mrobot

> I'll take non-CIA-staffed eastern small-name source too, as long as it's not literally the official propaganda agency of the regime that's in the middle of planning the fucking invasion being discussed. I don't think that's a very high bar, personally.

Ya, so... you have a choice between the official propaganda agency of the US (the so-called "free press" all marching in lockstep), or the propaganda of the person responding to a completely made-up "imminent" invasion. The second propaganda source is in agreement with the person who is literally the president of the nation whose "imminent invasion" is in question.

There is no imminent invasion, only a deliberately provoked one.

Why? So you are refusing to look at an information source with real quotes by the leaders involved if it isn't from one of your CIA-staffed western big-name news sources?

Hm, maybe i am not the one who is disqualified here.

Here is a video from RT about this "invasion". It contains Zelensky's reaction to the western media's fearmongering: https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1487395105023528960

Lesser of two evils applies when there is a dichotomy of two likely outcomes both of which you see as evil.

In this case, the United States can simply not invade. Then there will be no problem.

The problem is that Jen Psaki is going on television and telling the country a bold-faced lie. It is just a lie, that is all there is to it. Russia is not the aggressor. The United State is the aggressor.

No US invasion, no evil.

Yes, the framing of the high budget web military propaganda from the effectively state-run military news source is based on lies.

The current lie is that there is a threat of a new invasion. Not even Ukrainian leadership agrees with this, but it doesn't seem to affect planning in the United States.

"They invaded 8 years ago"

hm ok. Do you know what a US color revolution is?

https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/03/11/pierre-omidyar-c...

You've completely glossed over the root of it here. The lie that Russia is going to invade Ukraine is the "Saddam has WMDs"

Every time the US media talks about an imminent "Russian Invasion", or suggests that they are not the ones instigating the war, they are indirectly instigating war with Russia by lying.

Don't work for these people.

Yayyyyyyy... i guess. Now, everyone stop being arrogant and just emulate what China and the evil ceeceepee did about COVID. They did it right. You didn't. Now, get over your arrogance and do what is correct. When you are sick, you stay home. Stop coughing on everyone. Stop coughing on the world while investing in Moderna stock. Thank you.

I'd prefer everyone keeps doing what they were doing

Some info on China's Jiuzhang 2

https://interestingengineering.com/chinas-new-quantum-comput...

simple-nixos-mailserver is a really nice way to get up and running. Postfix/dovecot/rspamd/autocerts+renew/clamav/dkim/managesieve

Super easy to set up and nothing in the article will be a problem. Your system will not be "artisanal". 400 people wasting time commenting on this guys dumb article.

https://gitlab.com/simple-nixos-mailserver/nixos-mailserver

I have ADHD, and this is why i absolutely hate open-floor offices. I can't get anything done if there are people around me. I am next to worthless. Even if i put on headphones with really loud white noise, i can't help but be distracted by anything that happens.

Also, i didn't know to call my problem ADHD for a long time. So, employees or employers first need to recognize there is a problem with ADHD, then they absolutely need to do what the article says and let someone have a private office if they need to come in or work from home.

The constant onslaught of US "news" drumming up war on China and Russia is very scary. The production value of this site and the detail of its design are a problem. Reuters is a problem. This is indeed war propaganda. I do think the United States is on the offensive in this "cold war", and they they want it to be hot. United States foreign policy has historically been, let's say, less than helpful. I really do not believe China is a threat to the world.

What exactly is there to stand up to? Why not cooperate with China for mutual good? I believe Chinese leadership when they say all they want is a more multilateral world. US simply can't stop being world hegemon. Looking at the way people post both on this site and on Reddit about China, it's all same old Yellow Peril racism if you ask me. Really getting sick and tired of everyone just uncritically taking in US war propaganda and jumping on the war wagon.

A book about IBM and Nazi Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

There are many negative top-level comments here. I wonder what a good survey of developers would say about their feelings on the different bullet points from the article.

Our go-to adversarial source asking all the tough questions about digital data rights, surveillance capitalism, and new digital banking surveillance is a paper edited by PayPal, inc.

Does anyone know what day Tech Inquiry provided these documents to The Intercept?

Seems kinda convenient we get our nice exciting "adversarial" article about this four days /after/ the infrastructure bill passes and we are locked in to have tons of new bank surveillance and like 80,000 new IRS agents...

Except both tribes put out slightly difference flavors of the one major falsehood: that US foreign policy helps anyone, anywhere, for any reason, ever.

They lobbied on some antitrust bills:

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?c...

An interesting one is the "1 Agency Act", which was "To transfer antitrust enforcement functions from the Federal Trade Commission to the Department of Justice, and for other purposes." -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2926...

Because i know how addicts think, i know that will never work. I used to get all ragey about the way they think and they constantly trying to get stuff through social tricks from whoever is around (usually are very bad at it), but i've gotten over it. The contingency is not a good plan. They crave what they want and it is the most important thing in the world, it gets like hardwired into the brain, but they are still people and they can still get over it or get somewhat normal. Cages don't help the psyche. Street doesn't help the psyche. It's like punishment and the negative reinforcement is not helpful. Housing gives a base and yes, there is gonna be plenty of abuse of the system by them. They will continue to try to get drugs and do them, etc. I am imagining there's tons of corruption and wasted money that goes on in the organizations that handle things right now, and that needs to be handled. But the bills being proposed by the Republicans in the state governments across the country have teeth on them that go too far, because it's all really centered around using policing and punishment to enforce something that can be helped with assistance.

The 'left' solution is gonna continue to annoy republicans, who don't want their country to be seen as having a huge poverty problem next to China who is researching it and actively alleviating it. But their fixes are gonna cause a lot of human suffering that is out of sight, out of mind. When Joe Biden was talking about the border patrol's mistreatment of Haitians, everything he said was really just about perception. He wants the effect of the enforcement, he just doesn't want it to be seen in the light of what it truly is. The homeless thing and the release of this propaganda book we are discussing is a coordinated effort to "solve" the problem. The people passing these bills don't research poverty and they don't have a real plan besides violence.

> How would you avoid those same issues happening yet again to the hoped for shiny new effort?

Maybe i am getting your tone wrong, but in saying 'hoped for shiny new effort' i think maybe you are dismissing an effort from ever working, which seems it would be defeatist for anyone who genuinely believes public housing could be good. I guess i just don't feel like you are asking in good faith. If you wanted to do it, you would have to believe you can overcome these challenges by becoming aware of all of them, and then organizing to make it happen.

Just to understand what we are up against if we actually try to make it happen, look to the Philadelphia MOVE bombing of 1985 [1]. People organizing fully within their rights yet Philadelphia bombed Philadelphia. Smears all around of course. Anything but admit bombing your own city is bad, i guess.

[1]: https://billypenn.com/2020/05/11/move-101-why-30-years-ago-p...

This doesn't help. I already know "the projects are bad".

If you think "the projects are bad" means "public housing can never work" and you haven't looked at who benefits from public housing failing and how they would control legislation and would alter the course of any project you planned, and how a good example would certainly cost them a lot of money, you aren't really taking the question of developing working public housing seriously.

I have it. My brother is a paranoid schizophrenic who lived in public housing and got care. He was and is an addict and many of the people around him were addicts, but not all of them. I visited quite a bit. Anyway, he stayed alive and was ok because of the care he got, he left everyone alone and didn't ever hurt anyone but himself.

What is a good source on it that is not written by a bourgeoisie economist or other agent of the wealthy?

And you can't just diagnose them then go visit them? Help them with meds etc?

I think the article is implying the answer to the failed 'left' policies is to replace them with more 'right-wing' policies. I've seen bills popping up that involve criminalizing the homeless or making camping illegal except in designated areas [1], [2]. These are really just 'out of sight, out of mind bills'. Homeless will not respond to criminalization of being homeless just as addicted people don't respond to legislation criminalizing drug use. We are even wasting money on Boston Dynamics robot dogs in Hawaii to patrol the homeless [3]. The right-wing policies almost always seem like they will just end up being violent. However, i do agree the 'left' policies are insufficient. They are bandaids on the real problem: that rental housing is not 100% public and that even mentioning this gets you laughed at and shunned. Public housing could easily work and be healthy, well-maintained, and great, really. The only thing preventing it from working is the forces of private real estate. Any mention of it, everyone will respond with just random pictures of housing they claim to be some socialist country's public housing, saying "is THIS what you want?!?!?". The idea that you couldn't build and maintain excellent public housing is laughable. It's fine, we should seek it.

[1]: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/10/13/bill-calls-for-stat... [2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/using-new-law-la-city-coun... [3]: https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/honolulu-police-spent-1500...

> I was specifically avoiding commenting on the legitimacy and use of said powers and instead addressing only what I saw was the core premise of OP: That the US's desire for abilities (maybe that's a better word to use so that we don't conflate legal power with practical power, that is what is possible vs what is allowed) that others do not have is somehow wrong or strange. A core function of all governments, and one that government doesn't exist without, is power. You can't claim jurisdiction without the ability to enforce it. You kind of went off in the weeds and talked about a lot of things I wasn't saying anything about.

Ya, i wrote too much without getting enough clarification, sorry.

> The one point of yours I will respond to is this: >> I guess it just smells like fascism to me when you submit to this without like... actually thinking about the specifics of each power? Or letting them just spread illegal shit around the world? Maybe i misunderstand. This all seems weird. > Two things: First and foremost, I don't see how you drew a line from the U.S. preventing export of technologies that enable fascism to the U.S. 'spreading illegal shit'. Kind of a hard turn there, and not really what I, OP, or the article were commenting on.

So i didn't mean to draw the line you describe there, i should be clearer in what i write. If i understand what you are going for by adding your comment to this issue, you were kind of dismissing anyone being "surprised or alarmed", and you were maybe a little annoyed anyone was even talking about it. I am not personally really surprised, but i was suggesting alarm and discussion might be good when government decides to exercise power (and my weeds about this gov in particular and the historical events leading up to the issue at hand), because people should understand they should be a part of what power is exercised. I still don't know if i am misunderstanding, but it seemed you were kinda dismissing people being alarmed because this is kinda just what governments do -- "they do power, what's the alarm?". What i meant about fascism was not the line you suggested but the idea that someone might just glance over the entire issue by saying 'governments do power, the government is posturing to enhance this power, who cares?'. I was suggesting that a bunch of people submitting to the the state building power without involvement or question of the specifics of the powers being built is kind of fascistic.

> Second, power is not equal to fascism. Personal freedoms rely on the power to defend them. You are not free to live if someone else is free to take your life. Even a loving and benevolent government requires the power to protect and care for it's constituents. (Now, don't misread that, and think I'm saying the US government is loving and benevolent, I'm making a broader point), and that power needs to be highly asymmetrical or it simply doesn't serve its purpose.

If one state gets to build asymmetric power, that means other states don't have it, right? So.. those states under your definition here can no longer be loving and benevolent because they can't have enough highly asymmetric power in the reverse direction if something bad happens? Am i simplifying too much or missing your point? How does this work out?

Is prematurely building asymmetry with technology really necessary as you say? What if there is symmetry in all countries, then someone does something bad, we all meet and see this person is behaving incorrectly, and then unite. No individual state has asymmetric power but asymmetric power was constructed and used as needed for this situation.

Am i still way off? What are you trying to get across with your comments here? Are you dismissing people being concerned or am i misunderstanding?

> Is there any other way to read into the government's authority at large? The entire premise of government is that is assumes power over others. Monopoly on violence.

Ya, monopoly on violence by... who exactly? Who is wielding the power in the government? Afghanistan was horrible, right? But US just kinda let that go on for 20 years or whatever. News didn't really talk about it. That's kind of like... a lot of suffering while just pretending nothing is happening. I guess if it was you wielding the power in any real way, or i mean if the people who represented you cared about what you thought, they might have checked in to update you and see what you thought. But they didn't, so... wonder what happened there. And since we are talking about violence, i guess we all agree constructing dragnet surveillance with no regard for human and civil rights is violent, right?

Also, monopoly on violence, you mean over other states right? So then the other states... don't have a monopoly, or? Isn't that just imperialism? I've never heard that phrase used this way, i usually hear it used as monopoly on violence over the people (which the US absolutely is but will never admit because then they wouldn't be able to call every non-US gov in the world 'authoritiarian'). I guess you might be saying monopoly over so-called 'enemy states', but like i said it US is touted as such a world-renowned and representative democracy, and most people don't even understand anything about 'enemy states'. Really, they are mostly just blindly nationalistic or bask in the high standard of living afforded them with a warm and convenient lack of awareness about what is going on in the world (retirement funds did well due to that war, that's nice). Or maybe they went into some detail but it was inside a carefully crafted investigation bubble, usually under threat of losing their job or burned as a witch for having the wrong thoughts about an evil enemy if they could influence someone. Anyway, in such a situation, i hope we can agree that the state should not just blindly exercise violence for a 'monopoly'. Who said so? How was the decision acted upon? To what end? How much violence? Which kinds are ok, which are off-limits? What effect is it gonna have on the people?

Ok, so wait we get to comment on this particular export situation. Great. Despite the fact that i've heard people say even well-reasoned and popular adversarial comments in these little situations do next to nothing, we are not addressing the overall problem. People need to know the big picture of how this will be used. Did we ever even agree to surveillance in the first place, do we agree with who we've been told our enemies are? Do we agree with violating peoples' rights? Whose? Why? You know... very basic questions that will never be asked. Request for comment, ya, ok. Thanks. Also, if there's a request for comment on something, all people need to be made aware of the request through some very well-publicized channel. Is there one? I don't think so. No one bothers building such a channel because building one would make their entire political and military racket less profitable not to mention eat away at the neighbordhood of makebelieve.

> If said power becomes distributed to other parties, it becomes moot. How that power is wielded, and with what intent are separate discussions, but the power itself is core to the idea of government.

You have like some premise that all power constructed by the US is legitimate? I don't understand. We never agreed to wire up the whole world like this and it is pretty clear at this point that no one else did either. Ok. Now it's constructed, what to do? The proper answer is, i guess, to destroy the technology and not move forward, right? Since it's construction and deployment was done in secret? If they didn't want to waste resources they should maybe not build illegal things that take lots of resources using stolen public funds?

> I feel like the idea that "The US government wants to have certain powers, and wants no one else to have them" is just baked into the fact that it is the US government, and should neither surprise nor alarm anyone who isn't an Anarchist.

I guess it just smells like fascism to me when you submit to this without like... actually thinking about the specifics of each power? Or letting them just spread illegal shit around the world? Maybe i misunderstand. This all seems weird.

I am kinda disappointed the "math foundations" (first part) does not have the word "logarithm" anywhere on the page, as this is for cs / AI.

The CS part of this thing (different page) does talk briefly about logarithms, but just a little. In one part it says "A (base-10) logarithm of a number is essentially how many digits a number has."

The final (AI) part then ends up needing exponential functions and logarithmic functions. It references a book

"Obtain the book Mathematical Modeling and Applied Calculus listed in the beginning of this page via library genesis or other means, and skip to chapter 1.4 Exponential Functions. There is a short demonstration here that assumes you have a basic idea what a derivative is from the other above videos. Read chapter 1.5 on inverses, then 1.6 Logarithmic Functions. By read I mean leisurely skim through the material knowing when to go practice or read more in depth later if needed."

I skimmed the three chapters of the book to see how they teach it, and i really kinda didn't like the way they approached it and what they leave out. I think even if you understood everything there, you wouldn't really have a good understanding of log and exponent, what e actually is, how logs relate to each other, how they relate to polynomials, how exponential funcs relate to doubly exponential ones and so on... just like good roots to be able to understand complexity really well. I dunno.

It's a draft right? Maybe they will fix that up and make it more self-contained. I don't think i would really want to do it like this from scratch. Math is too often taught in such a mechanical way without really explaining how everything relates. I want people to actually really have good intuition about the things i teach them before i use them as requisite to teach them something that requires them.

Is AI really a good place to start? Why even do it this way?