567 karma · joined August 23, 2011
> The focus on deepfakes in a vacuum is actually missing the forest for the trees, with the ‘forest’ being the fact that we now rely on five massive social media platforms as the arbiters.
I think the way legislators have come to understand media - at least by the way laws are being written - is that the collection, distribution, and filtering must happen on a single platform. So there's this attempt to force platforms to be the arbiters of truth.
But this is dangerous in several different ways:
1. It is impossible to be an arbiter of truth, it's a fundamental problem of epistemology that cannot be solved without perfect knowledge of the "real world", and so the platforms must necessarily be allowed to fail to some, or a large degree.
2. Having been given this impossible responsibility, the platforms are going to disallow/punish based on controversy, because their real problem isn't breaking the law, it's others bringing attention to where they're breaking the law.
3. In the meantime the platforms might offer some token resistance to these laws, but ultimately they will not say no to being handed the one tool that gives them enormous political and economic power, power which will protect them if the law comes after them.
These three points will keep reinforcing themselves to lock us into the information dystopia we're in today.
I don't think it's possible to preserve 1. freedom of speech, 2. protection from mis/disinformation unless the different layers could be forcibly separated. My current crackpot idea is that the distribution and filtering layers have to be broken up in a way that both forces information to flow freely, and allow consumers to protect themselves by consciously selecting and filtering their consumption in meaningful ways. Filtering providers cannot be given the power to control information supply for other filtering providers, which allows the market to abandon untrustworthy providers at will, and also gives the authorities the degree of power required to find bad actors and dispense meaningful punishments.
What if creating easily-fusable isotopes is the most efficient way to store "renewable" energy? Fusion is the most concentrated release of power humans are able to muster. What's to say such concentrated power will never be required for any purpose?
Statistically speaking one could be fairly confident, but as a rule it is wrong due to the presence of compound surnames.
Ending MIQ is inevitable but it's a one-way decision. Once the virus takes hold there's no going back, even if you take quarantine and isolation to China levels. Nobody likes a lockdown. My opinion is that the right time is when the globally dominant variant is a fast-spreading one with a proven hospitalisation rate post-wave that is lower than what NZ could cope with, given the vaccination rate. Omicron could be a candidate but its wave is still spreading, so it's too early to tell.
As for MIQ dues, the government and therefore the people bear its cost. NZ$13 million isn't a trivial sum, but it isn't huge either, so while any scheme to reduce the burden would be welcome, a plan with a huge potential cost such as ending MIQ is a bit too much risk, especially with Omicron data coming soon on the horizon.
[1] https://www.miq.govt.nz/being-in-managed-isolation/charges-f...
[2] https://www.miq.govt.nz/about/media-centre/common-topics-for...
[3] https://www.miq.govt.nz/being-in-managed-isolation/isolation...
The ideographs were important in that they could tie together vastly different spoken languages in the same family. Because the writing was unified, all the spoken variants had their own influence on it by way of traders and administrators, and successful changes by proxy affected the speech of other regions. This meant that all the different places effectively evolved their languages around a virtual core based on the communications of the literate class - even the phonetic-based parts; and they could do it peacefully and continuously, constantly realigning their definitions without legal or violent coercion, uninterrupted by the constant evolution of the whole group of spoken languages.
For example, French has had a great influence on English, and they both use the Latin alphabet. Would such influence have been possible in the same time without violent conquest, given the alphabetic system of writing?
This is where the mistake is. Written Chinese does have all those characters - it is the adoption of a "standard Chinese" that caused those characters not to be taught when mass education was introduced. The people were left to transliterate or create new characters for their spoken native tongue, and the correct characters are now known only to researchers.
One very annoying part of Mandarin's effect on modern Chinese is that many words are being replaced by transliterations of/in Mandarin, even when the Chinese word itself exists. Often this is because the source of the word was foreign. To a non-Mandarin speaker, written Chinese is very slowly turning into complete nonsense, and written Chinese is losing its edge in longevity by no longer being a ideograph-based language.
What I meant to express is that for all we know, the lab-grown meat solutions being tried today could be approaching the problem in a much too difficult manner, like the early ornithopters did in the flying-machine problem. The whole field is still in its infancy and it's very possible that many of the issues could be sidestepped with new discoveries.
The purpose of lab-grown meat is to remove unnecessary parts of the animal from meat production. While many animal parts could be substituted, right now lab-grown meats have the opposite problem, that too many not-animal parts have been introduced.
What if "good" parts of the animal come back? Could disembodied guts and livers turn non-sterile grass into sterile, nutritious plasma? Could muscles grow in slabs and have slices removed regularly, protected by a working immune system?
Lab-grown meat is at the same stage as the early ornithopters.