than3

I'd disagree. If you play a line like the Englund Gambit, you are going to get trounced.

A lot of times, Memorization isn't even needed. People develop mental shortcuts for calculation in positional, endgame, and middle game sections.

Things like forcing doubled pawns on the C/F files (depending on your color), calculating whether you can promote before the king can catch up (that triangle strategy). Lucena and a few others.

With a solid opening repertoire that's chosen to force certain openings/sublines you can limit the study needed significantly (and shoot to the moon rating wise).

I kind of feel if you think this then you've approached chess all wrong.

Your moves are all about controlling your opponents influence and responses while developing your pieces before situating for a breakthrough or attack.

Interesting games only really happen with decently skilled opponents who know the theory as well as you. The game often only starts getting interesting after move 16+.

Dubious moves and openings are a surefire way to lose.

No, they really don't.

They use a ML Siamese head network that was donated to them back ~2012. Nothing has changed since then, and they don't prevent people from creating new accounts.

There were issues reported to them in 2016 about the siamese network failing to detect properly in cases where the client-side parameters being passed could be spoofed and held static, and they banned the people who reported it and deleted the posts from their github and the site.

From what I've seen, their team is petty, conceited, and vindictive people.

They make a show of valuing the community, but its just that; a show. When it comes down to actually reporting something responsibly in goodwill; they have no professionalism, and no credibility. They don't want to hear about it; and its easier to silence with the hammer of admin power than anything else.

Incidentally, there were also issues with the paperwork they filed for the charity in France too. You are required to have certain paperwork filed to provide when opening a bank account in France (so you don't comingle charity funds with personal funds). It didn't appear they filed that paperwork when I last went digging. Maybe OSINT will bring something up.

I honestly can't stand false hero worship, they've done nothing to earn respect and a lot to lose any credibility they may have had.

Well indoctrination is one of those things that's hard to believe unless you see it in action. Its hard to teach about too because it is something that you don't really believe is happening until you've seen it from experience. There are a number of things like that, and to undo the damage you have to have reached a certain level of self awareness which many never get to.

Critical thinking by itself isn't really enough in my opinion either. It only impresses how much additional work is needed, on an ongoing basis, to defend yourself. Its often overwhelming, and rarely are things like negotation and credibility taught in a way that kids can understand.

No, they have no right to that information, and if medical accomodations need to be made you stick with that (i.e. what your Doctor says); you do not volunteer information because they will fire you for it.

It may not happen immediately, all they need to do is wait 6 months and it can't be considered retaliatory.

The main factors are:

Supportability

Security

Reliability

Consistency

Supportability is how much additional cost you have for solving the same tasks or problems on that platform. Tooling reduces these costs making it more supportable (if designed right), just like reducing scope reduces these costs.

Security is critical, and you can really shoot yourself in the foot if you don't know what you are doing, or how the software is structured when using a specific distro. I was surprised to find out dbus-activation is a relatively simple route to get any foreign binary running as root, without many hurdles; systemd has a hard dependency on dbus and dbus-activation.

Reliability is less crashes, and reduction of points of failures. This includes payed support as well. Certain distros while offering support, actually introduce many more additional points of failure in coercive schemes to monetize or collect more information. Repo packages that automatically run a script that fixes a disabled snap and installs the software via snap without notification, rollback, or acknowledgement are examples of this.

> That's not true. This captures all the weed-out classes.

No it doesn't. You are wrong. There are a number of well understood ways where you would not see deviations like this in the statistical outcomes. Flawed, skewed, or under-representing metrics being just one, as I mentioned in another post. Garbage in Garbage out.

If you compare the success rate of US college against the EU, there are big differences but this is apples to oranges comparison with arguably the same outcomes, but there is no reasonable way to discount or map certain differences in implementation. EU has generally a higher pass rate for less investment.

I fared well with education in every class except the structured to fail classes. What does it say when you have a student who passes Calculus 3 and other math classes above with a high 90, and can't pass Mechanics that solely tests Math in 3 question, two test format with causality properties between the questions on each test. Where the accompanying required lab scores for the same person are top 90s, even scored top of all pooled lab classes for an egg drop design contest, but can't pass the test. The only egg drop among all classes at the college to survive 4 stories without a crack with paper, water, and a baggy (by design at my insistence). Far from a contrived example when you have the transcripts to back it up.

While not necessarily a good example because probabilities have poor results in relation to likelihood in reality, it still demonstrates the margin for error, the likelihood of a passing score assuming the material was taught is roughly .3^6 power for 2 exams. You need to get a 70 in the class to pass, so you could only get 1 question wrong for the entire class between both 2 tests, which means you could only get the final question wrong on either of those two tests if the test had causality properties. That doesn't seem so bad, but in reality each one of those questions would be 10-20 steps each to get the correct answer for one question. So that probability shrinks further to .3^(6*120). You have perfection, or you don't pass.

Honestly it just sounds like you are trying to make excuses and minimize my experience, like most people do because you want to believe that something is true (even when it isn't). In my 'experience', which spans 15+ years in education, alongside many others; that is not the case. It was a lie, a pipe-dream sold with lies that had nothing to do with actual merit.

Its a drain on financial resources with moving goal posts with no determinable way to pass for those classes that are structured to fail, and those courses are bottleneck courses needed for GE and transfer.

In learning system's theory, you learn about the specific requirements needed for determinism. There's only 3 or 4 fundamental ways you can structure exam questions where you can legitimately have 1 correct answer. Most of those test questions in those structured to fail classes, fail those specific requirements needed for a determinable answer. Worse they optimize for the least work, and max fail rate (for repeat customers)

If a question on an exam doesn't have a determinable answer... it is testing how well you guess which is to say its not testing anything at all. It is using an unsound test to keep your money and require you to take the course again. That's fraud.

Many of those exam's questions are simply cleverly disguised guesses; with 3 or more different possible correct answers.The point of testing is with the instruction from class, there is only one right answer.

Anything else is fraud; but they are state-funded institutions, and you have no due process because there is no obligation to act on legitimate complaints and those institutions are largely shielded legally. It suffers all the classic bureaucratic failures.

Its a balanced scale, any good is equally weighed by the bad. Except the larger representative lobbyists often tip the scale towards bad more often than not.

Its more about indoctrination prior to the age of reason.

Kids biologically can't discern lies prior to that age unless they've had some form of trauma (from what I've been told), and often accept what's read and written as truth. Few re-evaluate those beliefs later as they become part of their identity.

Its why that Florida education issue was such a hot-button topic. They tried overtly embedding some of that junk into math problems.

Parties are the formation of demagogues, and we all know how that worked out for Rome.

There's a very interesting read on the USMC University website that covers political warfare (which this would arguably fall into). Its freely available.

> It is patently evident that ...

This is a very easy intelligence trap to fall into, but it neglects internal bad actors that are doing the same things for profit. That interview is structured to set you up into a subtle us vs. them mentality. If you look at what he says and how you feel when you find out (if you agree, which itself is a subtle lever of influence with consistency [Cialdini]), its hard to argue that he isn't doing exactly what he says they do (creating a demoralized state).

You always have to remember the source, and he is not a good source for this. There are much better sources.

We value freedom of speech, because proper communication enables debate which allows us to come to a fuller understanding of certain issues than in the absence of this.

This understanding often allows us to save lives, whereas those mistakes that would never normally be addressed would result in deaths in a system where this doesn't take place.

That being said, you can never have a debate where the number of real people is less than fake people, and they have some motive to amplify or de-amplify what's being said which is ineffable ahead of time.

Where things have gone wrong is in treating corporations as dual entities. When it suits them they are people, when it suits them best they are a corporation, and in some industries when it suits them they act as arms of government without any of the mandates from the constitution, and are immune from legal repercussions.

While not a positive tale, I think the the point you are trying to make is more about coercion/compulsion (i.e. generally what you see as a lack of agency), than it is about specific things like poor parenting (which is also very common).

Also, arguably if regulation wasn't so draconian the requirements wouldn't necessarily be so high, and if debt wasn't so easily available to pay for it, it would be cheaper, and more opportunities would be available. Overregulation can be a stifling thing.

That's a paraphrase, if you read what he said, that quote is not what he said.

That's a major credibility hit there.

> I thought we already went down this road and remembered where it leads.

This memory is written down on dead leaves and the majority of people don't read anymore, and aren't educated about cyclical things like this because of stage 7.

The illusion is equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome.

> It is clear that this system...

Yes, and that is where Chat-GPT and the newer generation AI's come in. Not on the workers side, but still escaping wage slavery all the same.

I agree, insofar that most of the discourse I've seen often neglects fundamental drivers of our economy such as the division of labor and has undue focus on outcomes that are less likely to come to pass, as opposed to risk oriented discussion which is key in risk management.

There was a very good video someone posted not too long ago that covers what should be covered as an overview.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ&ab_channel=Cente...

Any engineer knows as soon as the rate of change exceeds the reaction time, you can't keep up and failures happen. In the case of systems, the larger the system the bigger and more damaging the failure. We're dealing with societal mechanics, so failures may have global impact.

I disagree, there are a number of very large ETF's and other securities holding bonds which have not correctly valued the bonds at current or future bond prices in this hyper-inflationary environment.

A bond is only worth the sum of its interest and principal payments over a period of time. In any market that exceeds 2% inflation per annum, you have to account for the additional inflation in the future remaining coupon payments as well as during the elapsed period's actual inflation. This requires a certain amount of projection simply to adequately protect principal.

If you argue to get into bonds generically without considering the facts, you are promoting to people to burn their hard-earned money in effigy. Yes a bonds 60/40 portfolio is standard financial advice, but we are not living in standard times.

My parents followed that advice during 2008 and lost most of their retirement. I'm not saying anyone should do anything, I'm saying you need to do what's best for you and proper valuation is part of that, and your response seems to have remained silent on that part. Risk management is crucial for any kind of investment; and there are risks today which we have not dealt with in the past 20-30 years.

I agree they are too old. Unfortunately the boomer generation has and will likely hold onto their political power until their dying gasp as old age takes them. Normally you would have a generational transition of power about every 20 years. The boomers took over in 1990, in 2010 they held that, and in 2020 they still hold over 50% of the political power.

Historically, they as a cohort have done things that enrich themselves at everyone elses expense, and written laws where dead men rule. Their legacy is historic in that its happened before, and will happen again. Now I"m not saying they did this with malice, its a cohort (it has a specific meaning), there are good people, disinterested people, and selfish people. The people who were voted into these positions largely fall into the latter two, though there are exceptions.

Look at social security, and how the Fed works these days. Outlays for paying social security and medicare starting in ~2030 exceed all income for the interest alone and they all know this, because they have constructive knowledge of what's happening and choose to ignore it.

Here is a great CSPAN video btw that demonstrates this (I strongly encourage you to watch it in its entirety if you think what I'm saying isn't accurate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ut1yQg2qA4&ab_channel=Forbe...

We are coming up to an inflection point very similar to what Thomas Paine discusses in his writings. Its not going to be good times given the huge asymmetry between our rights and what's actually being protected, I heard just the other day that this US citizen in Georgia has been held in jail for 10 years without being provided a defender or given a trial. Something, that strictly violates the US Constitution.

There are major problems, and you don't get anywhere by ignoring them. In fact you make it worse by ignoring them.

Well none of those studies take into account US-style weed-out classes where there may be a 12% pass rate for a bottleneck transfer class, and the class is structured to fail students.

Any value-based research that neglects these is just junk science.

Article lacks any semblance of credibility. Not worth reading.

The author is naively mistaken in what dictates outcomes. Incentives dictate outcomes, there's a lot of flawed thinking and wrong conclusions made by the author.

Much of the argument relies heavily on survivorship bias and painting implausible examples. It also completely neglects any basic understanding of what happens with economic systems. Most specifically, how UBI would solve the economic calculation problem (point in fact it doesn't, it makes it worse because there's no price discovery). So what the author actually is promoting is a rapid approach to all the consequences found in the economic calculation problem, though they fall just short of saying so.

This reads more like soft propaganda than it does anything educated or rational.

Well structural issues will almost always cause suffering regardless of if its software, or management/organizational. They are all systems, and antipatterns creep-in sometimes regardless of how good you may happen to be. Flexibility is what makes or breaks things.

If you can't get a good handle on the specific business requirements, or lack the power to enact necessary changes; any solution is going to be a poor approximation and potentially cause negative production value with someone.

Imo, Products are just a collection of processes that fulfill requirements. Documenting those processes and requirements is 80% of the battle, most of the issues I've run into were only issues because they weren't documented (i.e. edge-cases that are surprisingly common).

Many times, the people and processes involved don't share/get documented because they often view this implicit knowledge as job security. This often takes a really rare/gifted person with knowledge in both IT and psychology to get what you need.

Mostly Economics Recommendations here.

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Landes are both pivotal works related to economics. The first book describes the fundamental underpinnings of the requirements for economies to work at the micro level. Its written in a very easy to understand way, and doesn't throw magical thinking on you as later more modern works do. Modern economic courses practical benefits are only good for lying, and deceit since you can match the data to whatever narrative you happen to be trying to push. Its an appeal to authority that often isn't backed in any scientific or realistic way though it gives that allure to those who don't otherwise know. Its not a real science, and has largely been used with planning/justifying loans for the purpose of coercion. You might get a kick out of John Perkin's book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".

The second book covers why northern lattitudes were able to accumulate so much wealth, while places like Africa and South America have been in a constant state of turmoil. It largely has to do with a number of factors that are not widely known outside certain circles. It has a number of historical case studies, it really drives home the ominous threat of climate change even though it doesn't touch on that at all.

It is also important that you have a good solid understanding of how debt actually works, and why some of those "line in the sand" aspects of Smith's work are no longer bounds (largely due to unbacked fiat, i.e. reasonable prices that account for what makes up the reasonable cost of producing something).

Additional research on the Economic Calculation Problem and how it relates to economics is also good. There were several books, that alas I cannot remember but someone mentioned them previously in a similar thread. The problem is most commonly scene in centrally planned economies, or in other words socialist economies, though it does affect all economies when the currency is not tied to a stable store of value (as in fiat currency).

Very important stuff since we have been recently seeing a number of economic issues which have been previously documented. First you centralize and concentrate, then you nationalize (though they won't call it that). Credibility is terribly important when it comes to stores of value, and once its lost, its lost for good. There can be no trust after a precipitating event.

As a final recommendation, I'd recommend the Big Debt Crises by Ray Dalio. It covers in-depth case studies of various economic cycles. (Cost Push vs Demand Pull Inflation, Hyperinflation, Depression, and Deflationary Spirals iirc). The media lies about this all the time, its good to be educated.

Though, you do have to ground yourself as some of the conclusions written are wrong due to fundamental misunderstandings of who determines prices and produces products. Price discovery is incredibly important, and everything goes out the window if the data you are looking at for a market lacks adequate price discovery. In the short, or long term (metals spot pricing and libor rates being a perfect example of price fixed markets).

Incidentally, this can also potentially dovetail into other historical research. Though, again, as a reminder, its important to ground yourself.

A lot of history is very dark, and those that fail to learn history are doomed to make the same missteps that repeat it. Don't get bogged down in what you can't control. Forewarned is forearmed.

I don't think LLMs are going to be able to solve that. There are a number of things that are assumed are true, but may not necessarily be true. This can potentially lead to multiple possible answers (outputs) given the same inputs.

For example determinism in code, its required for computation and its a system's property, but generalizing a test for it is really hard. Its a property, and by knowing its true or false you can make inferences on whether a system maintains those properties, but most of this is abstracted away at lower levels and since the context can't ever be fully shared with an LLM for evaluation, nor can it automatically switch contexts when evaluation fails, this most likely will never be solveable by computers when there exists one single input that produces two separate (different) outputs, at least from what I know about automata theory and computability.

Its generally considered a class of problems that can't be solved by turing machines.

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

https://medium.com/@tarcisioma/limits-of-computation-231bf28... (overview)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem (crux of the problem)

Unfortunately, this is the tendency, to always blame the student because its their fault not the systems fault. You must be doing something wrong, I've heard it all. It took me two decades to find out these were lies.

Sure there are some classes where I had to withdraw because I'm paying for it myself, working a full time job alongside all my classes, with no family support, largely because my parent decided to rob my college fund. Scholarships and grants not an option because my parent makes too much and that's calculated even though they aren't providing any support.

Is it my fault that the units for the classes were misrepresented so a 3 unit course requires 22 hours a week to complete instead of the 9 its supposed to? (Can you do 16 weeks straight of 62 hour work weeks perfectly?)

Or the fact that questions on tests may have 3/5 correct answers, but only 1 real answer and they don't communicate the necessary context to find the real answer. (i.e. they don't teach what you are tested on).

Or the autograder attached to the class marking correct answers wrong, and because each student has randomized questions for the same assignment the teacher doesn't do their job.

Or the test material not being covered at all in preparation, and repeat students selling exams inside the class with the tacit approval of the instructor because she doesn't change it year to year, and the chair and dean do nothing about the academic dishonesty because the dean or chair is new in the job and the professor has seniority?

Or the class has a general 12% pass rate, and those 12% are people who have made many attempts, with one on those on their 6th attempt?

Surely these are all issues with the student having personal issues? /s Mind you, each one of these happened at a different local community college so its not even just one college.

Its not the whole coursework ecosystem, its critical coursework that's needed to transfer and complete that degree. Specific bottlenecks that everyone has to go through because its required. In engineering it was physics, the Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, and Light trifecta coursework. In business it was economics.

There is nothing personal about structure.

What's galling is I can derive Maxwells equations, and yet can't pass the physics courses, and Pearson sucks, they also intentionally embed dark patterns, and 30-40% of their testing material doesn't track with their practice, and they introduce new tools in the tests which are also broken. Worse, Pearson shifts their auditing to the student. I had questions where the test question changed after submission where I recorded it. Not enough evidence for the teacher to do anything. Yeah video evidence isn't enough, what will be?.

Its a systemic problem, and it has nothing to do with the student. They have optimized to snowball fail you. It was not just me either, there were hundreds maybe thousands, and there was a group trying to change this but the trustees never listened.

Classwork for degrees are supposed to be determinable so long as you know the material and are taught that material. In each of these cases, either it wasn't determinable (which btw is a system's property thing, it has a very specific definition), or they didn't teach the material. Either way you cut it, its fraud. They receive money for something (instruction and testing), and don't provide what they said, and due process doesn't exist because the people you report issues to are not obligated to act on them. They also happen to often be teachers who will receive social retribution if they do act (a common bureacratic issue).

I had no problems with Calculus, differentiation, double integration, series, multivariate, ordinary differential equations, no problem. I can prove theorems, systems of equations. I just can't pass the physics they have structured because of how its structured.

The point is the vast majority for the failures have nothing to do with me personally. Its simply the person who set up a course structure so once a single unexpected misstep occurs, you fail the class. They are optimizing for repeat customers and least work, and its fraud when a reasonable person knowing the material can't pass the course, and instruction and testing lack crucial integrity. If you cannot provide perfection, you don't pass; and I hope I don't have to tell you how asinine that is.

There has never been any accountability in the education system and the student is left with no effective means of controlling basic academic outcomes. That's what it comes down to.

Mind you many professional certifications have the exact same issues. Incidentally who do you think handles that? (Pearson).

So you are told, you will have no work opportunities if you don't hold a degree, or you don't have a professional certification, and they make it nigh impossible to get either. What's the problem here?

This shouldn't be happening, and yet its been allowed to continue for a generation (20 years). I know a few American's who travelled overseas (EU) to get their degrees because its less corrupt and dishonest than what's available locally.

When tallying my expenses so far (without a degree), I've spent roughly $280,000* on trying to get a degree and while I'm 2/3 there to a business degree, I still don't have it. If you factor in the value of money if I had invested that over the same time period, that's easily over a million dollars. An investment in a nonexistent future sold as a lie because it took decades instead of the 4 that were advertised. All that additional income that's needed for critical life things like buying your first home, getting married, having kids, all not possible if you don't have the income to support it.

Most people just drop out and cut their losses, I just wanted to build things... and I never had the chance because it was stolen through fraud with no accountability. There are many people out there just like me, but there's no visibility on the problem because they don't collect metrics that would show there is a problem. Instead they blame the student and claim they don't have enough resources at the taxpayers expense. Its the same shill argument that we fail because we don't have enough, when they'll never have enough, because its a systemic issue.

* Includes living expenses during that time.

I've had people give the same advice, and was only met with fraud and weed-out classes, structured in a way so that every simple misstep snowballs to failure. 15+ years of effort and resources with nothing to show to employers other than a transcript of Ws or Fs on those weedout courses which are required to even transfer, some repeated 8-10 times at different colleges and with different teachers. The same structural issues.

I hear this is less of a problem in Europe, but in the US, education is a farce. Wherever you are from, I'm glad it worked out for you.

I ended up dropping out and getting into IT, self learning system's theory along the way, and after a decade am back to trying to get a degree because a lot of employer's won't look at you if you don't have one. Or worse, they'll say you aren't qualified (despite having a decade of direct experience), and low-ball offer the already low salary (50% off). There are some truly despicable people out there.

US-based community college is mostly just a bait and switch fraud. There inevitably are weed-out classes where you can be weeded out of programs or college entirely simply by having the unfortunate luck to attend them. Usually positioned in critical preparatory or transfer coursework needed for a degree program, its mostly not about knowing the material, but dealing with the disadvantaged structure, and having limited resources to attend college in the first place.

I've personal experience in an engineering program, where this was common practice in the 3-class core physics courses. 3 question-20step/q test where each subsequent question is dependent on the answer to the previous question. This is the causality spiral of doom, where you either get it perfect, or you don't pass, but you have to get it perfect 6 times in a row to pass the class. By the time you take the first test, you can't get a refund, and if the answer doesn't match perfectly with Pearson or Canvas's material, good luck you just wasted $10-15,000 in living expenses during the time you tried. Try again. and again. and maybe by time 8 or 10 you decide its just not a program for you anymore, and you run into the same issue with the supposedly easier classes in the business program, or drop out completely.

Some professors take it a step further by adjusting the rounding strategy between those questions instead of following the same significant digits. Its deceitful lying meant to sell you a pipe-dream which you'll never be able to complete unless you get lucky, and that's just one example. I've almost 15 years worth of examples, in a broad geographic area.

Its one of the most egregious deceitful lies we are told as people entering college. Education is only an investment when you can get something back from that investment. If you just need that paper because anyone without it is not qualified, then it doesn't matter what you know (as many professionals I've met have demonstrated they lacked crucial skills and had no inclination to fix their shortfalls).

Not even close to meritocracy, I've passed and completed up through DiffEQ and Linear Algebra math wise which require Calculus 3 as a pre-requisite. No issues with math, but I have yet to pass a Mechanics of Solid course because of structure. Its structured to fail people. Eventually people give up trying to be engineers and try business only to find the same thing in the economic's courses. Its such corrupt deceitful bad behavior, and impacts those who have to pay their own way through more than others.

I had an online econ class this past semester which had all the same hallmarks, worse, the professor was collecting a paycheck, and instead of lecturing simply referred us to Khan Academy movie links and Pearson's Autograder (which routinely failed on correct answers, and no exceptions were being made regardless, i.e. its the student not the professor or pearson were in the wrong).

Any other industry doing these same business practices would be sued or shut down for outright fraud and unfair and deceptive business practices. Because its state funded its somehow exempt from all those same rules. Also the only path to correct is escalating to the chair/dean/trustees rarely ever has any action taken. The people responsible for advocating are the same people that have let this continue for decades.

They don't track metrics that would quickly show problems so they can fix them. My local colleges say they don't track how many students in each class have taken the same class or professor before and failed, and the graduation rates as we all know are abyssal.

> They are doing something wrong behind the scenes with regards to spend or optimization...

I disagree. You have to remember how disadvantaged the online ad market actually is. Many of those ad networks also are simply legitimizing fraud on the advertisers, but because the networks aren't big enough at competitors, and all existing implementations suffer the same issues you really don't get what you pay for as Uber found out years ago.

https://veracitytrustnetwork.com/blog/digital-marketing/uber...

In some areas like this one, control is just an illusion.

You can certainly do things to reduce and risk manage the downsides, but you can only ever do so against scenarios you have dreamt up and spent time confirm and validating that your solution works. Its an endless amount of work that isn't sustainable.

The only way to ensure the data collected can't be used against you now or in the future, (i.e. isn't stolen in some way), is to not collect it in the first place.

I think any potential benefit for having an AI assistant would immediately be offset by the problems, scale, and impact the collection of that data would engender on your life.

Its a short step from a simple assistant to having a spy that watches you every hour of every day, and may not just watch but also interfere in non-alerting ways.

What happens when the company monetizes without proper disclosure where it develops a model of you, and then alert the authority when you deviate from said model for enhanced surveillance or harassment. Government would be a guaranteed customer. Dictators and other authoritarians would love it. China already does a lot of this with their social credit framework.

Free speech, that's gone. Privacy, gone. Future gone. The perverse incentives that inevitably lead to exploitation and enslavement over time are pretty horrifying.

Its the shortest of steps to Orwell.