tomrod

Its a nice benchmark. Like hearing the ice cream truck on a summer day.

Oh, absolutely. But it could be used right and well in a broader solarpunk framework :D

Aye. I find it reasonable to reduce it to: if people are dying that shouldn't be killed, time to question how we got there.

Reading comprehension is critical to ensure you don't ignore the whole picture, which you are doing.

began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic

You can watch the videos from neutral sources if you're concerned. There was no one in her way.

Yeah, but part of that is that national sovereignty is a just-so-happens meme of an idea that sticks around because we all agree that it should and alternative arrangements could be worse.

On the other hand, people dying is a real concept. Their deaths because some people think that other people shouldn't be around and appealing to national sovereignty to enforce that is a leap into the absurd.

At the end of the day, societal institutions exist because we choose by action and by decision to support them. If they aren't supported, the world and the trust network become dramatically reduced in size.

Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral.

TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?

Honestly? A few ideas

1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US.

2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary.

3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming.

4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."

Perhaps it would be helpful to understand that people feel it necessary to flag the comment -- I tried to explain it in my parent comment here.

This is false.

Good was in her car, stopped sideways in the street, which led Ross to circle her vehicle on foot. Other agents approached, and one ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing several feet away at the front-left of the vehicle which was turning away, when he fired three shots, killing her.

[0] https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/questions-follow-af...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good

People tend to agree that immigration enforcement can be necessary (except for that pocket of philosophical bohemians that accept that people should be able to flow as free or freer than capital if we are truly free at all). But interestingly, most people feel immigrants that did not enter through legal means should be able to stay in a lot of circumstances!

People almost universally agree that stripping citizenship from naturalized citizens is way too far (no cite here, just recalling a recent read).

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/22/most-amer...

I think you might be accidentally or willingly misunderstanding the context if that is your takeaway -- no one, neither immigrant nor innocent bystander, should be killed because administrative warrants are being enforced. And ICE doesn't require hundreds of individuals deployed to one place. There simply was never a reason for such a surge.

EDIT: to the dead comment below -- your comment doesn't have to meet my approval -- the comment is simply at odds with reality and is a thought terminating cliche.

Feel free to take it in a more general framing: if you don't want people you don't support, while they are in power, killing people, take time to understand why others might be upset. Not only is it your civic duty, its also part of being in society.

If the author were to read these comments, I'd commiserate with them on the disappointment of the utopia left behind in the service of acquiring wealth and power. An abundant solarpunk future enabled and augmented by AI, hyped so well by early Google and Kurzweil, captured as capital to earn a buck for shareholders.

Mad props for pushing as far as they could push.

Sidenote, that is a great idea. Mind sharing part of your list?

This is really cool.

Those of us that soldered wires, wrote custom drivers for esoteric hardware, and played with crazy things in the garage recognize that social systems are hackable too.

Drones aren't terribly expensive these days, and an "artificial army" requires a long production pipeline even if parts are printed.

I reckon the hypothetical plutocracy wouldn't want to live immediately next to the land they stripmine or otherwise experience the environmental consequences they would wish to ignore, thus it would be difficult for their supply lines to be fully encapsulated.

Alternatively, the hypothetical plutocrats could engage in trade with the people they attempt to wall off, become better off than autarky, and ideally approach some of the better systems that exist today.

It must be awful tempting for dictators to steal the commanding heights of the economy -- we see it happen so often -- and little do they realize the prosperous world they want comes when these institutions they steal are protected, enforced, and respected.

Not OP.

Pick an epsilon > 0. P(doom) < epsilon.

Not 0. Small though.

You get me.

Or, alternatively, we realize that the best use of our time and the best organizing drive is something that extends beyond us into the far future. A great example would be adopting the principle that sapience and sentience should survive the heat death of the universe.

We are a species driven by memetic thoughts that builds a reality through consensus. Having shared goals helps us in that regard.

Likewise. When we talk about being able to use AI tooling to do cool things, this is the type of thing that comes to mind.

Share repurchases also aren't great I guess?

So so much AI slop in these posts that usually would be very interesting. I don't like Claude's voice in most situations. The LLMisms stand out like nails on a chalkboard.

Keep tracking and reporting to someone you trust! It can really help to know others are invested in you, whether random internet strangers encouraging you or people in your life you trust.

It can't. As others pointed out, its the wrong layer to implement the security feature. The agent needs to operate in an isolated user / container.

I think you may have thought I claimed classical liberal and communitarianism were verbal substitutes for each other. If so, let us blame my wording and the python-level looseness of English. My intent was to point out that folks sometimes have strange personal issues with the terms libertarian and authoritarian, and if they do, then without loss of generality they may substitute classical liberal and communitarian respectively.

Accordingly, your insistence on drawing an equivalence between Bernie Sanders and Xi Jinping reads as very bizarre and out of the blue since Xi is Communist (Auth-left) and Bernie is left (mix of auth and libertarian but left on the orthogonal axis to authortarian/classical liberal).

If that doesn't clarify your mistaken read, then let us leave the conversation where it stands as I'm not terribly interested engaging in further platforming someone's personal flamewar topic.

A few of the scientific computing companies from the early 2010s got their traction due to Dodd Frank-required scenario and stress testing. SAS was not up to the challenge and R could not multithread.

These initiatives were independent of Minerva and Athena, which was good but not very useful to the more mundane parts of the bank everyone off the financial trading floors care about.

Correct, which is why your question didn't make sense earlier.

Typically, one would refer to the political compass as a good starting reference. It has two axes, left/right and authoritarian/libertarian. Communism is authoritarian left. DSA is more left, with some libertarian and some authoritarian. It's more regions than binary flags.

They aren't. You flipped them, not sure if intentionally or by accident.

Source: trust me bro

This is a good way to view this. This isn't making an objective calculation, and the way they code left vs right is certainly subject to debate, but the type of analysis where we work to understand biases is important.

Although, this also reminds me of the old saying about reality and leftward bias.