salawat

Don't know why you got flagged into oblivion, but it's a noble effort. Some of the numbers you'll see in tech companies should seriously give one pause and thinking not only about where that income does come from, but also how the business works. I've personally left workplaces on such realizations.

On second thought, that might be why you attracted flags. Can't be getting the help having thoughts above their station here it seems. Keep up the good work.

Creating an excuse for creating a machine-id to associate with network traffic. Sometimes, it is enough to have a plausible enough sounding reason to write down on paper, but you have to look at what something actually is. Any red blooded hacker knows there's what a tool is meant to be used for, and then there's what it can be used for. Less is more.

Every financial institution has infrastructure to provide dumps of at least the last 7 years of transactions by arbitrary customers. No exceptions. The financial sector, or at least those legally operating within it, are de facto extensions of law enforcement.

Keep that in mind next time you think about whether using that card is worth it.

Nah. I don't buy it. If we don't trust our own Government with it, I don't think we can trust private corporations which are definitely facto extensions of the state by virtue of being legal fictions with it.

Vigilance is the price of liberty, and I don't believe that that there is any reason to make that vigilance "easy" for those already more than capable of doing a reasonable job of it with means that don't create a giant liability of biometric data leaks for everyone else.

Seconded. The amount of time and characters spent here trying to coax someone into trying to help these damn layers materialize just tells me the point isn't the kids. It's trying to preserve business model in spite of negative externalities.

If you've not used a commercial IVR stack before, most of them are at least semi-integrable with major CRM's while being implemented as a combo of Finite State Machines and Automated Voice Recognition systems intended to be used for customer facing data entry to originate tickets or entries for Call Center workers. The issue though, is most of those workers are minimally trained in ultra rigid scripts, and the market sees those people as a cost center, so most places do everything they can to minimize the layout to operate. The time I was in charge of one, I bent over backwards, including learning the Vendors tool, and telling them to hands off, in order to get our call center experience tolerable. I wasn't even officially part of the Call Center department, but the guy implementing it was doing so horribly it became a hot button issue that escalated it's way up to me.

Since the experience, I have grown increasingly hostile to most "Automated customer Support Systems". (Capitalization intentional). The intent is generally to minimize the human contact available to the customer.

It's ASS all the way down. The customer has very little choice or input in the matter.

KYC just for a phone number opens the door for societal ostracization and essentially blacklisting of people from infrastructure. This is on par with being unable to open a bank account if the capability is matured. I'd advise that you think long and hard about the consequences of this system being applied against you maliciously before signing on the dotted line.

Stop thinking of insurers/providers as separate agents, and start thinking of them as building blocks for financial engineers.

Law binds individual fictions, but not compound ones. Until we start making financial engineering basically illegal, these types of "happy, profit juicing conjunctions" will be the norm.

And the answer is monetization. We can't just solve a problem. It has to have a business model built around it. No exceptions.

...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.

Yes. Authoritarianism has largely been held at bay by ensuring power was distributed betwixt as many people as possible, ensuring the excesses and quirks, and abuses of one could be constrained by someone else in the effector chain with an opposing weighting. AI potentially upends that state of affairs. As one is enabled to surround themselves with sycophantic yes devices, the probability of reaching a critical mass where a single small group seizes power slowly edges closer to 1.

Well I really hope you put your money where your mouth. That means: Never use AI (obviously).

Way ahead of you.

Never look up how to plant carrots on YouTube.

Books and trial and error are good too. In fact, old fashioned Boolean search engine worked just fine.

Don't learn to play an instrument or paint.

Now you're just making yourself sound like a daft fool. We've been doing those things since long before the Internet, and none of the abuses of humanity I refuse to see pushed forward spur from growing in those directions.

Anything that exploits public information and steals knowledge without compensation, like AI does, is off limits. Otherwise you'd be an incredible hypoctrite. Especially since you've already extracted your share of wealth from tech before you saw the light and converted to ludditism.

Your gotcha ain't landing. I ain't holding back anyone else. I'll share with anyone that wants it. Except the Sam A's, the Amodei's, the Trump's & their minions, and any other asshat who thinks their ambition and will to rule by default grants them entitlement to my shoulders. There comes a time in life where you look at what the rest of the world expects you to give, and a part of you looks at what the world is doing with it, and says "enough". I never sought to chain, or to bind, to automate kill chains, to decieve people into buying what they don't need, or to harm. Yet I look all around me, and that's all I see people around here get their jollies off doing some form of. You don't own me. You don't own my output. You don't get to lay claim to the precious little that is mine, and that I seek to shepherd for the poor sod's down the road who have the misfortune of being born into the hellscapes you people seem to aspire to see brought into existence. Where your moats enrich you while extracting from them, where they own nothing, and have no chance too, because no one is selling.

I will make sure there is someone there to do for them what was done for me.

I will make sure that they have as much of the same room to grow in as I did without the disgusting tendrils of a corrupted as fuck tree of knowledge being weaponized against them.

I don't give a damn if I'm inconvenient to your vision. I've walked that desert. I've dealt with that mirage. I have no delusions about what's underneath the hood of what's been built, or the countless lives that have been ploughed under to keep it trundling along. I have one damn choice I can make. I can chase a corpse of a future that's being smothered in it's cradle, or I can plant and cultivate a seed of what once was, and nourish it that maybe it can take root in more favorable soil. Point is, that means rescinding my consent to be leeched off of.

You call me a Luddite & a hypocrite. Doesn't bother me none. Called myself much worse, and would call myself much worse if I didn't draw the line somewhere. This is my line in the sand. Have fun calling me what you will. I don't have a damn thing to call you at all. Enough ugly things in the world without bothering to name another. Have a nice day.

I'd think we'd have outgrown things like claims of "unstallibility" given prior experience with ships claimed to be "unsinkable". There's what the marketing says, and then there's reality. You will never build a technical system incapable of being coaxed into an error state. Period.

Too many years as Quality Assurance grinds into you that when engineers claim perfection, you start questioning their assumptions, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down shortly thereafter.

No. That requires information disclosure to a third party. The point is enabling device admins better control over local device behavior. We're trying to keep conscientious parents able to do their thing. Not further enable the ability to manage the populace with official registries. If a kid can figure out how to install their own OS without their parent's help, odds are the kid is with it enough to start dipping their toes in the deep end. Or at least until they out themselves in front of their parents. In that case though it's a home problem, not a rest of the Internet problem.

It's still a stupid unconstitutional law, but I see what the aim is, even without strawmanning it.

You can bucket me wherever you want hombre. Whatever makes you feel better. I walked away from tech voluntarily because I refuse to associate with or put my time toward a morally bankrupt industry, even if it is where my talents happen to align. I'm more than happy to be a subsistence humanitarian even if it requires me to sacrifice the gilt and opulence that comes with a tech salary.

I won't abuse humanity. Nor will I enable those who ultimately intend to do so using my work as a proxy. Maybe you should consider doing the same. You might learn something by stepping out of the bubble about all the problems you're creating.

No, he's talking to you too. The Sam Altman's can't be a threat without useful idiots to cooperate with and doing work for them. You don't get out of your own culpability because you locked on a set of golden handcuffs.

But I suspect it's a front because the posters don't want to admit #2. Hence my question.

And that's why you're getting reflexively downvoted. Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on. As it turns out, some of us don't think our youth shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities we did because a bunch of techies got the financial sector to go all in on greedmaxing. Those of us that actually believe in keeping society functional find very little to be recommended by blind "believer" types who just think you can yank the rug out from under your descendants, and force them to have to shape their life around choices you think are cool.

One can be a tech enthusiast and still see that AI is crack cocaine to the type of people who'd set society on fire given they can find someone to help them think through the implementation details, which before AI, was basically the last control the professional caste had over the Capital class. The kids can understand this. Strangely, there is a surprising number of adults who don't seem to ever make the jump to understanding not everyone has entirely benevolent intentions hidden behind their smile.

Regulation didn't cause mergers. Non-enforcement of anti-trust law did. M&A's simply should not have been approved over the last few decades the way they were. You're trying to say it was the regulations that were the problem, but it is unironically the size of the regulated compared to manpower of the regulator that was the problem, which becomes a non-issue when you don't keep allowing mergers and acquisitions. Many small redundant competitors is manageable and a veritable incubator for innovation. One massive Leviathan conglomerate is a vehicle for regulatory capture and public abuse. You complain about the FAA, when the true culprit was the FTC approving mergers time after time freeing up capital that'd otherwise have needed to be put to use gaining competitive advantage and innovating for use to muck with the political landscape. Get where you're coming from, but you're blind as to the cure. A regulation could 100% have avoided the MAX situation. That regulation had nothing to do with airplanes, but maintaining a healthy and competitive domestic civil air transport industry, rather than a massively conglomerated one. We know corporate hierarchies attract psychopaths. The aim is to have as many slots at the top so that enough of them can be filled with the non-psychopathic so that society isn't held hostage by a handful of TBTF's all governed by psychopaths. If it is in threat of being TBTF, it should unironically be priority 1 to split, subdivide, and duplicate until redundancy allows part of it to be able to safely fail. Only then can it safely managed.

Not as part of a domestic police action (Posse Comitatus), and under the constraint of at least directing it against enemy combatants & regulars (conventions of international warfare). Now, if either of those two are violated the calculus changes, and I leave it as an exercise to the student to decide which side one's sympathies should lay with. I damn well know where my lines are drawn.

There's no fucking training to mitigate a slot machine.

It still is oppression. What many of us object to now is how starkly it's revealed the 2 tier illegitimate judicial system that on the one hand ruins grandmas and teenagers, but gives multinationals a free pass for charging everyone to get access to the human corpora. Anna's Archive, while equally illegal in a sense, but at least operates itself in a way compatible with uplifting everyone is getting more backlash than these tech companies that are dead set on "renting out access to intelligence". At this point, if you can't see the absurdity of the System as it functions past the "bing bing wahooness" of AI, I don't know what to tell ya.

The point is that you can't escape side-channel applications of security metadata being weaponized the more you try to force ubiquity of "security" everywhere. As long as there are motivated, profit seeking attackers, you have to take into account the toxic nature of metadata. This is another example of "A System Is What It Does" proving the pointlessness of "POSIWID". Intent doesn't matter. Certificate transparency was intended to clue us into bad cert issuing, but it is also a list of potential targets where AI crawlers can be directed to scrape new data. Intent doesn't change what it is. Cert transparency is certainly transparency + a "training data might end end up here" list.

A group of private investigators and strike breakers engaged by the wealthy to quell the rabble. When you hear someone talking about it being cheaper to pay 10% of the working class to keep the other 90% down, shit like the Pinkertons is always the answer as to how.

https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-pinkertons

https://daily.jstor.org/how-steelworkers-stopped-a-paramilit...

Not hard to find.

....Yet another vector through which "security experts" has caused a waterbed problem. Let's secure the Internet, oh no! We made a centralized list of operating domains for hostile actors to guide attacks with!

Never let a crisis go to waste, huh?

We've had the solution to shit like this, and it's called the SecurityManager in Java. No one wants to configure the damn thing, but it is there. Also, auditing the code you pull in. Yeah. Reading code sucks. Yeah. It's a lotta work. But if you don't check, you don't effing know.

All y'all want the fun of unprotected sex (rawdogging the ecosystem) and are starting to get burned by the VD's we old-timers have been hollerin' at you telling you will be coming the more you do this promiscuous dependency inclusion.

But hey. Enjoy it I guess. No skin off my nose.

I think you are blinded by an unprecedented optimism the rest of us simply cannot afford to entertain.

Narcissist's first strike: insist that the people preventing them from getting what they want are the problem, and setting the frame. All you can do is refuse to engage them in the frame, and deny them the luxury of shaping the engagement, which tends to fluster them even more.

Hopefully whoever elected this person will have second thoughts and boot them. It's quite clear they are more interested in aggregating power and creating edifi through which to abuse the public than representing them in good faith.

Then you must get one to monitor yourself for our corporatic overlord's benefit, pleb, or welcome to the enviable place known as "not their target demographic".

Where "target demographic" is a euphemism for "compliant people".

Username checks out.

Another victim of Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Some things are more important to optimize for than MATMULs per Watt. What that is I leave as an exercise to the student. May you realize what it is before it is too late.