclaimed "experts" that recommend tools or dissuade them from sharing too many data in the places where everybody of a certain age has to be to socialize. So this kind of gray insinuations, with big logical jumps and with zero consistent evidence (other than the US has an interest in promoting encryption and is pouring money on that horse too, probably orders of magnitude less than it pours in big monopolistic, closed source and privacy-mining tech companies) does more damage than good to the public it pretends to inform.
But hey, I guess that's the pitch from which he manages to make a living, and it must have his public, which I might not totally be getting.
Has anyone read his book by the way? Does he develop his "most of open source crypto project work for the CIA" in some interesting or novel way? Something that gets my attention is how he sells himself as unveiling the "secret" military history of the internet, when all that I read from him is public knowledge. I guess the wistleblower myth is quite attractive, even for him.
about is how little action is taken even today to change that future
mainly because of the future discount rate, which is something I'd like to see more commonly discussed.
Related to this: I'm recommending a lot KSR's "the ministry for the future" to all my friends nowadays. It has a very good picture of "how it works, and why we don't care". I kind of like how he makes the point that all those powerful forces are mainly human rules, and as such, they can be changed... with powerful enough incentives.
this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by deleuze: "There's no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons."
I guess we can also translate as tools, given the techno-solucionist atmosphere ;)
"The second reason has to do with the business of pollination."
Just the fact that it can seem reasonable to think about comercializing a technological product to solve the economical problem (rather than understanding CCD before it's too late) makes me think that this civilization deserves to collapse.
Reducing the pollination to "just dollars", and looking around in search of cheapest alternatives (as if there haven't been enough critiques to the dangers of monocultures already) is probably a good pointer to where the problem might be.