https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742

An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
program are now being debated.

.. . .

Gee ... what a big surprise !!!

Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
but they don't cover getting the same and more data
INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:

> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742
>
> An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
> of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
> that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
> by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
> program are now being debated.
>
> . . .
>
> Gee ... what a big surprise !!!
>
> Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
> but they don't cover getting the same and more data
> INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.
>

Of course! After Snowden and Assange, none of this should come as a
surprise to anyone.

Oh, and don't forget my favourite work around! Illegal to spy on US
citizens, so instead, just ask a foreign secret organization to do the
spying for you and your hands are clean! ;)

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:55:32 -0500, "61h.1601" <61h.1602@e3t2w.net> wrote:

>https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742
>
>An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
>of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
>that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
>by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
>program are now being debated.
>
>. . .
>
> Gee ... what a big surprise !!!
>
> Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
> but they don't cover getting the same and more data
> INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.

The Constitution protects us from government. It does NOT protect us from each other,
including from private companies.

Swill
--
Trump and the DoJ

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2024/01/18

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I can still hear you!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:

> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
> being debated.

Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).

On 2/29/24 3:16 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:
>
>> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742
>>
>>
>> An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
>> of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
>> that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
>> by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
>> program are now being debated.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>>  Gee ... what a big surprise !!!
>>
>>  Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
>>  but they don't cover getting the same and more data
>>  INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.
>>
>
> Of course! After Snowden and Assange, none of this should come as a
> surprise to anyone.
>
> Oh, and don't forget my favourite work around! Illegal to spy on US
> citizens, so instead, just ask a foreign secret organization to do the
> spying for you and your hands are clean! ;)

That works - absolutely.

However there's just a certain poetry in using taxpayer
money to buy dirt on the taxpayers, isn't there ? :-)

Between M$ and Goog, everything that's done with their
apps or goes through their systems, it'd be possible to
build up a very detailed profile. Used to be that you'd
have to target an individual or group, but NOW with all
the computing/database/AI capability, it kinda IS very
possible to watch all of the people all of the time and
rely on the AIs to red-flag targets of "special interest".
Kinda the Stasi utopian dream.

Phone GPS also makes it possible to build association
maps ... do the same five people tend to be at the same
place at the same time every tuesday ... which, of
course, proves your bowling league are all drug dealers.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:

> On 2/29/24 3:16 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742
>>>
>>> An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
>>> of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
>>> that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
>>> by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
>>> program are now being debated.
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>>  Gee ... what a big surprise !!!
>>>
>>>  Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
>>>  but they don't cover getting the same and more data
>>>  INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.
>>>
>>
>> Of course! After Snowden and Assange, none of this should come as a
>> surprise to anyone.
>>
>> Oh, and don't forget my favourite work around! Illegal to spy on US
>> citizens, so instead, just ask a foreign secret organization to do the
>> spying for you and your hands are clean! ;)
>
>
> That works - absolutely.
>
> However there's just a certain poetry in using taxpayer
> money to buy dirt on the taxpayers, isn't there ? :-)
>
> Between M$ and Goog, everything that's done with their
> apps or goes through their systems, it'd be possible to
> build up a very detailed profile. Used to be that you'd
> have to target an individual or group, but NOW with all
> the computing/database/AI capability, it kinda IS very
> possible to watch all of the people all of the time and
> rely on the AIs to red-flag targets of "special interest".
> Kinda the Stasi utopian dream.
>
> Phone GPS also makes it possible to build association
> maps ... do the same five people tend to be at the same
> place at the same time every tuesday ... which, of
> course, proves your bowling league are all drug dealers.
>

For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the end of
the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need someone to enforce
a decision made. So regardless of how much surveillance you have, when the
amount of unwanted people grows, the nr of enforcers grow. And when the nr
of unwated grow and the nr of enforcers grow, the productive capability of
society decreases, and if it becomes too bad, the society will starve and
the leaders will be rejected.

Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.

But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power disturbs
the information flow that comes to them, and they start to make worse and
worse decisions until they are killed or until a revolution occurs.

The problem is that it is very difficult to predict how long time will
pass before that happens.

On 2/29/24 4:05 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/24 3:16 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742
>>>>
>>>> An opaque network of government contractors is peddling troves
>>>> of data, a legal but shadowy use of American citizens’ information
>>>> that troubles even some of the officials involved. And attempts
>>>> by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance
>>>> program are now being debated.
>>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>  Gee ... what a big surprise !!!
>>>>
>>>>  Laws may prevent BB from some kinds of spying DIRECTLY,
>>>>  but they don't cover getting the same and more data
>>>>  INDIRECTLY ... ie just BUYING it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course! After Snowden and Assange, none of this should come as a
>>> surprise to anyone.
>>>
>>> Oh, and don't forget my favourite work around! Illegal to spy on US
>>> citizens, so instead, just ask a foreign secret organization to do
>>> the spying for you and your hands are clean! ;)
>>
>>
>>  That works - absolutely.
>>
>>  However there's just a certain poetry in using taxpayer
>>  money to buy dirt on the taxpayers, isn't there ?  :-)
>>
>>  Between M$ and Goog, everything that's done with their
>>  apps or goes through their systems, it'd be possible to
>>  build up a very detailed profile. Used to be that you'd
>>  have to target an individual or group, but NOW with all
>>  the computing/database/AI capability, it kinda IS very
>>  possible to watch all of the people all of the time and
>>  rely on the AIs to red-flag targets of "special interest".
>>  Kinda the Stasi utopian dream.
>>
>>  Phone GPS also makes it possible to build association
>>  maps ... do the same five people tend to be at the same
>>  place at the same time every tuesday ... which, of
>>  course, proves your bowling league are all drug dealers.
>>
>
> For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the end
> of the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need someone to
> enforce a decision made. So regardless of how much surveillance you
> have, when the amount of unwanted people grows, the nr of enforcers
> grow. And when the nr of unwated grow and the nr of enforcers grow, the
> productive capability of society decreases, and if it becomes too bad,
> the society will starve and the leaders will be rejected.
>
> Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.

The usual solution to a lack of thug-power is TERROR - have
them be just *terrible*. That spectre keeps the rest in line
as effectively as more thugs.

Oh, not immediately but eventually, "robo-cops".

> But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power
> disturbs the information flow that comes to them, and they start to make
> worse and worse decisions until they are killed or until a revolution
> occurs.

Stalin and Castro and the previous Kims hung in there
just fine - so don't count on miracles. All DID get
more and more paranoid over time though, the harder
they grasp power the more enemies they make and as
the years go on ......

> The problem is that it is very difficult to predict how long time will
> pass before that happens.

N.K. is on Gen-3 of Kims. The power of the UK monarchy has
steadily diminished but it wasn't always that way and some
of those dynasties ... HOW many Henry's ???

Piss-ant Fearless Leaders come and go, but SOME actually
study and cultivate the fine details, the Means Of Power.

Modern tech, the cybersurveillance state, can potentially
thwart all revolutions and spot back-stabbers. They'll know
you're a problem case even before you do based on your
personality/behavioral profiles.

>> For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the end of
>> the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need someone to enforce
>> a decision made. So regardless of how much surveillance you have, when the
>> amount of unwanted people grows, the nr of enforcers grow. And when the nr
>> of unwated grow and the nr of enforcers grow, the productive capability of
>> society decreases, and if it becomes too bad, the society will starve and
>> the leaders will be rejected.
>>
>> Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.
>
>
> The usual solution to a lack of thug-power is TERROR - have
> them be just *terrible*. That spectre keeps the rest in line
> as effectively as more thugs.
>
> Oh, not immediately but eventually, "robo-cops".

This is true! If we imagine a dystopian future world á la The Matrix
with strong AGI and robots, then yes, this argument does not hold. It
only holds for humans living in a world with scarce resources where
markets and production is still necessary.

I do think though, that a potential matrix world is many 100s of years
away at least, given our current low level of technology.

>> But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power disturbs
>> the information flow that comes to them, and they start to make worse and
>> worse decisions until they are killed or until a revolution occurs.
>
> Stalin and Castro and the previous Kims hung in there
> just fine - so don't count on miracles. All DID get
> more and more paranoid over time though, the harder
> they grasp power the more enemies they make and as
> the years go on ......

Those are 3. Now contrast that with the nr of dictators who were killed,
died, replaced, lost their grip on power throughout modern history, and you'llö
find those in the minority.

Democracies are increasing over time (although, to be fair, the past 10
or 20 years they have been decreasing, but I am convinced that it is not
a straight line but a fluctuating one throughout history).

I'm convinced that I'll see Russia fall and become some form of
democracy within the next 50 years. Maybe not the russia of today, but I
think at least western russian, and perhaps will have some small
kingdoms in eastern russia with local war lords.

I think china will open up more, once the next generation of leaders
take over. Their economy is now suffering due to Xis paranoia and he
will be dead in 20 years or so.

Should china experience a severe economic crisis, not completely
unlikely, Xi will be out, or if he manages to cling to power, the
country will regress and no longer be a global player but consumed with
internal problems.

>> The problem is that it is very difficult to predict how long time will pass
>> before that happens.
>
> N.K. is on Gen-3 of Kims. The power of the UK monarchy has
> steadily diminished but it wasn't always that way and some
> of those dynasties ... HOW many Henry's ???

As for the three, I think they are exceptions.

> Piss-ant Fearless Leaders come and go, but SOME actually
> study and cultivate the fine details, the Means Of Power.

This is true. I'd argue that the most successful authoritarian is the
clan that rules Singapore. Even westeners flock to Singapore and praise
it, despite it being authoritarian under the democratic facade.

I wonder if you could also add Liechtenstein to the list? They have a
democratic facade, but the prince has the right to select politicians
and dismiss them _I think_ (not sure).

> Modern tech, the cybersurveillance state, can potentially
> thwart all revolutions and spot back-stabbers. They'll know
> you're a problem case even before you do based on your
> personality/behavioral profiles.

Here I disagree. In the short run, yes. But as per my argument, if the
opposition grows too big, as long as you don't have robots, the state
will collapse, since enforcing still requires the human touch.

On 3/1/24 4:37 AM, D wrote:
>
>
>>> For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the
>>> end of the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need
>>> someone to enforce a decision made. So regardless of how much
>>> surveillance you have, when the amount of unwanted people grows, the
>>> nr of enforcers grow. And when the nr of unwated grow and the nr of
>>> enforcers grow, the productive capability of society decreases, and
>>> if it becomes too bad, the society will starve and the leaders will
>>> be rejected.
>>>
>>> Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.
>>
>>
>>  The usual solution to a lack of thug-power is TERROR - have
>>  them be just *terrible*. That spectre keeps the rest in line
>>  as effectively as more thugs.
>>
>>  Oh, not immediately but eventually, "robo-cops".
>
> This is true! If we imagine a dystopian future world á la The Matrix
> with strong AGI and robots, then yes, this argument does not hold. It
> only holds for humans living in a world with scarce resources where
> markets and production is still necessary.
>
> I do think though, that a potential matrix world is many 100s of years
> away at least, given our current low level of technology.

Consider the likely trajectory of "AI" even in near its
present limited form. More and more humans disemployed,
obsolete. Now here's the gotcha - broke humans cannot
BUY even those AI-cheapened products. They all wind up
on some kind of 'welfare', barely barely getting by.

The EFFECT, for them, is the same as if there was a
shortage of products. Thus, an Evil State has many
ways of terrorizing those masses - from threats of
further deprivation to gross fear of state thugs for
which they have no real legal remedy. They become
like the old serfs, powerless and disposable.

>>> But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power
>>> disturbs the information flow that comes to them, and they start to
>>> make worse and worse decisions until they are killed or until a
>>> revolution occurs.
>>
>>  Stalin and Castro and the previous Kims hung in there
>>  just fine - so don't count on miracles. All DID get
>>  more and more paranoid over time though, the harder
>>  they grasp power the more enemies they make and as
>>  the years go on ......
>
> Those are 3. Now contrast that with the nr of dictators who were killed,
> died, replaced, lost their grip on power throughout modern history, and
> you'llö
> find those in the minority.
>
> Democracies are increasing over time (although, to be fair, the past 10
> or 20 years they have been decreasing, but I am convinced that it is not
> a straight line but a fluctuating one throughout history).

Plato knew that 'democracies' were defective. 'Republics' were
an attempt at fixing democracy by partially concentrating power.
Alas, I think this only DELAYS the flaws of democracy. Either
they become too sensitive to every public whim (the MSM and
polling have amplified that) or increasingly "strong men"
undermine the function of the reps/bureaucracy in order to
"get things done" (to public cheers).

> I'm convinced that I'll see Russia fall and become some form of
> democracy within the next 50 years. Maybe not the russia of today, but I
> think at least western russian, and perhaps will have some small
> kingdoms in eastern russia with local war lords.

Russia ? No. It's a cultural thing. They WANT a "strong man",
someone who can wave his hand and make things happen. There
will always be a czar or a Stalin or a Putin - for at least
the next century IMHO.

> I think china will open up more, once the next generation of leaders
> take over. Their economy is now suffering due to Xis paranoia and he
> will be dead in 20 years or so.

I'm hoping he'll get a bowl of bad soup or something ...

It is more difficult for me to get a feel for China, the
culture and all the little things are too alien. It is
an entirely different historical/philosophical environment
from anything 'western'. Alas, over-empowered leaders
ARE part of that even though the underlying reasons are
culturally unique.

> Should china experience a severe economic crisis, not completely
> unlikely, Xi will be out, or if he manages to cling to power, the
> country will regress and no longer be a global player but consumed with
> internal problems.

Economic implosion IS possible. Where China has put its
investments ... not SO much different from Japan in the
70s/80s. China is over-leveraged, and REQUIRES high and
quick pay-offs. They're not really getting that right
now. Also, the more rural provinces have never been down
with Beijing ... separatist movements could increase.

>>> The problem is that it is very difficult to predict how long time
>>> will pass before that happens.
>>
>>  N.K. is on Gen-3 of Kims. The power of the UK monarchy has
>>  steadily diminished but it wasn't always that way and some
>>  of those dynasties ... HOW many Henry's ???
>
> As for the three, I think they are exceptions.
>
>>  Piss-ant Fearless Leaders come and go, but SOME actually
>>  study and cultivate the fine details, the Means Of Power.
>
> This is true. I'd argue that the most successful authoritarian is the
> clan that rules Singapore. Even westeners flock to Singapore and praise
> it, despite it being authoritarian under the democratic facade.

It is VERY rigid by all accounts. They make it look like
DisneyLand, but everyone there is paying the E-ticket costs.

> I wonder if you could also add Liechtenstein to the list? They have a
> democratic facade, but the prince has the right to select politicians
> and dismiss them _I think_ (not sure).

Also not sure - but it's main product seems to be pretty
postage stamps, so who cares ? :-)

>>  Modern tech, the cybersurveillance state, can potentially
>>  thwart all revolutions and spot back-stabbers. They'll know
>>  you're a problem case even before you do based on your
>>  personality/behavioral profiles.
>
> Here I disagree. In the short run, yes. But as per my argument, if the
> opposition grows too big, as long as you don't have robots, the state
> will collapse, since enforcing still requires the human touch.

We shall, unfortunately, see - sooner than we'd like.

IMHO, there usually will be enough man/bot-power to terrorize
or disappear infidels. It is also possible to do what the
Stasi did and frighten some into ratting-out many. The NAZIs
hit upon a good plan by recruiting the "bottom rung", the
people who always got shat upon, and giving them Real Power.
They usually went hawg-wild on any possible 'enemy' because
both loyalty to their empowerers AND revenge motivated.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:

> On 3/1/24 4:37 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the end of
>>>> the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need someone to
>>>> enforce a decision made. So regardless of how much surveillance you have,
>>>> when the amount of unwanted people grows, the nr of enforcers grow. And
>>>> when the nr of unwated grow and the nr of enforcers grow, the productive
>>>> capability of society decreases, and if it becomes too bad, the society
>>>> will starve and the leaders will be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The usual solution to a lack of thug-power is TERROR - have
>>>  them be just *terrible*. That spectre keeps the rest in line
>>>  as effectively as more thugs.
>>>
>>>  Oh, not immediately but eventually, "robo-cops".
>>
>> This is true! If we imagine a dystopian future world á la The Matrix
>> with strong AGI and robots, then yes, this argument does not hold. It
>> only holds for humans living in a world with scarce resources where
>> markets and production is still necessary.
>>
>> I do think though, that a potential matrix world is many 100s of years
>> away at least, given our current low level of technology.
>
>
> Consider the likely trajectory of "AI" even in near its
> present limited form. More and more humans disemployed,
> obsolete. Now here's the gotcha - broke humans cannot
> BUY even those AI-cheapened products. They all wind up
> on some kind of 'welfare', barely barely getting by.

This is an old story that has been replayed every time in history when a
new technology appeared. When the refrigerator came, ice carriers were
threatened, when the car came, it was the horse industry and drivers, when
factories came, it was all the people who made goods by hand etc. And
today, it's AI.

And what happened since the factories and industrialization? Humanity has
increased to 8 billion people, and we are richer than we have ever been,
infant mortality globally is at its lowest level it has ever been.

If you want a long read, exploring this in detail, I recommend Johan
Norbergs book The Capitalist Manifesto.

So what about AI?

First of all, what we have now is a toy. But for some niche areas it will
make things more effective, it will free up some people from mundane jobs,
and make some programmers faster.

This will translate into cheaper goods and service. And like the horse
drivers, these people also, will re-educate and find new jobs.

But what about god like AI?

Rest assured, and if we were to get god like AI, first of all, prices will
go down to zero and we will end up in a post scarcity world. How can
people afford it? Solar power is free, robots will do all the work.

So what will people do?

We can of course only speculate, but some suggestions are:

* Science
* Art
* Crafts (human made things will carry a premium over the cheap AI made
things)
* Philosophy
* Sport
* Family and friends
* Space exploration

We will be freed from the need to produce things to stay alive and will be
able to enjoy life. For people who crave challenges there will be sports
and politics. For people wro crave producing things, there will be crats,
intellectuals can still do science and philosophy (well, depending on how
god like the AI is in our thought experiment).

So based on the above, AI will be hugely beneficient for mankind and not
at all the catastrophy Marxist economists proclaim it will be.

> The EFFECT, for them, is the same as if there was a
> shortage of products. Thus, an Evil State has many
> ways of terrorizing those masses - from threats of
> further deprivation to gross fear of state thugs for
> which they have no real legal remedy. They become
> like the old serfs, powerless and disposable.

Au contraire, price of goods will approach zero with god like AI.

>>>> But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power
>>>> disturbs the information flow that comes to them, and they start to make
>>>> worse and worse decisions until they are killed or until a revolution
>>>> occurs.
>>>
>>>  Stalin and Castro and the previous Kims hung in there
>>>  just fine - so don't count on miracles. All DID get
>>>  more and more paranoid over time though, the harder
>>>  they grasp power the more enemies they make and as
>>>  the years go on ......
>>
>> Those are 3. Now contrast that with the nr of dictators who were killed,
>> died, replaced, lost their grip on power throughout modern history, and
>> you'llö
>> find those in the minority.
>>
>> Democracies are increasing over time (although, to be fair, the past 10
>> or 20 years they have been decreasing, but I am convinced that it is not
>> a straight line but a fluctuating one throughout history).
>
> Plato knew that 'democracies' were defective. 'Republics' were
> an attempt at fixing democracy by partially concentrating power.
> Alas, I think this only DELAYS the flaws of democracy. Either
> they become too sensitive to every public whim (the MSM and
> polling have amplified that) or increasingly "strong men"
> undermine the function of the reps/bureaucracy in order to
> "get things done" (to public cheers).

Not quite, Plato speculated and he lived about 2400 years ago. But, here I
agree. Democracy is flawed. It was designed to work in a greek city state
and it does not scale to todays societies of millions and billions.

Democracy works to the extent that it gives us in the west a luxurious
lifestyle compared with what was, especially coupled with capitalism.

But it seems these lessons are forgotten, and I agree that democracy has
flaws.

From a utopian point of view I am an anarcho capitalist, and I believe
this is the next stage in human development.

>> I'm convinced that I'll see Russia fall and become some form of
>> democracy within the next 50 years. Maybe not the russia of today, but I
>> think at least western russian, and perhaps will have some small
>> kingdoms in eastern russia with local war lords.
>
>
> Russia ? No. It's a cultural thing. They WANT a "strong man",
> someone who can wave his hand and make things happen. There
> will always be a czar or a Stalin or a Putin - for at least
> the next century IMHO.
>

Culture can change. Culture will, in fact change, over time or else we
would all behave like cave men. Culture is not a fixed, unchangeable
thing, and that goes for russia as well. Culture, however, doesn't change
quickly. It takes a shock to make culture change quickly like the national
humiliation of germany after WW2. I believe something similar needs to
take place in russia, a kind of national humiliation where they face the
horrors of ukraine in order to make them change and realize that war is
destructive.

>> I think china will open up more, once the next generation of leaders
>> take over. Their economy is now suffering due to Xis paranoia and he
>> will be dead in 20 years or so.
>
> I'm hoping he'll get a bowl of bad soup or something ...

I'm sure many do. ;)

> It is more difficult for me to get a feel for China, the
> culture and all the little things are too alien. It is
> an entirely different historical/philosophical environment
> from anything 'western'. Alas, over-empowered leaders
> ARE part of that even though the underlying reasons are
> culturally unique.

Having done business with chinese I agree with an acquaintance. For being
a "communist country" I've never met such cut throat capitalists as
chinese. ;)

But china will follow the same rules as every other dictatorship.
Eventually they will fall as well. The only question is how many wars,
crises, loss of life etc. will need to happen before that happens.

>> Should china experience a severe economic crisis, not completely
>> unlikely, Xi will be out, or if he manages to cling to power, the
>> country will regress and no longer be a global player but consumed with
>> internal problems.
>
> Economic implosion IS possible. Where China has put its
> investments ... not SO much different from Japan in the
> 70s/80s. China is over-leveraged, and REQUIRES high and
> quick pay-offs. They're not really getting that right
> now. Also, the more rural provinces have never been down
> with Beijing ... separatist movements could increase.

Based on what I have heard from people who have travelled in china, things
are far worse than official figures show. Just look at their current real
estate implosion. Many regular chinese are very angry with the government
right now.

On 3/1/24 4:35 PM, D wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, 61h.1601 wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/24 4:37 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> For me, the small comforting fact (but it is small) is that at the
>>>>> end of the day, no matter how much AI you have, you still need
>>>>> someone to enforce a decision made. So regardless of how much
>>>>> surveillance you have, when the amount of unwanted people grows,
>>>>> the nr of enforcers grow. And when the nr of unwated grow and the
>>>>> nr of enforcers grow, the productive capability of society
>>>>> decreases, and if it becomes too bad, the society will starve and
>>>>> the leaders will be rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smart dictators know that, and try to find a balance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The usual solution to a lack of thug-power is TERROR - have
>>>>  them be just *terrible*. That spectre keeps the rest in line
>>>>  as effectively as more thugs.
>>>>
>>>>  Oh, not immediately but eventually, "robo-cops".
>>>
>>> This is true! If we imagine a dystopian future world á la The Matrix
>>> with strong AGI and robots, then yes, this argument does not hold. It
>>> only holds for humans living in a world with scarce resources where
>>> markets and production is still necessary.
>>>
>>> I do think though, that a potential matrix world is many 100s of years
>>> away at least, given our current low level of technology.
>>
>>
>>  Consider the likely trajectory of "AI" even in near its
>>  present limited form. More and more humans disemployed,
>>  obsolete. Now here's the gotcha - broke humans cannot
>>  BUY even those AI-cheapened products. They all wind up
>>  on some kind of 'welfare', barely barely getting by.
>
> This is an old story that has been replayed every time in history when a
> new technology appeared. When the refrigerator came, ice carriers were
> threatened, when the car came, it was the horse industry and drivers,
> when factories came, it was all the people who made goods by hand etc.
> And today, it's AI.

Note that many of those tech innovations appeared during
an ASCENDING manufacturing period. Lose one occupation
and a bunch of others appeared.

Ain't many "ascending" manufacturing/industrial economies
anymore - even China has big problems and India still can't
shake it's really weird 1st/3rd-world paradigm. So, some
tech screws you, you STAY screwed. "AI" is going to make
this much worse much more quickly. Biz knows it can save
costs by getting rid of the annoying humans - but biz tends
to have a short-term view ... survival is quarter-2-quarter.

> And what happened since the factories and industrialization? Humanity
> has increased to 8 billion people, and we are richer than we have ever
> been, infant mortality globally is at its lowest level it has ever been.
>
> If you want a long read, exploring this in detail, I recommend Johan
> Norbergs book The Capitalist Manifesto.
>
> So what about AI?
>
> First of all, what we have now is a toy. But for some niche areas it
> will make things more effective, it will free up some people from
> mundane jobs, and make some programmers faster.
>
> This will translate into cheaper goods and service. And like the horse
> drivers, these people also, will re-educate and find new jobs.

Won't be any - "AI" will do them better.

> But what about god like AI?
>
> Rest assured, and if we were to get god like AI, first of all, prices
> will go down to zero and we will end up in a post scarcity world. How
> can people afford it? Solar power is free, robots will do all the work.
>
> So what will people do?

Sorry, but people are gonna *die* - even from the
"toy" AI. It's an entirely different sort of economic
and I don't think you can get from here to robotopia
because of the abovementioned obsolete-consumer issue,
at least not nearly so fast as biz wants it to go.

>
> We can of course only speculate, but some suggestions are:
>
> * Science
> * Art
> * Crafts (human made things will carry a premium over the cheap AI made
> things)
> * Philosophy
> * Sport
> * Family and friends
> * Space exploration
>
> We will be freed from the need to produce things to stay alive and will
> be able to enjoy life. For people who crave challenges there will be
> sports and politics. For people wro crave producing things, there will
> be crats, intellectuals can still do science and philosophy (well,
> depending on how god like the AI is in our thought experiment).
>
> So based on the above, AI will be hugely beneficient for mankind and not
> at all the catastrophy Marxist economists proclaim it will be.
>
>>  The EFFECT, for them, is the same as if there was a
>>  shortage of products. Thus, an Evil State has many
>>  ways of terrorizing those masses - from threats of
>>  further deprivation to gross fear of state thugs for
>>  which they have no real legal remedy. They become
>>  like the old serfs, powerless and disposable.
>
> Au contraire, price of goods will approach zero with god like AI.

I see the VOLUME of goods approaching zero even with
not-so-godlike AI. The few elite will get custom-
made products, everybody else ... well ... what's the
point in them ? Keep cutting back the Soylent Green
ration until ......

Actual "god-like" AI ... a century+ of sci-fi (read
Capek's "R.U.R.") but it's all guessing. We always
ascribe human needs/motives/feelings to "AI" when
instead at the actual "consciousness" stage it will
be more alien than the proverbial little grey flying
saucer folks. Even at a relative IQ of a few thousand
we'd be naught but slime-mold to it. No 'evil' or
'malice' or 'ambition' required - it'd just pave
over us without a second thought.

I see an entire planet paved-over with neo-quantum
electronic modules - land and sea - as an actual
planetary-scale intelligence takes shape.

And FORGET your "3 laws" - even a human 3-year-old
can easily rationalize its way around any "laws".

>>>>> But, over time, dictators get drunk with power, since their power
>>>>> disturbs the information flow that comes to them, and they start to
>>>>> make worse and worse decisions until they are killed or until a
>>>>> revolution occurs.
>>>>
>>>>  Stalin and Castro and the previous Kims hung in there
>>>>  just fine - so don't count on miracles. All DID get
>>>>  more and more paranoid over time though, the harder
>>>>  they grasp power the more enemies they make and as
>>>>  the years go on ......
>>>
>>> Those are 3. Now contrast that with the nr of dictators who were killed,
>>> died, replaced, lost their grip on power throughout modern history,
>>> and you'llö
>>> find those in the minority.
>>>
>>> Democracies are increasing over time (although, to be fair, the past 10
>>> or 20 years they have been decreasing, but I am convinced that it is not
>>> a straight line but a fluctuating one throughout history).
>>
>>  Plato knew that 'democracies' were defective. 'Republics' were
>>  an attempt at fixing democracy by partially concentrating power.
>>  Alas, I think this only DELAYS the flaws of democracy. Either
>>  they become too sensitive to every public whim (the MSM and
>>  polling have amplified that) or increasingly "strong men"
>>  undermine the function of the reps/bureaucracy in order to
>>  "get things done" (to public cheers).
>
> Not quite, Plato speculated and he lived about 2400 years ago. But, here
> I agree. Democracy is flawed. It was designed to work in a greek city
> state and it does not scale to todays societies of millions and billions.

What Plato said did not apply JUST to Greece circa 500-BC ... his
objections were based largely on "human nature" (or 'foibles')
which are universal across the species. He saw it as a degenerate
system which would start well, with high ideals, but slowly decay
due to the human element. Anything to do with humans is, well,
like trying to herd cats.

Some style of "king" seems to be the default mode for human civ.
We sometimes fight against that, but laziness and entropy and
disenchantment always seem to bring us back to "kings". Like
many others, we are a 'social hierarchy' species and our politics
reflects that.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>
>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>> being debated.
>
> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).

“Joe Biden did not just proudly vote for the Patriot Act, he took credit
for many of its provisions.”

<https://theintercept.com/2021/04/27/biden-september-11-patriot-act/>

He also was the one who introduced Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995
which became Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, signed
into law by Clinton. It was basically first version of Patriot Act.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>
>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>> being debated.
>
> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).

<https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>

The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.

On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>
>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>> being debated.
>>
>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>
><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>
> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.

The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>
>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>> being debated.
>>>
>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>
>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>
>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>
>The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.

Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.

Swill
--
Trump and the DoJ

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2024/01/18

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I can still hear you!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 3/1/24 7:36 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>
>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>> being debated.
>>>
>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>
>> <https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>
>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>
> The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.

Many said so, but the post-911 environment pushed
it through easily.

Note Franklin's words on "security" ...

On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>>
>>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>>> being debated.
>>>>
>>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>>
>>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>>
>>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>>
>>The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.
>
> Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.
>
> Swill
True.
That's an interesting point but we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:urtsb7$1h1ip$1@dont-email.me:

> On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>
>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the
>>>> digital era have largely stalled, though reforms to a major
>>>> surveillance program are now being debated.
>>>
>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title
>>> and the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly
>>> right-wingers).
>>
>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patri
>>ot-act>
>>
>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>
> The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech
> and so forth in the USA.

A GOP creation, just like the GOP
attack on privacy via states demanding
to see the medical records of people
who get treatments in a different state.

And you vote for these people?

19 GOP Attorneys General Seek
Private Medical Records of Patients
Who Obtain Out-of-State Abortions
JULY 25, 2023
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/25/tamarra_wieder_abortion_rights_pla
nned_parenthood

Texas AG�s pursuit of transgender
medical records stirs privacy concerns
February 2, 2024
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/02/paxton-texas-attorney-
general-transgender/

Privacy concerns arise as state attorneys
general seek access to out-of-state medical
records
September 25th, 2023
https://www.wabe.org/privacy-concerns-arise-as-state-attorneys-general-
seek-access-to-out-of-state-medical-records/

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 02:33:22 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>>>> being debated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>>>
>>>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>>>
>>>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>>>
>>>The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.
>>
>> Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.
>>
>> Swill
>True.
>That's an interesting point but we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.

Technology has nothing to do with it beyond expanding the means with which the populace
can be controlled.

Swill
--
Trump and the DoJ

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2024/01/18

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I can still hear you!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 02:33:22 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>>>>> being debated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>>>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>>>>
>>>>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>>>>
>>>>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>>>>
>>>>The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.
>>>
>>> Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.
>>>
>>> Swill
>>True.
>>That's an interesting point but we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.
>
> Technology has nothing to do with it beyond expanding the means with which the populace
> can be controlled.
>
> Swill

That was my point.
It's much, much easier now due to technology.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 02:33:22 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>>>>> being debated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>>>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>>>>
>>>>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>>>>
>>>> The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech
>>>> and so forth in the USA.
>>>
>>> Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.
>>>
>>> Swill
>> True.
>> That's an interesting point but we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.
>
> Technology has nothing to do with it

Do technology have something to do with Second Amendment?

> beyond expanding the means with which the populace
> can be controlled.
>
> Swill

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 00:16:28 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 02:33:22 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-03-02, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 00:36:55 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2024-03-02, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:55:32 +0000, 61h.1601 said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And attempts by Congress to pass privacy protections fit for the digital era
>>>>>>>> have largely stalled, though reforms to a major surveillance program are now
>>>>>>>> being debated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just stick an Orwellian "Freeduhm" or "Patriot" in the bill's title and
>>>>>>> the suckers out there will eat it up (particularly right-wingers).
>>>>>>
>>>>>><https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-biden-wrote-patriot-act>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The video is just 53 seconds, but might be very educational for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>The patriot act was the beginning of the end of privacy, free speech and so forth in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> Some would blame the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.
>>>>
>>>> Swill
>>>True.
>>>That's an interesting point but we didn't have the technology back then that we have now.
>>
>> Technology has nothing to do with it beyond expanding the means with which the populace
>> can be controlled.
>>
>> Swill
>
>That was my point.
>It's much, much easier now due to technology.

Not that much easier. They're more sophisticated now and harder to control. Too many
different distractions and potential 'controllers'.

Revisit the 1804 Presidential election.

Swill
--
Trump and the DoJ

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2024/01/18

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I can still hear you!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>