I wish brave forked ff… i guess i'll be working of my own fork of ff for the end of time for my family, going on 6 years or so now lol
4,811 karma · joined February 10, 2012
FTFY, I'm personally not interested in "binning" the future into simple extremes, and the odds of it being anything else than what is encompassed by either:
> nationalize the robots, or the capitalists will use the robots eliminate the poor people whose labor they don’t need anymore
are very high imo.
From whom? Not from me… i welcome it and understand that the incentives are in place to drive this, just like it really always has (like you said: "It is not like technology is standing still here").
> and that eventually most jobs at the low end of the economy will be gone.
Probably true in general, eventually at least.
> (something like a UBI will really be needed.
With our current form of governance (centralized, easily corruptible, lack of provenance/accountability in the decision making chain of bureaucracy, tendency to be opaque from the public) and resource allocation, this is untenable.
> the problem is what will we do with our labor surplus after that happens
And this cannot be a top down thing, if it is, expect heavy resistance when things start to go sideways.
> or society is in deep trouble)
This likely true imo, I think things need to get worse before they get better.
Not yet at least wrt radiation fallout, the AT&T bomb[0] had destructive power, but they could have done more with a bit more planning…
> As individual you rely on the rest of society to buy from them food and shelter.
No doubt this is true, but in the modern age, less than 1% of the people are farmers (and declining) and even things like shelter can be 3d printed (or created out of haphazard assembling of what can be gathered in "nature" if you look at shanty towns in 3rd world countries or tent cities in 1st world ones).
> What if two such people come into conflict over land, do they threaten each other? Are you gonna blow up your family alpng with you?
In the age of metadata drone strikes, this arguably already happens wrt the collateral damage…
Makes me think that future proliferation of them is almost guaranteed, esp if a belligerents goals move away from trying to cause mass destruction in state-state way (doubly so as knowledge become more widespread, and cheaper to gather the materials for home synthesis), but effective deterrence in a individual trying to assert its sovereignty against any given nation/city state (like "hey, if you stop me, the dead-man switch on this mini thermo nuke will take out an area the size of an small/large airport and irradiate it for thousands of years")
This seems like the most likely thing to happen, and there will probably be many more of the later than the former.
None of this though is obvious to me that will lead to broad based wage increases wrt cost of living out side of those exposed to sectors that are going to become increasing automated and we'll continue to see downward trend in LFP from those exposed to the later.
No where did I make this assumption, or was I alluding that this may be the case. Even in stats you can see cyclic patterns, with case counts and even with Empl-Pop ratio used in the article.
If all the variants are to completely overwhelm all the vaccines and treatments (that did not exist then) to render them all ineffective and create this devastation over the next 100 years, time will only tell if half the world will be killed. As of now, we are pretty far from that (but most of the century from the first cases has yet to play out).
> wealth will ultimately get redistributed one way or another.
I agree with what you are saying.
> The ultimate forms of wealth distribution are revolution and war and that's really in nobody's best interests.
I don't necessarily disagree, but is there some kind of shared "best interests" concept that everyone agrees on here that would make the "nobody" true? Are we excluding those who enable war (even to varying degrees) without taking on the higher risk of such (higher share of future resources from those who no longer are around to compete for such, by getting others to take on the higher risk of not being around for such future resources instead of one themselves)?
> It's actually good for everyone if the masses aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck.
This will be largely bounded by whether any given society has enough resources at its disposal to offer an "acceptable" standard of living, the resources to allocate such standard without squandering it between its intended destination, and the choices individual actors make with the current varying resources they have their disposal (not strictly bounded by the physical, but also by those intangible like "knowledge" of cheaper resource allocation in adverse environments).
Would love to distrubute zk-chain validators via self replicating router malware lol
Hard to incorporate what threat vectors their users should be mindful of and recommend steps to mitigate in their marketing without scaring people off who want to do nothing but outsource their privacy™ to someone else and not think twice about it, even if some of those people are hn users…
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
You may be interested in "Time Orientability" [0]
[0] https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-taiwan-needs-nuclear-weapons/
Yeah, i was pretty turned off by this in the lab i've worked at/contracted for.
A lot of support for this kind of stuff wrt EEF neurofeedback while ignoring the physics of what could be done with the raw data (if the PI actually understands or had a E&M class at least). Ppl in charge of getting the grants don't really care about the fact we do not gain any insight into whats going on when we use black box systems… oh well.
I'd be happy to play around with biosemi 128 electrode cap+array + dsp + beamformers[0] and openemu[1] for two decades, deff not gonna happen in academia though.
Probably will take the form of looming $20 billion in open interest expiring worthless on options on whether $x pharma exec will be alive by $y date, that trades on a decentralized options exchange that uses a decentralized prediction market amm liquidity pool as a underlying price feed.
> Will blockchain kill corporations? I suspect they do more to oppress people than nation-states do, and I doubt governments could do much without the cooperation of the private sector.
I'm seeing this "battle" play out now wrt DAO's that incorporate vs DAO's that do not, both are discussing things relating to how to operate online and in the "meatspace" as well as allocate/distribute resources in both.
I'm finding the conversation and decisions made by DAO's that do not incorporate far more interesting: talks from (with crypto) co-opting (via funding) local gangs around the world and "off grid" (still connected to the grid to bypass varying compliance related issues wrt local regs, but usage of such will as minimal) multi-purpose bulidings to funding local (bio)hacker spaces on top of the usual funding/building DeFi things.
[0] https://developer.confluxnetwork.org/docs/introduction/en/co...
They must see it all the time with all the rehypothication going on with sovereign paper on clearing house desks (and that's just what they see in their jurisdiction), so what's another "scam" on their resume.
> Regarding speed and efficiency, yes, they principally apply to PoW coins.
There are PoW chains that don't use nakamoto consensus algos…
And only really relevant to those that are reliant upon nakamoto consensus…
Even the former SEC head[0] trying to get in on the "scams"
That does not scale.
> … why wait for apple to implement this?
Enables scaling of what the above commentator discusses.
Yeah, mentioned something like that here [0]:
>> And then one can compromise and infect millions of such backdoored devices and start feeding (much cheaper than the government enforcement implementation) spoofed data into these systems at scale on these backdoored devices that act like "swatting as a service" and completely nullify any meaning they could get from doing this.
Agreed, I would love to see more spending for things like, CSP molten salt research and storage systems in the public domain. That way, even if countries like the US are still captive by certain industries to not adapt it at scale, countries like Chile with +100MW systems with 17h of molten salt storage that are grid connected now, can benefit.
Perhaps I should have been using "Clear Linux 34640"