Yeah, one more again: About how Vail, Courchevel (well, 1850) and Whistler would still certainly not be off my Advised list… This.
OK, and others. Indeed, mostly to the right, but there’s choice Advised sites to the left as well.
Oh just a final note: this. On paleofutures…
Bit like this but going much further back.
Ryou serious ..? One does not simply … What about the Dos Equis Man ..? I don’t often call something over the hill, but when I do …
But just about then, the Humint meme turned up. And of course this here (#3!) and scores of similar sites, remain ‘healthy’. May memes even remain one of the mainstays of Imgur. Am I feeling like an awkward penguin now ..?
Nope. Point still stands. Other than (high?)school kids of a certain age and subsubcultural denomination, not many are even aware there was such a phenomenon as memes – in the way portrayed here the other massively more general kind of course prevails almost totalitarianly completely over all of the worlds’ culture(s)..!
[Edited to add:] Dammit Atlantic! I drafted-scheduled this post 2 days ago and now you come with this ..? Though it doesn’t go nearly as far as the above… ;-]
Oh well. And:
[Typical display (of typicality of …, ad infinitum), V&A]
For ten points (each), please comment on the following ideas re arguments in a proper (?) debate [after the pictural intermission]:
- Is this picture correct, in your opinion?
- At what layer does your comment on the previous question sit in the picture?
- Does the picture portray the debasement of your arguments, when you have none (left) at some higher level, to a lower level to try (ex ante in vein due to the debasement) to still try to win an argument?
- Would one’s inability to remain at the upper levels (allowing Quintilianus‘ essential remarks and tactics, i.e., allowing well-controlled level variation) or one’s inability to partake there in the first place, be an indication of allowance to (be!) shut up? As in this.
- Given chatbots’ ability to process comments at much higher than human, sufficient, speeds, could they intervene to silence, as above?
- How would AI tools have to develop to play a role in that, given the necessity to understand far- and wide-reaching contextual awareness, understanding of historical perspectives, puns of all sorts, etc.?
- How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to capture societal, history and slang development?
- How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to prevent it/them from slipping down the slope it/themselfves? [As here and here, to name just a few of the big ones’ misses, no to mention the great flood of chatbots that aren’t called out yet for the same and/or worse]
- How would that AI have to be trained, and continuous-learning-maintained, to prevent it from becoming the Central Scrutiniser, or Skynet ..!?
Take into account we all want a free society (plural or global), and censorship of any kind runs against that unless applied diligently against flames, threats etc. on social media where the purpose seems to be one-upmanship among … [friends ..!?] and absolute fear of death by utter remain of anonymity regardless of the damage inflicted, where only the most retarded (furthest away from actual contribution) ‘win’ the battle for worst comment, thus ensuring their incredible unremarkability on the world stage [they’re not even anything near the stage, on another planet rather… If only they were] to continue. But when comment(or)s are overly easily branded that way, stifling of sane political discussion is ’round the corner.
Asking this for a friend. All answers need to be supplied with ample valid argument. Cartoons may be used. Comments on the author will be treated as indicated above, or worse. Much worse. Do not I repeat do not bet on it / your cunning. A picture to relax:
[Sturdy XOR attention-seeking pink; your choice. London, a couple of years ago and not really downtown or is it ..?]
After a good receipt of this, I kept on receiving nudge-pointers about a related issue. Being, that so many are, have become, control freaks. Micro-managers with such enormous blind spots, blinkers/blinders.
With a thesis developing that this is caused by sheer frustration of not being able to shake off the being controlled. Since individualism, the societal buddy of pure neo-capitalism the fascist kind intertwined with consumerism and the blow-out of traditional social group cohesion(s), demands we are Free. Or so. And find ourselves [well, not me] still tied up tight in (whether private or public) corporate dictats. Having to let off all the steam, it explodes (short of detonation) through the escape vent of downward bullying – in perception from all sides.
Hope I’m overstating this. But a fuzzy-logic sort of partial acceptance of the point only, will point the point towards resolution of at least one contributing part of the stifle that is so rife in modern (not) organisations. Capice? Capisco..?
[Apparently not when this of course is Dyon.]
Somehow, the many (?) Cassandra’s messages of late about Bitcoin being a hyped-up bubble about to burst and how it’s the laggerds (only) that now want to jump in, drive up prices but will be the Greater Fools in the game, sounds a bit … false bottom.
[Unsure what the exchange rate is, today. Has the bubble burst already, or ..?]
I’d say, how many countries, and moreover how great a many financial organisations (private or public, or regulatory or inter/supranational) may have an interest to blow up Bitcoin, as a demonstrator that all that blockchain stuff isn’t any good after all ..? Because the promise of blockchain was, and is, that it will not need any, traditionally somehow still geography-bound, standing governing body avalanched-under by politics, gross misunderstanding of the core concepts ruled over, etc. In short, power struggles.
And that, of course, may be a future that some will not allow. And fight to their deaths – inevitably, not by nature but by cause and earlier. But still they simply won’t have it, that blockchain/Bitcoin/smart-contract/whatevva shazam. With the only way to get rid of it in an inconspicuous manner, is to … inflate it till it goes borsht. Risk, but possibly profit hugely during the trip ..? Case in point: this one [hope the link is still valid, and it’s in Dutch which may mix semantic levels to be tauto]
[You get a golden bullet-like thing on your pillow. With compliments and filled with chocolate, that is… In Salzburg of course]
Today being the day of the real Sinterklaas (as here), we also learn (not!) to cherish the small gifts. As in this effect, but otherwise. [That sounds weird…]
But the effect is too, all the same. And so ubiquitous that we may even lose sensitivity towards, or against [here we go again] it. And that is a problem. Because darn, how can we even think to train AI in rational business decision making, when all learning examples, and/or actual practical deployment, will be tainted / rife with such irrational biases? We so commonly swipe, shuffle them softly, under the rug that here we have such an AI-applicability-wrecking issue that we hear so much about lately. [No you don’t, compared to what would be enough, hardly anything at all…]
Another example of knowing your classics, eh? Oh well. Plus:
[Noooo, not those classics again! Saltzb’]
And you thought fraud detection was about bank transactions or even counterfeiting physical stuff. Boh-ring, when you read this. Takes it to another level, eh?
Which brings me to an important issue: Are we not still studying and practising infosec from the wrong angle, doing a middle-out sort of development in many directions but starting at a very mundane ‘CIA’ sort of point. Which is of course core, but there is so much to cover that some outside-onto view(point) might be beneficial. We’re in the thick of the fight, and no matter in which direction you go, when you wade through the thicket with your control measures machete, you achieve little – when you then turn around to try to clear some area in another direction, all has grown dense with state-of-the-art arms’ race bush again already.
And yes, of course one can educate, etc. in some form of hierarchical approach, top-down. But that leaves us with many, all too many that float comfortably on the canopy where the view … isn’t that great as one’s very certainly in thick fog of the monsoon rain. And nothing is being directed (ugch) deeper down. Or controlled (?). Just more, most partial world views unconnected and behaving erratically.
The e.g. in this is that link above. A tiny subset of situational scenario. Not solved pervasively, once and for all. Now think about the hugely, vastly, enormously wider scope of ‘all’ of infosec that would need to be covered to a. arrive at sub-universes of control, b. overview.
The latter remains Open.
Me not happy.
Solutions, anyone ..?
[Ah! The days when this sort of ‘defence’ was enough to conquer! Alésie of course]
You get that. Since Verify → ¬Trust. When you verify, you engender the loss of trust. And since Trust is a two-way street (either both sides trust each other, or one will loose initial trust and both will end up in distrust), verification leads to distrust all around – linked to individualism and experience [we’re on the slope to less-than-formal-logic semantics here] this will result in fear all around. And Michael Porter’s two books, not to mention Ulrich Beck in his important one. So, if you’d still come across any type that hoots ‘Trust, but verify’, you know you’ve met him.
Since the above is so dense I’ll lighten up a bit with:
Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly. (George Raft)
Which is exactly the sort of response we need against the totalitarian bureaucracy (i.e., complete dehumanisation of totalitarian control – which approaches a pleonasm) that the world is sliding into. Where previously, humanity had escapes, like emigrating to lands far far away, but that option is no more. Hopefully, ASI will come in time to not be coopted by the One Superpower but then, two avenues remain: a. ASI itself is worse, and undoes humanity for its stubborn stupidity and malevolence (the latter two being a fact); b. ASI will bring the eternal Elyseum.
Why would it b. ..?
And if it doesn’t arrive in time, a. will prevail since the inner circle will shrink asymptotically which is unsustainable biologically.
Anyway, on this bleak note I’ll leave you with:
[Escape from the bureacrats; you-know-where]
Recently, Jamie Bartlett posted an excellent analysis of the probability of the return of the nation state of the future of the planet. If only to have so many ‘of the’s in a row.
Yes another one on the future of nation-states, now not from a bottom-up perspective but from an overall view.
The case is strong in that piece. But then, I had been having recurring … thoughts, about the evaporation of the legitimacy of the nation-state as well. Where my subconscious hinted, it was no clearer, that there was, and certainly is, a place in the discussions for on the one hand, Bruce Schneier’s ideas about sizes of societies and the rules one would need to organise them (which may read like a circular argument, I know), and on the other, various well-received (e.g., this) and hardly rejectable works on how we still roam the savannahs of today – at least in mind when operating in myriads of Sloterdijk’ian spheres (op.cit. in particular pp. 408–). And how e.g., cosmo- and anthropogenesis in religious books can be interpreted both as a coming of age of the well-developed human and ditto mind(s), indeed including the formation of societies and their rationale(s).
By which I mean that somehow, we indeed still have many traces of hunter-gatherer ethics deep down in our systems, now with a varnish of ‘development’ (quod non) into farmer/city-centered civilians, currently being thrusted in (evolutionary) asymptotically zero time past neoliberal capitalist/consumerist ego-only’ism into the frenzy of ‘tomorrow’ i.e., the post-singularity ASI age.
Shouldn’t we try to figure out some model of societal organisation that takes into account our heritage, and now that “we” have become sophisticated enough thinkers to finally see (macro-mass introspection-like) how we meddled along in the past from attempt to attempt, we now are also sophisticated enough to design our own macro-history future ..?
OK, that’s deep. In a way. In another:
[Whatever. This is what society wants … bread and circuses (squares?); NY]