799 karma · joined April 30, 2013
Actually, one thing he does not get - but it's difficult to criticize him on this, because his questions are not wrong... they feel... foreign in a way, so one thing is that the changes he's calling for... they take time ! A lot of time !
It's almost as if this text is about political epistemology in a way.
At least, that's how I relate to it.
Actually, I think I would have loved an exchange between him and Feyerabend.
He's adopting a radically critical posture that is a bit missing from the Occidental perspective.
Radical critics do exist in the Occident.
But they don't focus on the same issues, and especially not on the moral issues.
They tend to focus on the systemic organization of the occidental society, explaining how systemic changes could change its course for the better.
In a way, he's insisting on the individual and he's striking some right chords.
But at the same time, as many critics of the occident, he refuses to ask himself for the reasons of its success...
It's one think to criticize it and explain what does not work.
But then, why does it work as a whole?
What's the catch?
I was quite amazed to realize that the Golden Horde was way more sophisticated and powerful than most other empires of its time, and still it did not had cities, nor farming, and left really few traces. And that was around 1300, not in prehistoric times.
Also, if you're interested in the relation between farming and civilization but want an adverse position, go read "against the grain". It's also quite mind-opening.
So there could easily be other sites of similar interest but more ancient history - not mentioning that David Graeber made a fair point of rememebering us that even important and powerful civilizations dont always leave big archeological traces.
But of course, that's in point with your argument about sea levels.
I would add that this state of mind denotes a characteristic control anguish.
When you're dead, you're dead. You need to let go.
OpenAI might have wasted the 10B of Microsoft. But whose fault is it in the first place? It's Microsoft's fault to have invested it in the first place.
And if that corporate structure does not suit Satya Nadella, I would say he's the one to blam for having invested 10B in the first place.
Being angry at a decision he had no right to be consulted on does not allow him to meddle in the governance of its co-shareholder.
Or then we can all accept together that corruption, greed and whateverthefuckism is the reality of ethics in the tech industry.
To explain, it's the board of the non-profit that ousted @sama .
Microsoft is not a member of the non-profit.
Microsoft is "only" a shareholder of its for-profit subsidiary - even for 10B.
Basically, what happened is a change of control in the non-profit majority shareholder of a company Microsoft invested in.
But not a change of control in the for-profit company they invested in.
To tell the truth, I am not even certain the board of the non-profit would have been legally allowed to discuss the issue with Microsoft at all - it's an internal issue only and that would be a conflict of interest.
Microsoft is not happy with that change of control and they favourited the previous representative of their partner.
Basically Microsoft want their shareholder non-profit partner to prioritize their interest over its own.
And to do that, they are trying to impede on its governance, even threatening it with disorganization, lawsuits and such.
This sounds like highly unethical and potentially illegal to me.
How come no one is pointing that out?
Also, how come a 90 billion dollars company hailed as the future of computing and a major transformative force for society would now be valued 0 dollars only because its non-technical founder is now out?
What does it say about the seriousness of it all?
But of course, that's Silicon Valley baby.
On the contrary, most of its stories relate to extremely tales and folklores - ie Polyphemus.
Have fun : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-trace-...