Let's not make the splinternet a reality, pretty please.
Chinese scaling and manufacturing, Russian IT expertise, Iranian experience of sanctions evasion and North Korean hacking and remote operations mastery are not the combo you want to bet against.
They would absolutely build the self-sustaining economy and rival networks, but in the process it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and break communication channels that are vital for democracy and international peace, while also breaking communications between relatives and friends on the two sides.
G5 is a USB card. And I'd argue that's the best approach, as sound signal being analog is highly susceptible to interference, and insides of a computer have a lot of that.
Our initial offering will include ChatGPT, Google Gemini, HuggingChat, and Le Chat Mistral, but we will continue adding AI services that meet our standards for quality and user experience.
Is that the same Mozilla that started the Joint Statement on AI Safety and Openness?
What in living hell do proprietary and predatory AI services even doing here?
Mozilla just offered users to feed into the very abomination they claim to fight.
Also, for all things "AI", local is the only way to go if you ever want to have a chance at privacy.
The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi...
I don't think there is a single universal Great filter, and living and then potentially sentient beings with various traits will face various obstacles.
First, life needs suitable materials for polymers and a lot of energy. Most places don't have both.
Next, basic blocks of life that would be self-replicating and adaptive should be randomly generated, which is extremely unlikely and literally took over a billion years on Earth, a planet with generally great conditions for such process.
Then, those blocks should be able to get together to form complex structures - ideally, many separate ones, so that one event wouldn't destroy the entire effort. Earth had it easy, with billions of super simple life forms.
Next, assuming life survived up to this point in a potentially unfriendly and ever-changing environment, bombarded by UV light and exposed to myriad of sources of damage, it should not destroy itself or environment too badly to never recover. Earth had periods when life generated too much carbon dioxide or too much oxygen (yes, that too was a thing), and those were critical points at which our story could very much end.
Then, life has to evolutionize and get into complex forms, either by forming multicellular organisms or by making a cell a powerhouse of everything.
Then, life has to get sentient, and some kind of response system should be available and get highly complex.
Then, most of the sentient creatures just won't be tribal, and civilization requires society and a common effort.
Then, many more won't be expansionist, and will die out in some small region.
Many also won't be competitive, which would slow down evolution.
For those species who are competitive, they shouldn't destroy each other while they're at it, and this is currently one of the risks of our own.
And after all that, they should develop space travel and either get as developed and decisive and resource-rich as to send a generational ship to some random planet named Earth populated by genocidal monkeys, or to somehow hyperdrive here. They can very much decide it's not worth it, and they may be so far away we couldn't see signs of their civilization.
My city is in the middle of the worst drought in recorded history. My showers are typically under 2 minutes and I have to shower with a bucket to catch otherwise wasted water to use to flush the toilet. I also shut the water down when I am wet enough so I can scrub myself without having unneeded water flowing then start it...
That's my dream, and I actually had such relationships in the past.
For all intents and purposes, there are actually more men than women who want that, so you're on a great side of it!
Just look for role reversal/female-led relationships, or even in gentle femdom communities (though the latter is sexual, the community of it highly intersects with the other two).
One half of the post is prepper mentality and the other is the rant about good old times.
The world changes forever, and no amount of throwing back will get you where the world has been. And no, Internet isn't going anywhere, it's not a singular clearly defined entity, but rather a giant decentralized system.
As a fellow communist, I was always bewildered by this urge of many tankies to prove by all means, against any evidence, that China is socialist and ultimately good.
It's neither. China turned to markets, privatized many industries, and really did commit atrocities on Tiannamen square and in Xinjiang.
Doesn't mean socialism as a system is dysfunctional. United States are directly responsible for insane atrocities all over the world, and we don't need to deny that either.
We need to learn from the experience and strive for it not to happen again. Not close our eyes, scream "blah-blah-blah" and pretend it never happened.
China and the Soviet Union were responsible for acts of genocide, mass murdering/starving people, etc.
Doesn't mean this didn't happen in a capitalist world, and doesn't mean we should close our eyes on that to defend the good look of the system. If anything, this does the opposite. Problems need to be solved, not ignored.
The economy of China is not characterized by the common/social ownership of the means of production, which means it is not socialist. No amount of five-year plans can change that.
China does spark international conflicts and does bully its neighbors, but it is true that the country doesn't cosplay world police and doesn't participate much in military operations outside the country, which is a big plus.
As per the bar, it shouldn't fall lower just because some country got even more evil. We can compare the evils, but the evil will be there.
With all that said, I do not say "China bad". But claiming "China good" would also not be correct.
Textbook communism is an economy that is 100% worker-owned, with everyone's needs directly met without the intervention of money. The rest is not that, by literal definition. Let's not play into the hands of people who want to call that communism and ultra-left to exploit in their own needs.
China does have some strong policies, but it doesn't make it communist by any definition. Also, high home ownership rate is mostly a cultural phenomenon, with housing still seen as "best investment" despite the fact there are entire ghost towns full of houses that never ever filled.
I'm well aware that US pressures China militarily, and that China has a much more peaceful approach. However, Chinese ships regularly bully other countries in the South China Sea against international maritime laws.
The infrastructure China builds is not just a gift - but an investment on which China expects a return. I'm not convinced China is actively pursuing debt trap diplomacy, but it certainly uses economic power to pressure other countries into various concessions.
I'm saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn't feasible at the moment.
I'm combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it's a capitalist state with social elements.
A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn't do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.
If you're Luo Wen, you're in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.
It's not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the "property of workers".
Strict prohibitions on foreign controlling interest in real estate, capital, and intellectual property, for starters.
This is protectionism and it has literally nothing to do with communism. Those are two absolute different things that can coexist or not coexist.
Same relates to your other points.
Your rhetoric is eerily similar to protectionist points of Nazi Germany, a very non-communist state that was obsessed with domestic control and protecting domestic capitalist with the proclaimed idea of "capital belonging to all people of Germany", as opposed to "evil Jewish cartels".
Simply trapping the capital inside the country speaks little of what gets to the workers. And if we talk communism, ALL of the capital is directly owned by the collective of workers. Which is not China.
As I said, protectionism may coexist or not coexist with communism, as it can with any other economic system.
If you're serious about equating protectionism and communism, you should probably be happy with the way things were done in the Third Reich.
You should seriously reconsider the terms you employ, and read the classics more thoroughly. Also, open the goddamn Wikipedia if you're too lazy for that.
Communism does not necessitate self-sufficiency, moreover, a switch to fully domestic production is detrimental to any economy. The reason modern economy is globalized is that it's simply more efficient, and capitalist economies are all about efficiency, as it allows to extract more value. At the same time, many past socialist economies were forced to only partner with other socialist economies, which limited their options and hurt their economy.
One of the key reasons communist classics called for a global revolution is to gain the critical mass of communism-aligned countries to minimize this effect and maximize globalization efforts. The communist endgame is one interconnected world without any nations to begin with, not to mention any protectionism.
I think that behind those "oh, it's 30 years old" people miss one thing:
350nm chips are perfectly alright for many things. Simple controllers, chips inside various appliances, even some of the simpler military tech can absolutely rely on those chips.
Not subbed, but thanking the author and hoping all those posts go there, outside of my view.
AI itself is a power that can be used for good, yet people focus on the wrong enemy: we should target corporate cancer that permeates and warps not only AI, but other technologies as well.
Fuck ChatGPT, Bard, Gemini, all that shit - Embrace HuggingFace and things it offers, and pay visit to the AI Horde - thanks our beloved db0 for the reference!
Fuck companies that try to bake in their proprietary models into their operating systems, search engines, you name it, to lead people to adopt the wrong kind of technology - Embrace GPT4All and make it your choice to use open-source, controlled models on your machine.
By sharing general fears of AI as a technology, you play straight into the hands of the likes of Altman, who then turns those fears into reasons to make it a walled garden and shove even more of that shit down your throats.
We should not aim to fuck AI, we should aim for AI not being used as a weapon against us or pushed to where we don't want it to be. Strive for control over the technology that will undoubtedly change our futures.
Covid itself is known to fuck with the body in a wide range of ways, creating severe long-term consequences for many. We know it's true, and we know covid has way more lasting side effects than vaccines do.
What is the guarantee it doesn't cause something very bad to you down the road? Maybe even something we don't know yet? COVID-19 is not perfectly studied, and what is studied tells us it absolutely can cause problems down the road.
It's also not safer by the virtue of being "natural" - viruses are essentially pieces of randomly changing encapsulated code injected into our bodies and reprogramming our cells. It could be anything, and I mean that.
Pfizer vaccine (or pretty much any approved covid vaccine for that matter) has little known side effects and is not expected to cause much more going forward.
From all the data we have now, vaccinating is a better pick both right now AND against future consequences.
Also, due to the fast pace of viral mutations, the vaccine will probably be completely useless in the 30 years you suggest.
Cryptocurrency is a useful technology that has some real-world use cases - for example, living in Russia, I use it to circumvent sanctions to donate to some of the crypto-friendly creators, pay for a VPS abroad, and I keep calm knowing I can transfer money to my relatives abroad.
However, it is obviously not the answer to how we should build the financial system. The problem is not environment, actually - many Proof-of-Stake blockchains allow to transfer crypto with minimal environmental impact - but the poor on-chain regulation (including taxation, too) and potentially excessive infrastructure, as well as little protections against malicious and fraudulent actors.
Besides, inability to control emission, while helping maintain the value of the currency over the long run, also means that many interventions that can save economy in a crisis are simply not available. And a deflationary nature is known to cause bubbles.
Yes, but that was caused by other factors, while deflationary policy directly leads to them as it punishes spending, but rewards accumulation. As a result, everyone sits on a pile of cash, and they either don't spend it, like, ever, grinding economy to a halt, or start buying, strongly depreciating the currency and forming a death spiral.
Absolutely!
Inflation has to be lower, that's for sure.
I'd even argue that the need for inflation is more of a feature of a capitalist economy.
Having to force spending/investment is only important as long as the very economy is built around overconsumption and private investment.
We can absolutely live with a more or less stable currency if we focus on sustainability and put the people first. Money should return to be the means to just get what we need, and we should stop building the economy around creating artificial demand.
Yes, but universal basic income instead of universal healthcare has two issues as well:
You may not be able to afford expensive healthcare procedures, which may result in all ranges of bad consequences, from lost productivity to death. In either case, there's a big chance society loses a productive worker for no good reason, and for the person who couldn't get healthcare it's obviously super bad, too. All while this expense would be returned in the economy many times over if the person got recovered and continued working, and the person in question could keep living a fulfilling life.
Relying on private healthcare institutions means falling victim to the price-inefficient businesses, as a lot of your money goes to cover profits of the healthcare organization. When there is no public alternative, prices go through the roof. Even in the US, where there is some government oversight but no full-scale universal healthcare system, the prices for healthcare are insane. Thereby, you either have to hand people a fat UBI check and constantly increase it as companies drive up their appetites, putting more strain on the system than universal healthcare ever could, or let people not have decent healthcare, or control the healthcare institutions (which is not super libertarian), all while living with a reality that many people will not think of their medical needs or will genuinely have other strong priorities and will put money to something else, ending up shooting themselves - and the economy - in the foot.
I often hear criticisms of some "committee" deciding whether you're gonna get healthcare or not, like here. In an alternative when it is ruled by money, it's how much you earn that decides it. Someone in a critical condition might not receive help simply because they are poor. Someone will always be cut off, and it'd better be someone who needs the help the least or requires too much resources to help that could be better spent saving more people.
This is constantly ommitted by the haters of planned systems, which I think is very unjust.
Linux market share passes 4% for first time; macOS dominance declines ( arstechnica.com )
I know this might be a couple months old, but I didn't know we already passed 4%.
Online shop selling USED TAMPONS to strangers: 'Lucrative business'. ( au.news.yahoo.com )
Too bad I'm in menopause.
The new Chinese owner of the popular Polyfill JS project injects malware into more than 100 thousand sites ( sansec.io )
Archived link...
"Soundblaster" was such an 80s/90s name for a computer part. ( lemmy.world )
New Study: At Least 15% of All Reddit Content is Corporate Trolls Trying to Manipulate Public Opinion ( medium.com )
Mozilla roll out first AI features in Firefox Nightly ( blog.mozilla.org )
What do you think the Great Filter is?
The Great Filter is the idea that, in the development of life from the earliest stages of abiogenesis to reaching the highest levels of development on the Kardashev scale, there is a barrier to development that makes detectable extraterrestrial life exceedingly rare. The Great Filter is one possible resolution of the Fermi...
Shower thoughts are wasting water.
My city is in the middle of the worst drought in recorded history. My showers are typically under 2 minutes and I have to shower with a bucket to catch otherwise wasted water to use to flush the toilet. I also shut the water down when I am wet enough so I can scrub myself without having unneeded water flowing then start it...
Have you got any weird questions for the opposite gender?
That's it
What Will Life Really Be Like After The Internet Gets Incinerated? ( tomcox.substack.com )
YSK: lemmy.ml is managed by tankies, and lead lemmy developer is a tankie
Lead Lemmy Developer, Dessalines, denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre and praising the Uyghur Genocide...
Fudging rolls is the path to the dark side... ( startrek.website )
Russia Says It's Assembled a Lithography Machine, Will Make 350nm Chips Soon ( www.extremetech.com )
[email protected] to centralize negative news about AI
!fuck_ai
‘They call us Nazis’: inside the wealthy German town where the far right is on the rise ( www.theguardian.com )
Counter rallies in Kaufbeuren show split between supporters of AfD and locals who acknowledge the Bavarian town’s Nazi past...
‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice ( www.theguardian.com )
Thousands of children could die after court backs campaign group over GM crop in Philippines, scientists warn...
Scarlett Johansson denied OpenAI the right to use her voice. They used it anyway. ( boingboing.net )
Linux Inventor Says He Doesn’t Believe in Crypto ( u.today )
Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, does not believe in cryptocurrencies, calling them a vehicle for scams and a Ponzi scheme....
They don't make 'em like this anymore ( lemmy.today )
Useless red circle, I know, but in my defense I didn’t put it there, it was already like this when I found it.
If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.