It's my interpretation of a lot of things people suddenly trust. Big tech, big media, big pharma...
I may be a 15 year old at heart. Every time I see infosec.exchange I read it as info sex change and giggle.
True, and the g200 graphics on a lot of those motherboards are aggressively bad by any measure
We have an embarrassment of riches today when it comes to video cards. Even Intel or AMD integrated graphics are shockingly functional if you're not playing the very latest and greatest.
There's a concept in maintenance theory that you should be careful not to do too much maintenance to a thing because what can happen is a technician could take something that works and make it into something that doesn't work.
In such a way, you can have two devices: one that is diligently maintained and another that is completely ignored, but the one that is ignored is more reliable.
This reliability centered maintenance ideology came about to improve the reliability of airplanes, and it worked. New airplanes ended up having significantly less maintenance, but were significantly more reliable.
I think the same concept can be applied to medicine. We see a lot of procedures done, and in a lot of cases the outcomes of doing something are worse than doing nothing. The problem is that leaving things alone to get a better outcome is unintuitive, and feels like we're just intentionally letting people get hurt.
In some ways it's like the trolley car problem. Maybe there's five people on the track if you do nothing and six of you pull the handle, but the six are invisible behind a curtain and you need to be told that researchers discovered six behind the curtain. By the numbers more people will die if you pull the handle, but you can see the people who will die if you do nothing and you can't immediately see the ones who will die if you do something.
In such a way, you can have two devices: one that is diligently maintained and another that is completely ignored, but the one that is ignored is more reliable.
This reliability centered maintenance ideology came about to improve the reliability of airplanes, and it worked. New airplanes ended up having significantly less maintenance, but were significantly more reliable.
I think the same concept can be applied to medicine. We see a lot of procedures done, and in a lot of cases the outcomes of doing something are worse than doing nothing. The problem is that leaving things alone to get a better outcome is unintuitive, and feels like we're just intentionally letting people get hurt.
In some ways it's like the trolley car problem. Maybe there's five people on the track if you do nothing and six of you pull the handle, but the six are invisible behind a curtain and you need to be told that researchers discovered six behind the curtain. By the numbers more people will die if you pull the handle, but you can see the people who will die if you do nothing and you can't immediately see the ones who will die if you do something.
The big lesson over the past few years for me has been: "Own your own stuff"
If you have software, it should be your software without a remote kill switch or remote licensing that can end. If you have hardware, it should be operable without relying on someone else's hardware.
Because otherwise you're hoping for the benevolence of the company you bought it from to keep using the thing you own.
If you have software, it should be your software without a remote kill switch or remote licensing that can end. If you have hardware, it should be operable without relying on someone else's hardware.
Because otherwise you're hoping for the benevolence of the company you bought it from to keep using the thing you own.
I know it's not the point of your post, but I wish recycling worked better.
IMO I should be able to easily purchase recycled materials, but when I tried it was like extracting teeth. Nobody does anything. They just move the material around to each other at taxpayer expense, I swear...
IMO I should be able to easily purchase recycled materials, but when I tried it was like extracting teeth. Nobody does anything. They just move the material around to each other at taxpayer expense, I swear...
Kids show: "Can you write a song?"
Me: "I can, but you don't want me to... Not because of anything political, but because I'm not very good at writing songs"
Me: "I can, but you don't want me to... Not because of anything political, but because I'm not very good at writing songs"
The media has chosen a specific video game for their current two minutes of hate. The fact that you alluded to it and we caught on doesn't mean anything other than we both have working news sources.
Rather than defend the game, I attacked your argument, because it was a really poor argument. You can't just take attacks from someone's political enemies at face value when deciding what to support or not.
That is pretty internally consistent for me. The first chapter in The Graysonian Ethic after the preface was titled "Question everything and everybody—especially me" -- before I even talk about the basics I talk about it, and that chapter warns about many ways things you agree with might turn out to be wrong through logical fallacies or cognitive biases or active malice by bad actors.
Rather than defend the game, I attacked your argument, because it was a really poor argument. You can't just take attacks from someone's political enemies at face value when deciding what to support or not.
That is pretty internally consistent for me. The first chapter in The Graysonian Ethic after the preface was titled "Question everything and everybody—especially me" -- before I even talk about the basics I talk about it, and that chapter warns about many ways things you agree with might turn out to be wrong through logical fallacies or cognitive biases or active malice by bad actors.
I was hoping to be misinterpreting it that way, but I read it a few times and it seemed to say what I hoped it didn't.
I would be happy to be wrong.
I would be happy to be wrong.
It's shocking that the parent post can say what it does without realizing the irony of it.
Blood libel is the accusation that Christian boys were murdered by the Jews and their blood gathered for use in religious rituals.
Apply the same fallacious logic to the Jews with respect to blood libel that the parent post applies to accusations against this video game. By the same logic, in order to support the Jews, one must support murdering Christian boys so their blood can be used in religious rituals.
"No, blood libel was just lies told by a group who wanted to make everyone hate something" -- funny that.
There's a story from around 600 BCE, written by a slave and storyteller who lived in ancient Greece. It speaks of a shepherd who repeatedly fools villagers into thinking there's a wolf attacking the towns flock. In the story, the villagers get wise to it and eventually the boy and his flock is attacked by wolves, and nobody comes to help because they've learned to ignore the liar. Depending on the version, either the flock is eaten, or the boy is eaten with them.
For the past decade we've heard "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" At every juncture, and people are getting tired of it. There's no wolf, just an immature child who doesn't realize the danger in raising false alarms constantly because they don't get their way. Eventually there may be a wolf, and by then nobody will come.
Blood libel is the accusation that Christian boys were murdered by the Jews and their blood gathered for use in religious rituals.
Apply the same fallacious logic to the Jews with respect to blood libel that the parent post applies to accusations against this video game. By the same logic, in order to support the Jews, one must support murdering Christian boys so their blood can be used in religious rituals.
"No, blood libel was just lies told by a group who wanted to make everyone hate something" -- funny that.
There's a story from around 600 BCE, written by a slave and storyteller who lived in ancient Greece. It speaks of a shepherd who repeatedly fools villagers into thinking there's a wolf attacking the towns flock. In the story, the villagers get wise to it and eventually the boy and his flock is attacked by wolves, and nobody comes to help because they've learned to ignore the liar. Depending on the version, either the flock is eaten, or the boy is eaten with them.
For the past decade we've heard "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" At every juncture, and people are getting tired of it. There's no wolf, just an immature child who doesn't realize the danger in raising false alarms constantly because they don't get their way. Eventually there may be a wolf, and by then nobody will come.
It's a shame it took this long for journalists to realize what many of us realized much sooner: handing all the power to big tech juggernauts is dangerous. Even if they're using their power today to do things you agree with, all it takes is for one autistic billionaire to toss a few bucks into the pot and suddenly all that machinery is being used to do something else, perhaps something you don't agree with.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of independent server operators can decide what they want their communities to be like, and so there isn't one point of failure. It means there isn't machinery to totally silence and destroy your enemies, but it means there isn't machinery to be totally silenced and destroyed yourself. I've seen some new folks who don't understand this.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of independent server operators can decide what they want their communities to be like, and so there isn't one point of failure. It means there isn't machinery to totally silence and destroy your enemies, but it means there isn't machinery to be totally silenced and destroyed yourself. I've seen some new folks who don't understand this.
To me, the fediverse is the best answer for how we can return to a distributed internet. Big Tech succeeded because people didn't want to have to go to 15 different places to have 15 different conversations. With the federated internet, you can have the instance you visit or host, and you can participate in discussions on many other servers from a central location.
Frankly, I don't think that the question here should be about twitter. It should be about the government. There should be a massive shake up, people should go to jail for what happened.
I dated a woman who worked at one of those places.
It's where people go to die. Some of the people have experienced massive neurological degradation and don't even act like humans anymore, they're just spent husks that used to be someone people cared deeply about. They wander the halls like ghosts, behaving like their corpses are haunted by the echoes of the people they used to be.
There is nothing any human being can do to make it less bleak. The destination is the same for everyone there.
It's where people go to die. Some of the people have experienced massive neurological degradation and don't even act like humans anymore, they're just spent husks that used to be someone people cared deeply about. They wander the halls like ghosts, behaving like their corpses are haunted by the echoes of the people they used to be.
There is nothing any human being can do to make it less bleak. The destination is the same for everyone there.
Thanks. :)
Whenever I start to feel like I'm really bright, I start to read some of the academic literature in my field, and by the time I make it through the title of an article I realize I need to keep my feet nailed to the ground because I don't know what all the words even mean and this is the thing I'm supposed to know.
Whenever I start to feel like I'm really bright, I start to read some of the academic literature in my field, and by the time I make it through the title of an article I realize I need to keep my feet nailed to the ground because I don't know what all the words even mean and this is the thing I'm supposed to know.