When you have real living versions of cartoon anti-environmentalist villains as the ruling members of most big nations for as many years as we have - you start to worry more than compared to when the circumstances seemed more sane.
This isn't some "oh, I'm so concerned about the electrical wire waves on my kid's braces" style worrying - it's "yeah, we've had 20 rounds of studies showing that the base of our food chain won't function nearly as well in a couple of decades" kinds of stuff.
And why? Because we've tied everything together, made politics this absurd game where everyone plays to these massively overloaded crisis scenarios, basically recreating the worst crisises of late-era Roman conditions, and at the same time eliminated the same kinds of things placed in order to prevent non-violent elections from becoming justifications for revolution.
Well, all that largely to feed money and power to the already rich and powerful. And yes, I do significantly blame those that supported the Citizens United outcome.
So, nothing but the focused interests of the those with the plurality of power at the moment get anything now - and compromise is only punished with nigh-permanent reductions in power.
Is it any wonder that the very environment that allows us to live gets sacrificed consistently with that as the game we use to make crucial decisions?
We need a system where the best decisions on any given issue are made without being gummed up with these absurd and artificial ties to these games of retribution and greed.
Not really - as the other poster alluded to, all throughout history, traditions like Christmas were used in all kinds of ways. Traditions are partly rules, used as rules tend to be used.
In the age of Mercantilism, pilgrim groups were pushed to give to their causes and trading partners, but to ask for little, and never show any extravagance for the riches they were shipping back.
That's basically making virtue and tradition out of feudalistic ideals. Really a classic reproduction of the cyberpunk view of mobs and corporate syndicates.
There's lots of examples of that same dynamic, right back to the origin of written history in places like Babylon where they tallied crop taxes using religion and men with sticks to beat those not playing along.
That's part of why the ideal when splitting from Britain was a separation of church and state - to sever the cruel links between of control between the sacred and the state, to strengthen both for the common good.
Smashing them both together to pocket the result is kind of returning to a dark past we put away for good reasons. It's why we keep telling the same cyberpunk stories about what happens when we cross those lines completely.
Reminds me of a LOT of cyberpunk scenarios, where international companies and mobs start carving up nations, using people's conservative traditions to make a mockery of everything those traditions mean, in order to take everything from them.
Explains that odd twist in the smile that pops up on Republican faces when they tell bald-faced lies more than most anything else.
Fascinating science in the actual article - really odd use of language in the article. 'Fooling' is kind of anthropomorphizing the cancer cells - they're changing based on mechanisms, they never really make decisions to be fooled on, and that's why the actual study doesn't really use the word.
Those, along with arbitration agreements, should be considered abjectly invalid agreements in terms of being asked to give up important fundamental rights to important freedoms in any society.
Rather, going forward, groups that demand you sign such invalid contracts should be considered to be committing an act of fraud by pressuring you with 'agreements' involving you giving up such important access to important rights and freedoms.
The focus should rather be on making the justice system itself more accessible, less expensive and filled with delays. Less focused on basically ruining lives for the sake of vengeance and filling jails, and more on making society function with less harm over time, and more companies shut down for bad intentions or deception.
I know I've pulled a random relative's Windows 7 computer out and turned it on after a random amount of time, reinstalled the system with the key on the system, and got it flagged as not genuine.
I think Microsoft just wants you to call up their activation helpline in these edge cases, for a variety of small reasons. Not the least of which would be subtle pushes to want an upgrade on old systems.
But for systems you just want as a garage tool system, or something like a Plex or random file server a relative can maintain, there's no real desire for that.
I understand the mindset - if there's no marketplace for new businesses, how do we get improvements over time?
The problem is that businesses aren't really valid laboratories for testing ideas. They fail for reasons unconnected to their base ideas more often than not, and VERY rarely engage in any actual forms of valid research anymore.
Individuals test ideas, and more specialized groups work on promoting those ideas - not really business in general.
In this case, Youtube is basically a specialized use of the very large pile of random computers Google houses en mass, in order to advertise to people.
It's like if you had a bazaar in your town, selling cheap knick-knacks at random prices - and then a big warehouse store came in, offering better quality knick-knacks for cheaper with less hassle for everyone, and less overhead waste.
It's not some great tragedy that a simplified business wipes out those businesses - perhaps a set of small regrets - but you're not going to lose much actual innovation because of that shift to better organization and efficiency.
Rather, instead of more rinky dink folks trying to hawk dodads, you get more rinky dink folks trying to band together make something that will be good enough to sell at the big store, or working at companies that already found a niche.
If you want innovation - then focus on actually rewarding innovation, not pretending like a market is going to produce it - markets only innovate on a fairly small window of short-term interests. Bring back actual research organizations as a part of the economy.
Pretending that you can innovate better than Youtube by just going back to a diaspora of yet more scammy small-scale operations - that's wishful thinking in my book.
You have to have a better idea tested and reliably scalable before it's worth crushing a working system. Youtube is horrible in some ways - but there's valid reasons folks want to use it more than most anything else.
Listen - cheap goods aren't a magic bullet cause of economic stress.
If I made a farming robot that grew a variety of high quality food for $0.05 a kilogram, and sold it to people for $0.07 a kilogram, it would mean that a lot of folks would be spending less money - and I might even put some types of business out of a market niche - but that does NOT have to cause mass poverty.
Rather, it causes a limited market failure. Market failures are where the ideals of 'free markets' break down - because they tend to happen when there isn't any room for incentives left.
I'd say this is ideally where the basic role of government lies. Government in this case meaning a group of people that decides common shared action for their mutual shared benefit.
When goods are too cheap for markets to pay people a living wage to have them on market - that makes it a perfect role for a government to play, to literally share the burden of, for instance, making sure that no one starves from neglect, or is unable to live productive lives for not benefiting a company enough.
Those flaws are 'externalities' to a corporate mindset, but the whole reason we work together as human beings outside that mindset.
Being able to produce practically endless amounts of good quality cheap food is a legitimate cause for real celebration - I don't find the argument that because it can also cause limited market failure to be a flaw.
Back in time, corporations were things that often existed for a limited time to serve a common community need, which were then dissolved when that need was met - it's why we still have corporate charters on them.. I think that may have been a healthier way to view that balance.
I mean, we've been taxing folks to keep farms alive for generations now - it's a legitimate logical problem letting market forces eliminate our agricultural infrastructure. Basically every part of society still has some aspects of it that supersede some market ideal - no matter how capitalist we idealize ourselves to be.
This sounds about as reasonable as the plot to those movies.
So... we pollute the atmosphere in a way that causes heat to be trapped due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gasses.
The solution would seem to be to rely on less polluting energy generation mechanisms, since the fossil fuels are inherently less cost effective over time anyway.
But this idea seems to be to... filter out the sunlight - and prevent us from being able to use any other energy source but fossil fuels until we run out, and have black skies, I guess?
Sometimes, you hear a perspective, understand it completely, and reject it as false. Then, you're biased against that perspective.
Communicating the reason for that bias, and reevaluating that bias are valuable parts of being an open-minded functional person.
Skepticism is bias - and it is very important to a functioning society to avoid several forms of stagnation. The problem is closed-mindedness, not bias.
The problem is also using all of these concepts as bludgeons without any attempt to bring understand with them.
Server side page composition. Have the ad data queued to add to pages, throw them together on your server, send the composed page to the user.
Minimize scripting needed on client side, and ensure minimal delay.
Any marketing company that can't queue up their data to you, and has any ad take more than 1ms to add server-side is rejected as too slow.
The user waiting for anything should be considered broken. If you are pushing ads, it has to be a better experience than without ads - otherwise, you're inherently asking to be bypassed as time goes on.
Compression levels and file size aren't the current limitations on 'web speed' as such.
The limits are REALLY, REALLY easy to detect, if you try any sizable set of major websites with and without various levels of ad blocking and script blocking.
The limitation is servers placed in between users and the content they want, by marketing company servers that demand to be parsed before loading.
And marketing companies don't place much priority on 100% minimal load times, compared to showing greater statistics on what makes them money.
That's what kills the traffic flow - like a small number of bad actors can slow any traffic system. When those actors are left in front of the others, with no way to get around them, all the traffic is slowed.
This is a fix - but it's very much not a general fix for what most affects people's experience online.
Adblock and script blocking are that for now - but bypassing a >1ms marketing server delay would be the more proper fix if you wanted ads to keep paying for things.
Have marketing companies absolutely lose their chance to show ads for any, ANY delay would fix their priorities, and fix the web for those that want to keep it an ad-loaded experience.
This is like deciding if someone was rich by looking at how many lights you saw in their entire country by looking at the planet at night from space. With no knowledge of nation borders.
You can certainly draw a correlation - but not really a good conclusion on any individual.
Brain scans aren't reading the content of neurons. They're not even really reading activations or activity for certain, given the lack of real certainty on the full mechanics of brain activity. All they're reading is the heat and relative traffic areas of an unlabelled part of the brain, and saying that this is what has happened in other cases. Again - like watching blobs of house lights from space.
There's other studies that show that experts in a field actually activate LESS than non-experts on a subject - especially genius-level studies, because they tend to find the same answers with less mental work and stress or second-thoughts.
Avoid trying to base how you want to live your life on studies like these ones in particular. Or at least focus more on the base ideas, and less on trying to imitate the particulars here.
So, it's not the technology, but the people that no longer need to hire people that are 'at fault'... lovely. Thanks for that insight!
The whole point isn't who to blame. It's the fact that technology is exposing a deep, deep flaw in the structure of our society.
If folks don't need to use other people to make money and own virtually everything, the economy itself is useless for any meaningful society.
And if technology makes it so that anyone that gets ahead can almost automatically build to the point where they break the idea of a meaningful economy.. then basing that society or economy on people being paid for things that can be automated is a losing move in the larger game.
If society at large seeks to actually serve to expand human experience beyond just the needs of the ultra-rich, then it likely should seek to use that same technology to get people to legitimately help other people, rather than just have the rich monetize more aspects of their lives.
The whole idea of corporations is kind of a new idea historically - we can invent other ideas, with more forethought than the way courtrooms defined the things we have running the world right now.
But we do have to understand why technology will end the good things about our current economy, beyond just finding folks to blame.
The higher level/pay a person gets, likely the more time they DO spend in that style of communications.
A factory floor guy probably spends 0 work hours using email, except perhaps on their own phone during downtime.
A low level floor manager might spend 2 hours a week.
A middle manager might spend 7 hours a week on emails.
An upper manager might spend 15 or more on emails, and the rest largely on meetings largely reiterating the messages in the emails.
A solo contractor might spend 20 hours, since they're playing all those roles and can't skimp on the communication part between all their projects. And a portion of that time they can't really bill for, which is part of the whole price equation for their time.
As long as people work for people, they'll need to keep in touch.
Trolls do tend to say that whenever moderation starts removing abuse dominating a conversation channel.
The other top response is saying that they wouldn't be trolling of only the other side would stop being so wrong.
But to never moderate those things would mean that everything becomes rhetoric - all noise and no signal. It defeats the purpose of having having a channel of communication... which is kind of the point of this modern form of trolling, isn't it?
There's a lot of intentionally provocative/trollish bills california congress - which actually have weak effects, and are mostly pushing for industries to self-regulate, and are NOT actually expected to pass, but reach compromise.
You know, all the stuff that some folks compliment Trump on pushing as genius strategic moves.
More importantly, which a lot of these summaries (and this article) seem to gloss over - this is only for the California senate - not the US senate.
None of these things are positions asked for by Democrats in general, or even these Democrats, except as a starting point of negotiation.
There's this big obvious income source coming for the company, an expensive factory being made that will make the next technology that everyone wants.
Without a disinformation campaign, folks would see that income source, and trade to match expected values, tempered for obvious risks, like failure rates and competition.
So, how do you turn this big, obvious market event in your favor?
You spread as much garbage about the company as you can. Headlines - headlines everywhere about everything you can get anyone to believe, that the company is fated for a giant fall. Get those stocks to as low a value as you can - then buy them, just before the actual numbers come back about a factory doing what a factory does.
So... the guy in charge of said factory decides to make the thing private, to prevent your strategy from working! Aw! All that work trashing the company, and you can't benefit from it! Such a loss of potential!
That's the market, as it is currently allowed to function. Folks using every piece of information as pivots to fool other investors.
The same thing is happening with Square Enix - about to release like 5 major games after working several years on each, and just releasing another major game now. What do the stories say about this, just before?
Economics is based on what folks feel they can get out of other folks.
Technology makes people able to spend their time in a more organized, efficient manner.
In eras where a US president might take a large part of a week getting to a location, they would have a large amount of time to mull over a speech and its many implications.
Now, our president has a few minutes during his TV time to think up the equivalent speech, which he is expected to make impromptu every night.
The trick is setting expectations for your communication better, by not being so reactionary with the things you want to be important.
Sure - you are perfectly capable of making thousands of messages using modern tools, and swamping the communications landscape with every fraction of your thoughts... but then you end up sounding like those youtube personalities that are frequently breaking down and painting themselves into corners with their pronouncements or intentional nonsense.
Clicks/reads are valuable if you're a marketing specialist - but they aren't a unit of functionality for most other things.
Folks are worried about their potential in terms of attention and visibility... when there's lots of other potentials that end up mattering a lot more. Learn what matters when, and don't cut off the actual important stuff in order to live for marketing side of life.
Every time a story like this comes up, a large number of folks raise objections to the very idea of investigating right-wing election issues.
Well, this isn't going away. Benghazi investigations lasted for 3 years, with zero convictions or even serious cases. If you in any way accepted that process, you have ZERO legs to stand against on an investigation that had already lead to multiple convictions and guilty pleas, and is currently involved in a large number of major court cases, increasing constantly.
And if push too hard to try and force it to stop, the protests will shut down this nation. They will be larger than anything we've ever seen.
Mars doesn't have enough mass and magnetic spin to maintain an atmosphere. That's kind of always going to have anything you generate torn away by solar winds.
You'd have to do something absurd like send a Jovian moon into it, then wait for all that to cool down to get enough mass to start making a long-term environment on it. There's not even enough floating ice/rocks in our system to make it work without something like that.
Mars is not really a backup for earth, at least not if you don't have a large fraction of a million years to get it to that point. If you think that enough technology can get you there quicker - then cool, use that on Earth. There's no almost scenario where it would be easier to fix Mars than fix Earth.
Heck, it would be far easier to fix life to not need Earth than make Mars support our life as-is.
Ever since the founding of the nation, everyone has had conflicting agendas.
Personal, business, family, religion, township, state, nation - they all have different optimal outcomes.
Folks become politicians because they think they can work out something that will work for most, if not all of those levels - and yeah, often, those motivations are corrupt.
Like in science though - the answer should be that matching up to reality should be the goalstick - and conflicting motivations should bow towards that.
The problem is that when we allow motivations to become too corrupt, reality itself becomes the enemy of those motivations.
Open government is an important motivation because it prevents folks from straying too far too long from being compared with reality.
That's the role of the press in recent centuries - to take conflicting biases, and hold them against reality, one story at a time. Even in the yellow journalism eras, and now in the Fox news and social media era - it made it difficult to operate too far away from reality as a politician.
But it's not an infinite effect - it can be washed away by enough motivation against reality.
And to folks that love science and honest study of reality, it's something of a disgusting transformation of a nation.
Especially in the sense of what's going to happen when reality reasserts itself after the current illusion wears thin.
Slashdot Mirror
When you have real living versions of cartoon anti-environmentalist villains as the ruling members of most big nations for as many years as we have - you start to worry more than compared to when the circumstances seemed more sane.
This isn't some "oh, I'm so concerned about the electrical wire waves on my kid's braces" style worrying - it's "yeah, we've had 20 rounds of studies showing that the base of our food chain won't function nearly as well in a couple of decades" kinds of stuff.
And why? Because we've tied everything together, made politics this absurd game where everyone plays to these massively overloaded crisis scenarios, basically recreating the worst crisises of late-era Roman conditions, and at the same time eliminated the same kinds of things placed in order to prevent non-violent elections from becoming justifications for revolution.
Well, all that largely to feed money and power to the already rich and powerful. And yes, I do significantly blame those that supported the Citizens United outcome.
So, nothing but the focused interests of the those with the plurality of power at the moment get anything now - and compromise is only punished with nigh-permanent reductions in power.
Is it any wonder that the very environment that allows us to live gets sacrificed consistently with that as the game we use to make crucial decisions?
We need a system where the best decisions on any given issue are made without being gummed up with these absurd and artificial ties to these games of retribution and greed.
Ryan Fenton
Not really - as the other poster alluded to, all throughout history, traditions like Christmas were used in all kinds of ways. Traditions are partly rules, used as rules tend to be used.
In the age of Mercantilism, pilgrim groups were pushed to give to their causes and trading partners, but to ask for little, and never show any extravagance for the riches they were shipping back.
That's basically making virtue and tradition out of feudalistic ideals. Really a classic reproduction of the cyberpunk view of mobs and corporate syndicates.
There's lots of examples of that same dynamic, right back to the origin of written history in places like Babylon where they tallied crop taxes using religion and men with sticks to beat those not playing along.
That's part of why the ideal when splitting from Britain was a separation of church and state - to sever the cruel links between of control between the sacred and the state, to strengthen both for the common good.
Smashing them both together to pocket the result is kind of returning to a dark past we put away for good reasons. It's why we keep telling the same cyberpunk stories about what happens when we cross those lines completely.
Ryan Fenton
Reminds me of a LOT of cyberpunk scenarios, where international companies and mobs start carving up nations, using people's conservative traditions to make a mockery of everything those traditions mean, in order to take everything from them.
Explains that odd twist in the smile that pops up on Republican faces when they tell bald-faced lies more than most anything else.
Ryan Fenton
I think they mean 'turning'.
Fascinating science in the actual article - really odd use of language in the article. 'Fooling' is kind of anthropomorphizing the cancer cells - they're changing based on mechanisms, they never really make decisions to be fooled on, and that's why the actual study doesn't really use the word.
Ryan Fenton
Those, along with arbitration agreements, should be considered abjectly invalid agreements in terms of being asked to give up important fundamental rights to important freedoms in any society.
Rather, going forward, groups that demand you sign such invalid contracts should be considered to be committing an act of fraud by pressuring you with 'agreements' involving you giving up such important access to important rights and freedoms.
The focus should rather be on making the justice system itself more accessible, less expensive and filled with delays. Less focused on basically ruining lives for the sake of vengeance and filling jails, and more on making society function with less harm over time, and more companies shut down for bad intentions or deception.
Ryan Fenton
I know I've pulled a random relative's Windows 7 computer out and turned it on after a random amount of time, reinstalled the system with the key on the system, and got it flagged as not genuine.
I think Microsoft just wants you to call up their activation helpline in these edge cases, for a variety of small reasons. Not the least of which would be subtle pushes to want an upgrade on old systems.
But for systems you just want as a garage tool system, or something like a Plex or random file server a relative can maintain, there's no real desire for that.
Ryan Fenton
I understand the mindset - if there's no marketplace for new businesses, how do we get improvements over time?
The problem is that businesses aren't really valid laboratories for testing ideas. They fail for reasons unconnected to their base ideas more often than not, and VERY rarely engage in any actual forms of valid research anymore.
Individuals test ideas, and more specialized groups work on promoting those ideas - not really business in general.
In this case, Youtube is basically a specialized use of the very large pile of random computers Google houses en mass, in order to advertise to people.
It's like if you had a bazaar in your town, selling cheap knick-knacks at random prices - and then a big warehouse store came in, offering better quality knick-knacks for cheaper with less hassle for everyone, and less overhead waste.
It's not some great tragedy that a simplified business wipes out those businesses - perhaps a set of small regrets - but you're not going to lose much actual innovation because of that shift to better organization and efficiency.
Rather, instead of more rinky dink folks trying to hawk dodads, you get more rinky dink folks trying to band together make something that will be good enough to sell at the big store, or working at companies that already found a niche.
If you want innovation - then focus on actually rewarding innovation, not pretending like a market is going to produce it - markets only innovate on a fairly small window of short-term interests. Bring back actual research organizations as a part of the economy.
Pretending that you can innovate better than Youtube by just going back to a diaspora of yet more scammy small-scale operations - that's wishful thinking in my book.
You have to have a better idea tested and reliably scalable before it's worth crushing a working system. Youtube is horrible in some ways - but there's valid reasons folks want to use it more than most anything else.
Ryan Fenton
Listen - cheap goods aren't a magic bullet cause of economic stress.
If I made a farming robot that grew a variety of high quality food for $0.05 a kilogram, and sold it to people for $0.07 a kilogram, it would mean that a lot of folks would be spending less money - and I might even put some types of business out of a market niche - but that does NOT have to cause mass poverty.
Rather, it causes a limited market failure. Market failures are where the ideals of 'free markets' break down - because they tend to happen when there isn't any room for incentives left.
I'd say this is ideally where the basic role of government lies. Government in this case meaning a group of people that decides common shared action for their mutual shared benefit.
When goods are too cheap for markets to pay people a living wage to have them on market - that makes it a perfect role for a government to play, to literally share the burden of, for instance, making sure that no one starves from neglect, or is unable to live productive lives for not benefiting a company enough.
Those flaws are 'externalities' to a corporate mindset, but the whole reason we work together as human beings outside that mindset.
Being able to produce practically endless amounts of good quality cheap food is a legitimate cause for real celebration - I don't find the argument that because it can also cause limited market failure to be a flaw.
Back in time, corporations were things that often existed for a limited time to serve a common community need, which were then dissolved when that need was met - it's why we still have corporate charters on them.. I think that may have been a healthier way to view that balance.
I mean, we've been taxing folks to keep farms alive for generations now - it's a legitimate logical problem letting market forces eliminate our agricultural infrastructure. Basically every part of society still has some aspects of it that supersede some market ideal - no matter how capitalist we idealize ourselves to be.
Ryan Fenton
Might want to correct that title. I believe you meant something else.
This sounds about as reasonable as the plot to those movies.
So... we pollute the atmosphere in a way that causes heat to be trapped due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gasses.
The solution would seem to be to rely on less polluting energy generation mechanisms, since the fossil fuels are inherently less cost effective over time anyway.
But this idea seems to be to ... filter out the sunlight - and prevent us from being able to use any other energy source but fossil fuels until we run out, and have black skies, I guess?
You know how... evil that process sounds, right?
Like, cartoonishly evil.
Ryan Fenton
Any valid human perspective has bias.
Sometimes, you hear a perspective, understand it completely, and reject it as false. Then, you're biased against that perspective.
Communicating the reason for that bias, and reevaluating that bias are valuable parts of being an open-minded functional person.
Skepticism is bias - and it is very important to a functioning society to avoid several forms of stagnation. The problem is closed-mindedness, not bias.
The problem is also using all of these concepts as bludgeons without any attempt to bring understand with them.
Ryan Fenton
Sure - 1ms.
How?
Server side page composition. Have the ad data queued to add to pages, throw them together on your server, send the composed page to the user.
Minimize scripting needed on client side, and ensure minimal delay.
Any marketing company that can't queue up their data to you, and has any ad take more than 1ms to add server-side is rejected as too slow.
The user waiting for anything should be considered broken. If you are pushing ads, it has to be a better experience than without ads - otherwise, you're inherently asking to be bypassed as time goes on.
Ryan Fenton
Compression levels and file size aren't the current limitations on 'web speed' as such.
The limits are REALLY, REALLY easy to detect, if you try any sizable set of major websites with and without various levels of ad blocking and script blocking.
The limitation is servers placed in between users and the content they want, by marketing company servers that demand to be parsed before loading.
And marketing companies don't place much priority on 100% minimal load times, compared to showing greater statistics on what makes them money.
That's what kills the traffic flow - like a small number of bad actors can slow any traffic system. When those actors are left in front of the others, with no way to get around them, all the traffic is slowed.
This is a fix - but it's very much not a general fix for what most affects people's experience online.
Adblock and script blocking are that for now - but bypassing a >1ms marketing server delay would be the more proper fix if you wanted ads to keep paying for things.
Have marketing companies absolutely lose their chance to show ads for any, ANY delay would fix their priorities, and fix the web for those that want to keep it an ad-loaded experience.
Ad/script blocking works for everyone else.
Ryan Fenton
This is like deciding if someone was rich by looking at how many lights you saw in their entire country by looking at the planet at night from space. With no knowledge of nation borders.
You can certainly draw a correlation - but not really a good conclusion on any individual.
Brain scans aren't reading the content of neurons. They're not even really reading activations or activity for certain, given the lack of real certainty on the full mechanics of brain activity. All they're reading is the heat and relative traffic areas of an unlabelled part of the brain, and saying that this is what has happened in other cases. Again - like watching blobs of house lights from space.
There's other studies that show that experts in a field actually activate LESS than non-experts on a subject - especially genius-level studies, because they tend to find the same answers with less mental work and stress or second-thoughts.
Avoid trying to base how you want to live your life on studies like these ones in particular. Or at least focus more on the base ideas, and less on trying to imitate the particulars here.
Ryan Fenton
So, it's not the technology, but the people that no longer need to hire people that are 'at fault'... lovely. Thanks for that insight!
The whole point isn't who to blame. It's the fact that technology is exposing a deep, deep flaw in the structure of our society.
If folks don't need to use other people to make money and own virtually everything, the economy itself is useless for any meaningful society.
And if technology makes it so that anyone that gets ahead can almost automatically build to the point where they break the idea of a meaningful economy.. then basing that society or economy on people being paid for things that can be automated is a losing move in the larger game.
If society at large seeks to actually serve to expand human experience beyond just the needs of the ultra-rich, then it likely should seek to use that same technology to get people to legitimately help other people, rather than just have the rich monetize more aspects of their lives.
The whole idea of corporations is kind of a new idea historically - we can invent other ideas, with more forethought than the way courtrooms defined the things we have running the world right now.
But we do have to understand why technology will end the good things about our current economy, beyond just finding folks to blame.
Ryan Fenton
The higher level/pay a person gets, likely the more time they DO spend in that style of communications.
A factory floor guy probably spends 0 work hours using email, except perhaps on their own phone during downtime.
A low level floor manager might spend 2 hours a week.
A middle manager might spend 7 hours a week on emails.
An upper manager might spend 15 or more on emails, and the rest largely on meetings largely reiterating the messages in the emails.
A solo contractor might spend 20 hours, since they're playing all those roles and can't skimp on the communication part between all their projects. And a portion of that time they can't really bill for, which is part of the whole price equation for their time.
As long as people work for people, they'll need to keep in touch.
Ryan Fenton
That's odd that they'd even want to do that.
Is there any other place those will remain available?
I don't plan on ever using any version of Firefox after the 52 ESR, largely because of the lost functionality of the newer add-ons.
What's the point of Firefox if you can't properly customize it?
Seem really odd to me.
Ryan Fenton
Trolls do tend to say that whenever moderation starts removing abuse dominating a conversation channel.
The other top response is saying that they wouldn't be trolling of only the other side would stop being so wrong.
But to never moderate those things would mean that everything becomes rhetoric - all noise and no signal. It defeats the purpose of having having a channel of communication... which is kind of the point of this modern form of trolling, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
There's a lot of intentionally provocative/trollish bills california congress - which actually have weak effects, and are mostly pushing for industries to self-regulate, and are NOT actually expected to pass, but reach compromise.
You know, all the stuff that some folks compliment Trump on pushing as genius strategic moves.
More importantly, which a lot of these summaries (and this article) seem to gloss over - this is only for the California senate - not the US senate.
None of these things are positions asked for by Democrats in general, or even these Democrats, except as a starting point of negotiation.
Ryan Fenton
There's this big obvious income source coming for the company, an expensive factory being made that will make the next technology that everyone wants.
Without a disinformation campaign, folks would see that income source, and trade to match expected values, tempered for obvious risks, like failure rates and competition.
So, how do you turn this big, obvious market event in your favor?
You spread as much garbage about the company as you can. Headlines - headlines everywhere about everything you can get anyone to believe, that the company is fated for a giant fall. Get those stocks to as low a value as you can - then buy them, just before the actual numbers come back about a factory doing what a factory does.
So... the guy in charge of said factory decides to make the thing private, to prevent your strategy from working! Aw! All that work trashing the company, and you can't benefit from it! Such a loss of potential!
That's the market, as it is currently allowed to function. Folks using every piece of information as pivots to fool other investors.
The same thing is happening with Square Enix - about to release like 5 major games after working several years on each, and just releasing another major game now. What do the stories say about this, just before?
https://wccftech.com/square-en...
That's right - they emphasize the losses from making those games. They want those values low, low, low.
It's kind of a stupid way to value things, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
Economics is based on what folks feel they can get out of other folks.
Technology makes people able to spend their time in a more organized, efficient manner.
In eras where a US president might take a large part of a week getting to a location, they would have a large amount of time to mull over a speech and its many implications.
Now, our president has a few minutes during his TV time to think up the equivalent speech, which he is expected to make impromptu every night.
The trick is setting expectations for your communication better, by not being so reactionary with the things you want to be important.
Sure - you are perfectly capable of making thousands of messages using modern tools, and swamping the communications landscape with every fraction of your thoughts... but then you end up sounding like those youtube personalities that are frequently breaking down and painting themselves into corners with their pronouncements or intentional nonsense.
Clicks/reads are valuable if you're a marketing specialist - but they aren't a unit of functionality for most other things.
Folks are worried about their potential in terms of attention and visibility... when there's lots of other potentials that end up mattering a lot more. Learn what matters when, and don't cut off the actual important stuff in order to live for marketing side of life.
Ryan Fenton
Every time a story like this comes up, a large number of folks raise objections to the very idea of investigating right-wing election issues.
Well, this isn't going away. Benghazi investigations lasted for 3 years, with zero convictions or even serious cases. If you in any way accepted that process, you have ZERO legs to stand against on an investigation that had already lead to multiple convictions and guilty pleas, and is currently involved in a large number of major court cases, increasing constantly.
And if push too hard to try and force it to stop, the protests will shut down this nation. They will be larger than anything we've ever seen.
None of this is going away.
Ryan Fenton
Mars doesn't have enough mass and magnetic spin to maintain an atmosphere. That's kind of always going to have anything you generate torn away by solar winds.
You'd have to do something absurd like send a Jovian moon into it, then wait for all that to cool down to get enough mass to start making a long-term environment on it. There's not even enough floating ice/rocks in our system to make it work without something like that.
Mars is not really a backup for earth, at least not if you don't have a large fraction of a million years to get it to that point. If you think that enough technology can get you there quicker - then cool, use that on Earth. There's no almost scenario where it would be easier to fix Mars than fix Earth.
Heck, it would be far easier to fix life to not need Earth than make Mars support our life as-is.
Ryan Fenton
Market experts expect that 60% of sales will come from video makers on youtube, responding to claims of unbreakability.
Ryan Fenton
Ever since the founding of the nation, everyone has had conflicting agendas.
Personal, business, family, religion, township, state, nation - they all have different optimal outcomes.
Folks become politicians because they think they can work out something that will work for most, if not all of those levels - and yeah, often, those motivations are corrupt.
Like in science though - the answer should be that matching up to reality should be the goalstick - and conflicting motivations should bow towards that.
The problem is that when we allow motivations to become too corrupt, reality itself becomes the enemy of those motivations.
Open government is an important motivation because it prevents folks from straying too far too long from being compared with reality.
That's the role of the press in recent centuries - to take conflicting biases, and hold them against reality, one story at a time. Even in the yellow journalism eras, and now in the Fox news and social media era - it made it difficult to operate too far away from reality as a politician.
But it's not an infinite effect - it can be washed away by enough motivation against reality.
And to folks that love science and honest study of reality, it's something of a disgusting transformation of a nation.
Especially in the sense of what's going to happen when reality reasserts itself after the current illusion wears thin.
Ryan Fenton