cf141q5325

Vice news has (or had?) some actual journalists. They hired Ben Anderson whos Afghanistan and Iraq reporting was really impressive. Especially "This is what winning looks like". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI If i recall correctly he made the footage when embedded via the BBC and (re)published it on vice? Still incredibly impressed of the footage he managed to shoot as an embedded journalists. I would guess in no small parts due to the integrity of Major Bill Steuber. Unfortunately that seems to have cost him his military career. He is now a security guard in Manhattan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3y8fqJt2cU&t=1360s

Afterwards Anderson mentioned the required style of reporting at Vice negatively (the camera focusing on his reactions) but he stayed with them for a while. Not sure if he is still associated with them.

edit: Fixed timestamp & He left vice last year https://twitter.com/benjohnanderson/status/14273137210435215...

Thats an unfair summary. The video also cleared up some simple facts that are often missreported and unjustly simplified in favor of a feel good frame.

Like grazing sites being interchangeable with farmland. So something like https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets which pictures almost everything that isnt a forest as possible agriculture land.

Same with what types of calories are fed to cows especially. As in for humans indigestible byproducts of industrial agriculture. For example, this is the "corn" we speak about in this context. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maissilage Used in both cow and pig feed. Here a picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Sonsbeck... Its the shredded plant. The stuff that gets also used in biogas plants.

Calling these lies by omission out is not something that needs stricter "factchecks" that are less focused on facts to protect people from unwanted conclusions.

I dont think its an either or, nor do i disagree. I was just focusing on the one perspective for the sake of the argument. It got too long already.

Thats what censorship boils down to and why it doesnt work. The answer to your initial question is being able to communicate why something doesnt work. Which apparently i am to stupid to in this case. But thats a stupidity people can work on, while censorship has fundamental issues.

edit: was an answer to the first sentence before the edit

To the rest, the problem is finding a basis solid enough for authoritarian action on such a delicate problem as speech (which requires another level then say a court case). Its not either quicksand or a rock but a minimum required level on the spectrum. If you dictate facts, you are dictating that this description encompasses all perspectives and every additional one is wrong. More then that, you dictate that those are all the implications. Its claiming you reached the end of knowledge.

You either can convince people that you are talking about facts or you cant. The problem is communication and not lack of force. As the issue here is only solvable with the former without accepting an inevitable crash in the future. You bringing up censorship is counterproductive for this reason. Somebody (not necessarily me) being able to explain that should be an example for an alternative.

Should have had a coffee first sorry

I agreed with you, i am just pointing out that you missed a perspective. When you say that the problems is idiots that would just need to be told what to do its a fetching argument. The problem is to identify actual smart people to do the telling. Being smart would entails understanding not just the facts but the consequences of actions. If you would understand them, and could communicate them, you wouldnt need to force people. If you need to force people chances are very good you are just overlooking a perspective that they see and you dont. Which doesnt make them right or smart, but a working solution never the less likely requires all the perspectives. Which means you understood the problem but missunderstood that that stupid person might be you. Thats why that doesnt work. Seeing as nobody thinks they are the stupid one. Figuring that out is the hard part and it doesnt seem to be solvable through force to me. Force doesnt select for stupidity but for power. Which just means chances are high you end up giving power to stupid people since they are more willing to boss others around.

Differently put, you are looking for somebody smart to fix the situation for you. I looked around and there dont seem to be any to spare so we will have to do with us idiots. And once idiots start forcing other idiots around, those idiots push back. Which leaves us with a lot of pushing and pulling in a worse situation all together.

>Do you have any ideas in that direction?

Most idiots seem to mean well so lets see if we cant agree on a consensus about the state of reality and our criteria for acceptable solutions till some smart aliens show up to run this shitshow for us. We wont find a solution for everything but i am confident we could get really far by just agreeing on a reasonable minimum.

I think the problem stems from the lofty goal of finding actual solutions that arent horrible and applicable everywhere. Which we dont have now. Best we can do is look at existing solutions for specific problems and see if we cant agree on improvements. Being motivated by understanding the cost and risk of authoritarian solutions. Which we can communicate. Which just requires a willingness to communicate which goes out of the window once you create a conflict.

tldr: Trying to dictate what people think was tried and failed multiple times before. Its a really really bad idea. Wanting it to work doesnt change that, since you can explain why it fails reliably. Its the same reason that makes the idea so tempting in the first place.

All of which have implications independent of the motivation. Implications which are really intransparent. Which might very well have more downsides then the initial problem, even before you look at the reaction you create.

Regulating communication is one of the most dangerous kinds of regulation, as it regulates what people think. And once you limit on your ability to think its very likely that you are about to crash into something, seeing as stupidity boils down to being unaware of another perspective. Its akin to blindfolding drivers of cars so they dont get distracted to reduce crashs.

It makes misunderstandings more likely, however i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship. Seeing as in the end the private sector always has governments influencing their moderation policy. And be it just through liability.

>We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others.

That concerns you as well. Thats the whole issue. There is no "reasonable default" to fall back on. That you have identified some rather obnoxious idiots doesnt mean you are suddenly smart enough to tell the rest of the world what to do. Especially since chances are you have fallen for sock puppets aimed at creating a reaction in you to get you to accept and call for authoritarian solutions.

Authoritarian solutions dont work. Just wanting them to work doesnt work, a short look into history shows that. Reality in the end is really complex. Too complex to just force other people around no matter how smart somebody feels on the topic. Because thats how stupid people always think of themselves, "smart enough" to understand the implications of forced actions just this one time.

edit: All of this not to mention that it always create a reaction in people. Which leaves us with conflict on topics we should be able to find a consensus.

Can somebody say something about responsiveness? Where are they on the scale of VNC to Stadia/Steamlink or other cloud gaming services?

Reminds me that i am really hoping to see some usable network transparency soon. Last time i looked at something like waypipe it seemed to be still clunky. But cloud gaming showed we should be there

Never heard of holistic planned grazing. Regenerative agriculture encompasses (among increased biodiversity) everything that combats and reverses soil erosion and the effects on ground water. So also stuff like creating silvopasture.

Not sure what you mean with actually works. There is soil erosion (it determines the value of any farmland you buy) and methods to create new topsoil. Same with different levels at which you deplete ground water. Which part do you think to be quackery? Searching a bit it seems Alan Savory made some outlandish claims about carbon dioxide?

Thats a simplification for a feel good narrative. Your source lists all land that grows anything but forest as agriculture land. Yet on large parts of those areas you cant do anything but pastures. Also, much of the cow feed isnt calories humans can process. Think byproducts of soy production. The youtube channel "What I've Learned" has a great video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

What they dont mention is the large part livestock (especially cows an chicken) will have to play in producing soil from the dirt left behind after industrial agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is the term here, with rotating cows and chickens on degraded dirt patches to build top soil.

All of this of course doesnt take away from the madness that is industrial meat production. But nothing has ever been solved by oversimplified narratives and action-ism.

Increasing complexity has these effects intent or not. I think the description of complexity capture still fits. Its a situation that is beneficial for google so they are a unlikely source for a fix here. And like others in the thread pointed out, the entry hurdle is too large for new competition. The only way out is with an alternative without the complexity.

I am going to stick with the TLS part though. The more complexity you add in crypto the less safe it becomes. Adding unnecessary complexity weakens the entire solution. And the current "is" situation is certificate authorities and man in the middle attacks. Not to mention overblown implementation you have to patch till the end of time.

edit: I think its also not a surprise that the question boils down to complexity. I would argue its the big open question of our time. We keep building till the negative consequences can no longer be dealt with through technology alone.

The complexity equivalent to regulatory capture. I once got banned from /r/firefox for implying intent on googles behalf here. Apparently that is a conspiracy theory.

In the end there are however clear incentives and profiteers of the development. Google has an incentive to keep the web complex enough to the point where they are the monopoly. Same goes for governments and complexity of security mechanisms.

How ever we got here, now google is the internet and security is achieved by things like TLS. Its inefficiencies that are profitable for existing power structures.

Which also makes it a lucky coincidence that mozilla is behaving as user -unfriendly as they do.

Its a claim publicly made by the older Springer Verlag. They ran advertisements in the 60s titling "Springer ist nicht Springer".

>Springer isnt Springer. Every chessgame has two knights (Springer) which are easy to mix up. In publishing there are also two Springer, who dont share anything but the word Springer, but are often mixed up as a result.

>... >Between the two publishers no family or economic ties exist.

edit: Obviously in the context of the Springer blockade by the student movement. The advertisement in question is from the Konkret issue number 6 of 1968 page 35 Bad translation obviously.

Maybe a 6lowpan interface for maintenance. This way he could interact with it from inside the room without having to access the closet.

>this might be the reason why states are run by hordes of bureocrats processing physical paperwork (this is an oversimplification of course).

Nice point, thanks for bringing it up. Reminded me of https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/russia-reverts... >Russian guard service reverts to typewriters after NSA leaks

Thats not a reason to fudge with the definitions. The existence of sandboxes doesnt mean there are no more pdf exploits. There still are and sandboxes dont mitigate it entirely.

There is also more ways then just turning off your machine. Its needlessly oversimplifying complex topics. Topics that are very interesting and have severe implications. Especially if we are talking about state level espionage.

So in short, no you are wrong. PDF exploits are still a thing. You made unjustified assumptions.

Reading my post it sounds confrontational. Thats not my intent.

Thats not an option. I need some publications in "highly scored" journals to get my Phd. I dont have the option to publish in open access instead. Its not a matter of having a worse resume with less prestige but one of not getting my dissertation accepted. Its something forced onto me through a process created through corruption.

That "ownership" didnt change hands freely. Its a protection racket people are forced into.

It is very simple, i have to publish if i want to get my phd. And due to years of corruption those publications have to be in certain journals.

My work isnt financed by the publishers. Neither is the review process, my doctoral supervisor gets nothing out of doing reviews like these. I also pay to attend the conference, which is mandatory to get published.

I am coerced into signing away my (publicly funded) research to then see it put behind a pay wall. Preventing me from sharing it freely robbing me of the feedback from my peers.

Elsevier are a cancer and only function through forced labor. Not only are they rentseeking on somebody elses work, they are creating a worse situation for everyone involved. Including Science itself.

Sandboxes can be escaped from.

Being able to be sure what is actually running on your machine. The more dependencies you got on board the less likely this becomes. At this size the complete sourcecode is very much readable and verifiable. And the complexity limited enough that a secure boot chain is viable. You can also build your own hardware and verification means which tends to get harder the larger and faster you go.

But yes something the size of a pi zero, the cortex A one family up would be the next logical step if M doesnt work. But do i really need a whole linux? I think not!

> Monitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results. Feb 19, 05:24 PST

The German Minister of Health (Jens Spahn) just gave a live interview. The German government made it mandatory for airlines to keep seating charts for 30 days and ask every traveler from China for a contact address where the person can be reached the next month. The Airlines will be mandated tomorrow, but it will take 3-5 days till the new regulation for hospitals to take effect, which makes reporting "Begründete Verdachtsfälle" "justified suspected-cases" mandatory, ie if you have the symptoms AND have been in China or had contact with someone infected. The minister also took the opportunity to criticizes all this panic and conspiracy theories in the internet.

Everything is fine, nothing to do, nothing to see. What a shitshow its like the events from this morning hadnt happened yet.

There just was the first confirmed human to human infection outside of Asia in Germany. A guy got sick over the weekend, went to work on Monday as he felt better and was sent to the doctor by his boss. He got infected during a seminar in Germany where he got into contact with a women from Shanghai whos parents are from Wuhan.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/coronavirus-deutschland-107...

edit: englisch source

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/germany-european-coun...

>The Chinese employee, a woman from Shanghai, "started to feel sick on the flight home on January 23", Andreas Zapf, head of the Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety, said at a news conference.

Unfortunately not a date for the meeting yet.

edit2: corrections added, thank you

And the truly horrible part that this is working as intended. The public has to get loud every time, while from the other perspective, getting lucky once is enough.

Its hardware, so you are looking at the bathtub curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

The action is however caused by a human who mined the area, its just delayed, similar to how a grenade has a delay after the human activation, before it explodes. You can make the same distinction with an automatic gun or turret. You position it in an area in which you decide to kill anyone in it.

Autonomy gets truly dangerous because you dont need to create death zones and no mans land. They are not a less violent version of just bombing the area. They can run considerations and decide by themselves who to kill and with this, their usage outside of active front lines will be considered. And with that, the people deploying them give up the decision and delegate it to an algorithm or worse yet, a trained black box. Reality will be to have completely unaccountable killers bots flying over countries who cant defend themselves against foreign aggression.

This stuff has absolutely horrible potential and i find it prudent to shame and cut out anyone with a sufficient lack of a spine to work in this area. As unpopular as it is to consider the impact of the technology you are developing, it is taught for a reason in a CS degree. This work has the potential to screw over humanity for a while to come.

Their numbers look sound to me. Did you read the article?

>The ten most populous Bay Area cities listed above have a combined point-in-time homeless total of 63,527, and, margins of error notwithstanding, a census-estimated 92,800-plus homes vacant, a ratio of about three units for every two persons.

>The census’ annual American Communities Survey defines a home as vacant if there is either no occupant or a temporary occupant—temporary meaning “people who will be there for two months or less.”

>Vacancy rates are estimated by in-person visits to properties or by interviews via mail, email, or phone. The upcoming 2020 census will employ more exact methods and should result in housing and vacancy estimates with less room for error.

I dont get how the purpose of a warrant is relevant to the discussion about the effects of actions. We are faced with the issue, that technological development has created new opportunities for mass surveillance. Some people might think mass surveillance is a good idea, others dont. Both have their reasons, both are convinced they are right. It has been like this for ever, the only thing new is that new opportunities present themself. Everyone thinks they are right, but some think this means they can tell others what to do. You have pushes of authoritarianism and antiauthoritarianism in every society, depending on your moral believes you will either be in favor or against it. So far goes human history.

>In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.

Hits it right on the nail how the argument goes, but i dont see how its related to the question of the true original meaning of a warrant. Its a moral question if you think it should be allowed or not. And since we are stuck together, at least some of us, this means its a political question. Do more of us think its good or bad, and can the other side prevent or do it either way? Can we compel the government to stop this? But framing this as a question of constitutional law instead of a moral question misses the point from my perspective. The point isnt if warrants should cover digital age surveillance. Why would anyone care about this who isnt a fundamentalist proponent of the status quo? Its not the dictatorship of the eternal legal code. Which of course would also just another motivation for your morals and thus your actions.

This just sounds like a religious discussion to me. Similar to, what does the bible say about flying planes? Allowed on Sunday? I first thought people in the discussion were just being pedantic, but i dont get how this changes someones view on the world.

To me its just same old same old, this stark difference has to be interesting to figure out.

How? That people think differently about reality and have different motivations and values is not really a new revelation i think? Nor should it surprise anyone that a lot of people believe they are doing the right thing. What changed for you? It seems to be much more interesting then the initial conversation.

What didnt i get?

edit: While it might sound stupid its an honest question. Changing how you think about the world is quite a jump from discussing the origins of warrants. Its a jump i dont understand and I think there is interesting insight to be gained here.