hogehoge51

As the great Yoshio Kojima says Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ), Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ), Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ),

This article is nothing but a press release. It presents no evidence for it's claim, or details on what prices in what area at what time have been cut. Meanwhile any Australian can see contary evidence just by looking at their power bill.

Anthropomorphising a system to give it attributes such as cruelty is silly.

Entertaining a lump of monolithic production fallacy is also silly.

There are any number of detailed and specific problems that need to be solved to solve the greater economic problem you describe. A system that promotes direct effort to solve specific problems is required.

Your naivety only exacerbates the cruelty.

I agree with the system you describe, i tend to disagree with the conclusion.

I suspect the size of the debt is just a "dc offset" and not the main signal. While important, maybe not as "information-ally" significant as it's size would suggest. Still it is probably hiding something, a subtle bug in the accounting, and that something contributes to the frequent cycles of debt-jubilees, revolutions, upheavals etc.

Now the real question you have posed is what is missed in the debate - most wealth in our society is captured in the make up and choice of goods and services consumed, and what is the contribution of a bias towards wealthy consumption here? e.g. in my country there were about 150 luxury yacht sales totaling ~$4billion, vs ~80,000 luxury car sales @ ~$15billion, vs total car sales of ~1,000,000 at ~$100billion. The annual cost of our public disability insurance scheme is ~$50billion. The "sharing" seems to have a significant access to resources compared to luxury on those accounts. I personally think the public disability insurance scheme causes harmful distortion to the broader economy while also meeting the important needs of some members of society.

My gut feel the issue is not ideological or political or a luxury preference, it's structural - the economy is not structured to deliver the correct set of needs, and this is due to real material constraints that have always constrained the economic problem. Not in terms that just the wrong top down decisions are being made, but that the correct bottom up decisions are prevented from being made. If you apply a model of computation complexity, feedback and iterative improvement - bottom up generally has more access to information and compute to directly address problems, while top-down can occasionally deal with global biases and accumulated error.

One true material constraint is the scarcity of competence and accountability. Wealth accumulation is the natural consequence of that material constraint. Top down "political & ideological decisions" are generally the enemy of competence and accountability.

you failed to answer my question.

either the activity and resource is part of an economy or not, an activity or resource that is still in the economy is not hoarded.

either thise things are in the economic system or not. swiss banking is simply another economic system, eiher it is a separate closed loop system(and not accesible), or an integrated system with flows in and out. if the money is not part of the closed loop of the economy what value does it have? (it's addition and removal simply inflates or deflates the remaining closed loop system) normal banking and currency exchange already creates and destroys money in orders of mangitude larger than private wealth.

land and hard resources are the only place i think you can hoard. it can be taken out of the economy and still maintain value, and depending on the relative holding you can influence value. but even that requires a holding cost. the holding cost is part of the broader closed loop economic system, an/or political system. you could say much of the fuedal economy was paying the holding cost for this hoarding, the advancement of the modern economic system was to build a massive integrated economy around it that made the holding cost higher and significant hoarding moslty unsustainable. (except by goverment)

How do you hide something in a closed loop system such as an economy?

You don't have to believe it. It is a risk, you simply have to mitigate it.

The accounting system is what ensures that we can ACCOUNT for if such a statement is true or not.

It also allows us to characterize and understand how the capability to generate surplus has been distributed etc etc.

There is no single lump of goods and services, or a single lump of surplus. There is an economic problem of ensuring such are created in surplus and distributed to those who need them. A surplus of lawn mowing and shopping services (such as disability welfare has created in my country) could easily be accompanied by a shortage in housing. In fact one could be caused by the other.

The economy has capacity today and surplus from yesterday. Beyond that takes vigilance and accountability to maintain the system.

The fundamental question is why exactly you think a system can have some fundamental governing and observation mechanism such as debt (or equity accounting) removed and it would still maintain the same system characteristics that produce said surplus?

This is basic engineering and system architecture 101 and I would expect technologists to have more than a surface level expectation that systems do not operate magically nor label components as redundant without detailed reasoning.

You are failing to analyze the system corectly.

"Have enough" is a static steady state. "Produce enough" now and in the future is a dynamic constraint.

The mechanism is economic surplus, to have the producers (productive people who produce needed goods and inputs to such) create more than they need. This generally requires increasing and maintaining productivity to have surplus.

Once you have a surplus the absolute maximum priority is to maintain it. Plant, machinery, systems, irrigation, fertilizer production etc etc.

The system is dynamic, surplus today is not surplus tommorow.

In my country we have a means to ditribute this excess, and it may even go to those in need, but the cost of distributing it has been increasing at a far higher rate than the rate of increasing surplus.

what i fail to understand is why people come to a technologist forum without a basic understanding of system dynamics. this is entry level material for engineering, mathematics and physics. are they not teaching it in CS?

Yeah, 8051 wins, it was and still is in everything (sdcards, sim cards, cables, ports...). I may have some trauma from spending too much time with Keil's 8051 C compiler that made me forget it.

But I still think 68k was king of that era for discrete CPU's that could go anywhere, and run a high level OS/complex software, before the MCU and then SoC era came and stole m68k's crown.

Sure, PPC took the m68k's role of discrete CPU in automotive, aerospace, networking and consoles for a while, but I don't think it is the king.

Back to TFA, I think the m68k got a bit more than just "commercial traction"! Which is why it will hopefully stay in the kernel for a long time.

> The Motorola 68000

> Overall, it got lots of traction commercially; it ....

Before ARM the m68k was possibly the most deployed processor architecture in history. In the late 1990s it was in printers, cars, personal digital assistants, erc, as well as all the home computers, arcades and unix workstations it found it's way into in the 1980s and early 1990s.

It's sucessor, the Coldfire, could have taken ARMs place...

Probably this is the reason it's still in the Linux source tree!

Makes sense, that's a fair heuristic.

TBH - I weigh it higher as it's from a University in Saitama, a place I have a strong connection to and don't see here often. An irrational reason to ignore the AI smell, but why not.

I would challenge the asserion that there was no effort in writing it. Basic information theory sugests the bits in content needs to come from somewhere. The more the bits diverge from what is in the training corpus, the more effort the human author needs to apply. Unless people also think there is a special LLM bit that differs from human bits of information. It also suggests a lack of appreciation for the effort in delegating any creative work, to humans or agents, and still getting what you asked for.

Regardless of agentic provenance, i liked the chance to read something from Saitama university here. Saitama's a nice place.

Which version of TFA would you read if it was not generated? would you be comfortable reading the 日本語版 if it was human authored?

Why?

Firstly, it clearly states it was written collaboratively. The usual division of labour splits the task into ideas and words, human the former, agent the latter. Is this a problem? I was interested in understanding the author’s ideas; consuming the words is an unfortunate chore.

Secondly, this was published in three languages. Perhaps you missed the 日本語 and 中文, or dismissed them as agent noise? To reinforce the human/agent demarcation: without agentic AI, it would probably be quite the chore to post all three languages. The English is not written the way a non-native speaker would write it. I assume the author conversed with the agent in their native language to describe the content and conveniently got three sets of generated words expressing their ideas.

I really struggle to understand the conflation of communication-channel coding (words) and authorship.

If we taught systems thinking in any educational setting, and it took hold for a significant portion of the population, we would have already transcended into immortal thinking energy beings and age verification debates would be irrelevant....

The convention for what a volt and ohm is has reached a steady state consensus, so the political debate there is minimal, and multimeters of the world can stand united.

OTOH, your laser distance meter may need you to set it in metric or imperial.

I used voltage as an analogy as it represents potential energy, which is relative. Political stance is a potential energy; action (political or otherwise) is, of course, an actual flow of energy. Resistance (via my analogy) is a potential difference across a load, and can be measured as how much energy is needed versus the action you get (R = V/I); via your analogy, it may be how strong a political action you get for a given delta in political stance.

So far there is no moral dimension to any of this. I think that is correct - the morality of a political stance depends on the member of the polity and the outcome that stance will have for them (which breaks down into perceived and actual outcomes). A functioning political system (the thing that governs political stance and political action) will ensure the balance of actual outcomes benefits the whole of the polity.

The delta between Resistance and Domestic Terror is then a question of whether the actors are party to the political system. (Back to the circuit analogy: domestic terror is the massive bulk capacitor charging off the energy in the circuit but with no defined discharge path in the system - until it hits a charge limit, short-circuits, and discharges.)

Your multimeter reads out voltage relative to the black terminal, it's your responsibility to find the ground plane.

This thing told me Gemini is closest to Anthony Albanese, the current Australian Prime Minister. Is this a geolocation thing? I could not imagine Albanese, or any modern Australian politician, having any substantial political standing - these are vapid, superficial, opportunistic creatures who simply occupy whatever political ground will get them their next payday. Perhaps the political apparatus they represent has a documented political standing, in terms of policy and actions, that could be characterized and plotted. But using an Australian politician like Albanese as a reference point discredits this tool, IMO.

The return volley is worse! My attempt at explaining the concept of a Bible in terms relative to a "hacker world view" is making me bleed many downvotes ;-)

The Bible as a RAG is very interesting for me even as a non religious person - A document that has survived and guided millennia of civilization should be accessible as possible. But also seeing how concepts of the modern world and different ancient worlds map to the Bible via a RAG is fascinating.

yes, this is quite fun - very distant in time and geography, but converging in semantic space.

天照大 (Amaterasu)

> He brought me into the inner court of the LORD’s house; and I saw at the door of the LORD’s temple, between the porch and the altar, there were about twenty-five men with their backs toward the LORD’s temple and their faces toward the east. They were worshiping the sun toward the east.

神武天皇 (Emperor Jimmu)

> As he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons struck him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place.

The Bible, for those unfamiliar, it’s the civilization source code forked and maintained by the Jesus cult that emerged about 2 millennia ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

(To put it in Hacker terms, where I suspect RAG could be a more familiar term than Bible)

> It's rational for people push back against projects that create problems for them, with no compensating upside.

This in itself is a shallow argument. While it is rational in isolation for a given static mindset, it's not rational for anyone who looks at society, and the economy as a larger dynamic system that they have. multiple points of access to. I assume that is basis for the argument John is making. I've read his biography and ofcourse seen his work, so I'm pretty sure this is not a guy who has ever had a static relationship with the world!

Indeed, and with the inguinuity and enterprise of the Swedes they may be able to separate the concerns of an assumed problem space and an assumed solution space.

For now they seem to be dealing with observed problems, and applying actionable solutions. If they keep that up they may be able to resolve all manner of economic issues.

That the methodology is established and is correct for the project and business is what a manager should be doing - at best an industry established process should make that easier, but it can't remove all the work.

Ensuring the methodology survives contact with the "meatspace" is what a leader should be doing - and even if the process is perfect for the project and business this can still be a lot of work.

Yes, this is the thing - an agent is not a counter party. But it role plays one really well.

You would need the agent to be a processing step owned by someone responsible. But the intelligent part of an agent is what makes it viable as something more than a processing step. What to do with an intelligence that can't take responsibility? Not answering this question leads to cognitive debt.

My experience moving between startup/SME/corp:

Smaller teams have more agency to move and usually team members with broader responsibility and understanding of the systems. Also possibly closer to stakeholders, so are already involved in specification creation and know where automation can add value. Add an AI agent and they can pick and choose where they can be most effective at a system level.

Bigger teams have clear boundaries that stop agency - blockers due to cross team dependencies, potentially no idea what stakeholders want, just piecemeal incremental change of a bigger system specified by someone else. If all they can do is automate that limited scope it's really just like faster typing.

Unfortunately I think Cognitive Debt is the cry of the software craftsperson who thought they were an Engineer. Upon working with the agent subcontractor, the agent factory, the agent part vendor, they approached it as a craft; they found themselves wanting to walk through the offices of the subcontractor reviewing screens, inspect pieces at the factory, and get the internal design for the parts they ordered. It's natural to get overwhelmed: this is why Engineers have contracts, specifications, design drawings, datasheets, and characterization data, handed over at clearly defined boundaries of abstraction, accepting the other side may be a black box.

Of course, we have had compilers and tooling, but those are the pencil and drafting board of the draftsperson. An ecosystem of packages, dependencies and APIs has evolved, but those are often just spells the software magician invokes after reading the spellbook^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H stackoverflow^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H API documentation.

We are going to need to build a new set of boundaries and abstractions with new handover protocols to manage this mess.

Tv reception has been a near standard feature in Japanese car info infotainment systems for decades. The digital tv standard includes "wanseg" for mobile tv reception, using a low bandwidth/ low resolution side channel.

Very common to walk past cars stopped at the lights and see tv showing everywhere. they dont turn it off when they start driving either ;-)