• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • Thank you for taking the time to respond. With siphoning money, I mean not giving actual value in return. The NFT market was a clear example of this: get some hype going, sell the promise of great gains on your investment, once the ball gets rolling make sure you’re out before they realise it’s actually worth nothing. In the end, some smart and cunning people sucked a lot of money from often poor and misinformed small investors.

    I think I have an inherent idea of value, as in: the value it has in a human life and the amount of effort needed to produce it. This has become very detached from economical value, as there you can have speculation, pumping value and all that other crap. I think that’s what frustrates me about the current financial climate: I just want to be able to pay the people who helped produce the product I buy fairly with respect to how much time and work they put it. Currently however, so much money is being transferred to people “just for having money”. The idea that money in and of itself can make more money is such a horrible perversion of the original idea of trade…


  • Your last paragraph is not how money should work at all. Money should represent value that ideally doesn’t change, so that the money I receive for selling a can is worth a can, not a Lambo an not a grain of sand. What your describing is closer to speculation and pyramid schemes (NFTs for example).

    Either try and explain to me how BTC could be an ideal currency that fixes the problems in existing currency, or try to explain me how it’s really cool as an investment thing to siphon money from others, but don’t try and do both at the same time.


  • I think the issue is not wether it’s sentient or not, it’s how much agency you give it to control stuff.

    Even before the AI craze this was an issue. Imagine if you were to create an automatic turret that kills living beings on sight, you would have to make sure you add a kill switch or you yourself wouldn’t be able to turn it off anymore without getting shot.

    The scary part is that the more complex and adaptive these systems become, the more difficult it can be to stop them once they are in autonomous mode. I think large language models are just another step in that complexity.

    An atomic bomb doesn’t pass a Turing test, but it’s a fucking scary thing nonetheless.




  • The headline feels a bit alarmist to me. The article itself is a bit better and more nuanced, but still I feel they are putting way to much drama around this device while almost all these issues already exist as small slabs of electronics that we wear all the time. Combined with smartwatches, smartphones do almost all the spying that is described here and add some GPS tracking wherever you go.

    This is not to say that this is not a big issue, merely that this issue is not related to this new device. And also I believe Apple is in fact the only big tech provider that actually tries to be somewhat privacy conscious (Google and Microsoft don’t give damn).


  • Hey,

    I am an electrical engineer, but a natural at coding so after I got my degree I was quickly pushed by my employer towards more programming related projects. I was pretty good at it, but I suffered from similar issues as you. The race seems never ending and there’s always a new thing to know just around the corner, with seemingly no space or time to learn stuff in depth or create a decent and understandable architecture and documentation. I also really missed the social and emotional aspect, which seemingly is not how all people function: a lot of my colleagues were perfectly content to spend 8 hours a day racing through libraries and editors and calling it a day. In the end I got a pretty severe depression and anxiety (those issues were already underlying but the work triggered them again). It took a long time to start recovering again, but now I feel OK most days and I have beautiful moments and value in life. After a period of therapy I started volunteering as a bike repairman parttime (as this is the only workload I could handle) and that was really nice. Now I actually started studying again to become a librarian or work in another function for public information and I feel that it suits me well at the moment. No one can tell what the future will bring, the librarian thing might work out or it might not, but there is always something new to do. Don’t spend your life trying to be someone you’re not. Don’t try to do what you’d love to be, try to love what you are.

    This got a bit serious, but this seems like a safe space to do so :).






  • I feel like you’re not exactly talking about the same thing. What you are afraid of is for the government to have the ability to filter out what they see as “false” information, which I also find a horrible idea. A government with this power would be able to change the information flow to whatever works best for them.

    But a government can in my mind make specific rules about certain stuff that we as a society agree upon to not say (just as other laws are things we as a society agree to not do). I know that there are lots of wrong laws that need fixing, but the idea of a law in and of itself is quite sound in my opinion. And therefore I also have no problem with the specific law: people shouldn’t advocate for violence against others because of their sexual orientation.

    This is not a slippery slope as every one of these laws on speech would be independently created, and opposed if society does not accept them.This is just like how all other laws are constantly in flux, but pushed towards a moral alignment with the people (e.g. allowing LGBTQ+ marriage). The outrage and possible revolution when these laws go opposite ways is what causes them in the end to align further.

    These are all my opinions and views, based on my own experiences and ideas. Feel fee to disagree or correct me!


  • I personally like transparent enforcement of false information moderation. What I mean by that is something similar to beehaw where you have public mod logs. A quick check is enough to get a vibe of what is being filtered, and in Beehaw’s case they’re doing an amazing job.

    Mod logs also allow for a clear record of what happened, useful in case a person does not agree with the action a moderator took.

    In that case it doesn’t really matter if the moderators work directly for big tech, misuse would be very clearly visible and discontent people could raise awareness or just leave the platform.




  • Just to be clear, this phone:

    • is the only smartphone available that uses fairtrade gold
    • has a 100% recycled plastic back cover
    • uses ASI certified fair aluminium
    • is by far the most repairable smartphone currently on the market

    The mainstream electronics supply chain is tainted with literal blood and slavery. The importance of what this company tries to prove and achieve cannot be understated.

    The fact that they remove the headphone jack might be annoying and feel like counter to their main goal. As an electronics engineer I can say that removing this jack makes the full phone circuit board more simple, decreases the space used and allows them to make the phone lighter or put a better battery in. As most people are now used to not having this port in phones anymore, this seems like an easy concession to make to keep the design load as low as possible. Remember that they are trying to compete with companies that are way bigger and have way more design resources.

    I am all for criticizing companies so that they can improve, but these accusations of greenwashing and them completely disregarding their goal are simply untrue. The difference between them and literally any other smartphone manufacturer in terms of supply chain fairness, repairability and warranty is night and day.

    Please don’t make us lose this great attempt at improving the smartphone industry by making perfect the enemy of already pretty fucking good.



  • Bitcoin (as it uses proof of work) is incapable of handling all transaction of the world without creating insane amounts of wasted energy.

    Updating the ledger (actually writing down transactions) is only a fraction of the total computing resources it consumes. Most of it is just spent doing random hashes over and over again (the proof of work part). This is computing power that does not actually do any of the money related tasks, it’s just there to keep the ledger trusted.

    This is an awesome idea in theory, but completely unscalable in reality.

    Other Blockchain technologies like proof of stake don’t have this issue of energy waste, but they have other hurdles.

    But Bitcoin as it is implemented now can never be the money of the future in my opinion.