> I have no fear of calling the US President a pedo or saying Fuck the Police on my Twitter.
Does that matter? In China people don't judge the state of their civilization by how easily you can insult the police but whether you need to be afraid to meet them on the street. "I can insult my pedophile president" (who doesn't care if you do) isn't exactly a flex.
It does tell us something though that the evaluation of American life now consists of parasocial interactions with the president on social media. I'm starting to belief Bruno Maçães, ex Portuguese secretary of state, was prescient with his diagnosis that American material society has rotted to the point where life is now entirely defined by virtual interactions. That's the difference between China and the US today.
The president's a pedophile, a criminal, undeterred by democracy, economy or social disorder but you can freely yell into the void. Have you considered that in the US one can freely say all these things precisely because that's irrelevant?
> The president's a pedophile, a criminal, undeterred by democracy, economy or social disorder but you can freely yell into the void. Have you considered that in the US one can freely say all these things precisely because that's irrelevant?
Americans will vote for their Congress representatives in November. They will have a chance to decide how they want their government to be run. The US President was already shot-down once by the Supreme Court (tariffs). The system is working. Let the voters decide, and then let it work.
people have said enough about the ethics of all of it but what I found even sadder is that the story made me curious to take a look at the actual piece he "investigated" with AI, it's this one (https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...) This is btw a bit more than 1k words, which takes the average American reader, not senior journalist, ~5 minutes.
This whole story involved asking Claude to mine this text for quotes, which refused because it included harassment related content, then asking ChatGPT to explain that, and so on.
That entire ordeal probably generated more text from the chatbots than just reading the few paragraphs of the blogpost. That's why I think the "I'm sick" angle doesn't matter much. This is the same brainrot as people who go "grok what does this mean" under every twitter post. It's like a schoolchild who cheats and expends more energy cheating than just learning what they're supposed to.
to do what? We've already had this experiment in the form of phone calling and texting. And that's not technological because both are mature. People vastly prefer the latter. It's discrete, faster and asynchronous. In the same vein, does anyone actually use their Alexa?
I was just in a datacenter deploying a bunch of infrastructure while coordinating with remote network operations and sysadmin teams. It was damn annoying having to constantly check my phone for new slack messages, or deal with Siri reading back messages in it's incompetent manner. I missed quite a few time sensitive messages like "move that fiber from port A to port B" due to noise or getting busy with another task and kept folks waiting for longer than needed.
In limited circumstances having a wearable "HUD" interface would be quite nice. Especially if it had great screen quality and I could do things like see a port mapping/network diagram/blueprints/whatever while doing the actual work. Would save considerable time vs. having to look down at a laptop or phone screen and lose my place in the physical wire loom or whatnot. Having an integrated crash cart (e.g. via wireless dongles) would be even more exciting.
That's just one recent task that comes to mind.
There are plenty of real world hands-on jobs where this would be quite helpful. So long as it's not connected to meta or the cloud or anything other than a local device or work network.
For a more general use-case I have what amounts to minor facial blindness/forgetfulness of names. I need to study your face for a long time over many interactions to actually remember you. Something as simple as wearing glasses vs. not can mean I will not recognize someone I've spent months interacting with multiple times a week.
I've long wished I had some way to implant something in my brain that would give the equivalent of video game name avatars superimposed over someone's head. For totally non-nefarious reasons, just names of folks I previously have met pulled from my contacts list. Obviously this is unlikely to ever be a socially acceptable thing due to recording and other potential abuses - but I have thought this for at least 25 years now - before the privacy concerns became obvious. Wishful thinking, but I can imagine myriad of uses for such technology if it didn't enable such a wide-spread number of potential abuses.
the dictatorship is doing extremely badly then because in my experience roughly the last two decades have consisted of safety obsession, various 'cozy' aesthetics that don't involve leaving your house, the death of social drinking and an uptick of pills and psychological diagnoses and people staring into their phones on every occasion.
We've completely normalized being a shut-in to the point where your take, that it's authoritarian to push people out into the world and engage others, is quite common. What now passes for 'extroverted' used to be known as the human condition. Even extroverts today probably have fewer friends, smaller families and spend more time isolated and on screens than 99% of humanity.
>He's one of the rare humans who has truly "sucked out all the marrow of life".
I think the biggest problem with him is that he styles himself as exactly that, but as the article points out he's a self-mythologizer who frequently makes stuff up. He's pretentious in the literal sense of that term, he's constantly exaggerated his own life, has even said that's the case and that doesn't seem as profound or counter-cultural to me as he thinks it is, given that we're mostly surrounded by exactly these kind of types now.
I take it as part of his act on film and in reality. He does it with a straight face and people are happily buying it and love him for it. Heck, I like him, too!
One can still enjoy the stories and not everything is scripted but that’s the fun puzzle to kind of figure out how much is staged and made up.
> I am sure someone will say that is not legal but when has that stopped anyone.
it has routinely stopped them as the courts have already struck down countless of nonsense by this administration, and they rely exactly on this bluster every time they try something else.
The issue is that even though courts work slower than a president with a smartphone eventually it will all get sorted out and they know this, which is why some people falling for this shock and awe behavior is so silly.
The issue is that even though courts work slower than a president
So ... not stopped the president. Make a move, eventually ruled naughty, shift to another move, ruled a no-no, take an alternate path, rinse repeat. How does one fix the courts or is it working as intended?
>Christian references in the Cantos were probably incidental,
They're not at all incidental. The themes and the literal Catholic Church don't just make it into the books by osmosis, they're central to it and deliberate.
Like Gene Wolfe he's part of a pretty small group of US authors who wrote Catholic speculative fiction. Like Wolfe his writing is also fairly un-American. If Heinlein or Asimov are examples of archetypal US science fiction, Simmons is about as far as the other end as you can be, with the post-modern structure, the Canterbury Tales as a template for the story and so on.
Small but significant. A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller comes immediately to mind. (And readers of this thread who did appreciate the religious themes of Hyperion may be interested.)
I had recommended Hyperion to a friend, and they loved it. I recommended Canticle as a follow-up and they hated it. I never figured out how that can be.
the few solar panels in question are a united kingdom worth of green energy each year, about a royal navy worth of marine tonnage every two and they lifted more people out of poverty over the span of two generations than most of the rest of the world combined. Shenzhen produces about 70% of the entire world's consumer drones, now the primary weapon on both sides of the largest military conflict in the world. Xiaomi, a company founded in 2010 15 years ago decided to make electric cars in 2021 and is now successfully selling them.
As Adam Tooze has pointed out it's the single most transformative place in the world, if you're not trying to learn from it you're choosing to ignore the most important place in the 21st century for ideological reasons
It is not. The vast majority of the world has a professionalized diplomatic corps roughly modeled on a Prussian or French system. As Fukuyama points out in Political Order and Political Decay the US is an odd case because it democratized before it developed an administrative state and as a result is somewhere between "Greece and Prussia" and ended up with a spoils-based and clientelist system, somewhat moderated by the Progressive era.
of course they did. That's the literal topic of War Games (1983). You should actually be somewhat reassured that we aren't living during the era of Dr. Strangelove where you had characters in the military industrial complex who were significantly more insane when it came to the beliefs of what computer systems and nukes can do.
> There was a time when people wanted to dig tunnels with nukes
The article seems to be about mining rather than tunnelling.
And the issue with the idea being? We also dig using explosives, there isn't an in-principle problem. Reading the wiki article it looks like the yields were excessive, but at the end of the day mining involves the use of things that go boom. It is easy to imagine small nukes having a place in the industry.
See the 'rationale' section of the article. The point of it was to rebrand nuclear weapons as multi-use 'peaceful' tools and drive acceptance for nuclear weapons programs. Which was a pretty standard tactic of military projects during the cold war.
Does that matter? In China people don't judge the state of their civilization by how easily you can insult the police but whether you need to be afraid to meet them on the street. "I can insult my pedophile president" (who doesn't care if you do) isn't exactly a flex.
It does tell us something though that the evaluation of American life now consists of parasocial interactions with the president on social media. I'm starting to belief Bruno Maçães, ex Portuguese secretary of state, was prescient with his diagnosis that American material society has rotted to the point where life is now entirely defined by virtual interactions. That's the difference between China and the US today.
The president's a pedophile, a criminal, undeterred by democracy, economy or social disorder but you can freely yell into the void. Have you considered that in the US one can freely say all these things precisely because that's irrelevant?
reply