I’m more about separation of addressing data and data model from addressing services and service model for storing and processing it, to make those uniform, because in uniformity lies efficiency and redundancy and ability to switch service models, and uniformity inside proprietary services is already achieved, so in this case uniformity works for the people.

I mean, that’s probably what you meant, I’m being this specific to fight my own distractions and fuzziness of thought.

Well, in the Soviet example everything was government.

And governments seem to be so excited by the prospects of this “AI” so it’s pretty clear that it’s still their desire most of all.

EDIT: On telegraph and Panama you are right (btw, it’s bloody weird that where it sounds like canal in my language it’s usually channel in English, but in the particular case of Panama it’s not), but they might perceive this as a similarly important direction. Remember how in 20s and 30s “colonization of space” was dreamed about with new settlements supporting new power bases, mining for resources and growing on Mars and Venus, FTL travel to Sirius, all that. There are some very cool things in Soviet stagnation - those pictures of the future lived longer than in the West against scientific knowledge. So, back to the subject, - “AI” they want to reach is the thing that will allow to generate knowledge and designs like a production line makes chocolate bars. If that is made, the value of intelligent individuals will be tremendously reduced, or so they think. At least of the individuals on the “autistic” side, but not on the “psychopathic” side, because the latter will run things. It’s literally a “quantity vs quality” evolutionary battle inside human kinds of diversity, all the distractions around us and the legal mechanisms being fuzzied and undone also fit here. So - for the record, I think quality is on our side even if I’m distracted right now, and sheer quantity thrown at the task doesn’t solve complexity of such magnitude, it’s a fundamental problem.

At the same time “global economic integration” and “global trade” including outsourcing of production to countries with cheaper labor were sold to the populace as a logical continuation of liberal democracies. Increasing efficiency, thus increasing the level of life. That the level of life also depends on having leverage, and moving critical production outside means reduction of leverage, nobody thought (well, the majority of population didn’t think that, bread and circuses).

While this is a system old as humanity, Chinese imperial bureaucracy and Roman one and Assyrian one and Persian one worked like this, to build hierarchical systems. Troops quelling rebellions in one province are from one in the opposite part of the empire. Troops fighting wars in a province are never local, because wars between empires always involve stimuli to change masters. Bureaucrats are too foreign, everything is foreign and not reliant on locals. Even food and drinks are sent from other provinces and tightly guarded - despite that being far more expensive then than now.

So today in a western country all the digital products are made mostly in other countries, all the electronics are made mostly in other countries, much of the food and much of the clothes and much of everything. And this is treated like the good free western way of life. The further from WWII, the less everybody feared such a situation.

While the firmer is integration, the harder it’s to leave it, and the harder it’s to leave, the less meaningful any freedom is - your vote matters only for the bosses in you part, and they have the combined power of the bosses to deceive you, to misdirect your vote, or to plainly steal it, or to go around it.

Historically integration built empires.

The USSR, a recent example of an honest attempt at autarky, which is often used as an example of who tries autarky and why, didn’t really try. It’s the other way around actually, in 20s it was rather democratic, in 30s it was basically buying foreign technologies and machinery for gold and grain for everything (that’s the Stalin’s industrialization), in 40s too (war and all), and the only parts of its history where it really was trying to do autarky significantly enough was during the Thaw and Brezhnev, and while that didn’t work so well, that’s also the most democratic period of its history.

But at the same time high autarky degree means lower level of life. I’ve been excited with Trotskyism once, despite most of time being a ancap. Because, well, it involves direct democracy and mass participation in all political activity, and no career bureaucrats and politicians, the need for that is substantiated by any limited minority of politicians or bureaucrats being possible to covertly threaten, blackmail, buy, groom, etc.

I don’t subscribe to their “democratic planning of the economy using modern means of computation” thing - I agree it’s possible if Amazon is doing just that on scale far bigger than needed for a government in one country, don’t get me wrong, and that demands fewer resources than all this “AI research around”, but there’s inherent degeneracy in such a planning system because, as a specific example, you don’t know you have to design and produce a good that would be in high demand but isn’t already produced.

I think Trotskyism in many of its parts is still very good, actual participation not only is beneficial for the system, it also gives the populace the psychological understanding that politics is not about casting your vote once or twice for the guys who frighten you less. Feeling of holding the wheel. Personal responsibility and ability to change things for good. These are important exactly to compensate worse level of life (locally worse, because good level of life combined with tyranny eventually becomes worse too) emotionally, because otherwise it’ll be impossible to institute a political system nobody wants.

You mean when the bubble bursts and there are lots of people who worked on this available on the job market?

I’d expect them to be big data specialists, mostly knowledgeable in Python and matrix operations, narrow optimizations needed there, and not very competitive for other typical tech specialties.

They’ll just have to become data analysts, assistants in labs working on things like genome analysis, and so on. Perhaps medical RnD will get a boost due to all the willing slaves, LOL.

They were smart, those oiled fish-eating goatfuckers. So maybe yes, that - and also sortition and ostracism.

Transatlantic telegraph, I think, was very expensive, or Panama channel projects. Before they were finished to any useful degree.

In this particular case - I don’t think it’s more expensive than Soviet attempts at turning Kazakh steppe into agricultural land, let alone all the space and defense projects.

It’s an ideology-driven effort all right - an idea that you can create an inherently totalitarian technology. Probably caused by the popular (in the 90s and early 00s) belief that the Internet is inherently anti-totalitarian, so there’s a need to compensate. Both are wrong.

I can imagine one - maintaining adversarial interop with proprietary systems. Like a self-adjusting connector for Facebook for some multi-protocol chat client. Or if there’s going to be a Usenet-like system with global identities of users and posts, a mapping of Facebook to that. Siloed services don’t expose identifiers and are not indexed, but that’s with our current possibilities. People do use them and do know with whom they are interacting, so it’s possible to make an AI-assisted scraper that would expose Facebook like a newsgroup to that.

Ah. Profitable. I dunno.

Well, it is one big process.

Hard to trace the power which allowed for all those slow processes of subversion to happen, but a lot of it stems ultimately from the USSR’s breakup and those who managed to make profit on it.

Western countries’ MIC’s which no more had to prepare for real war, so same big funding, but less accountability. Western politicians making profit on reducing their militaries - it’s a profitable process of selling properties and scrapping tech and such. Western advisors in ex-USSR helping their new mafia elites. Western businesses who first managed to secure some agreements to do business in ex-USSR.

Then - the tech sector, via plenty of qualified labor from ex-USSR moving to USA and other western countries. Cheap fossil fuels sold by Russia to EU countries, which became a major factor in their economies in the 90s and 00s.

Politicians in this were very notably not complacent, just looking out for themselves and noticing opportunities for themselves.

Also a lot happened just due to technical progress and lack of macro-level competition. Soviet system notably had deadlocks because interested parties couldn’t agree to one countrywide system. Suppose USSR somehow managed to survive till now, with its collegial and totalitarian-bureaucratic, but not mafia-style, government. Then total surveillance being introduced in the West now and long ago in China wouldn’t be successfully implemented in the USSR, for the similar reasons EU countries want to have their own surveillance, but not US surveillance over their citizens. In USSR it would be between ministries and factions not willing to be controlled by others. So in USSR there’d likely be some status quo.

I mean, it’s purely a hypothesis, it already imploded and there’s nothing more to say about this. Just - such things as now would sometimes happen during the Cold War too, but having a big totalitarian state as a counterweight helped a lot. Like an example of what will happen if this is allowed, and like an alternative (if we are going to have totalitarianism, then let’s at least have the red workers-and-peasants kind), and like a real threat in case of weakening of western nations.

So one can imagine that USSR’s breakup did lead in many ways to what we have now. At the same time had it not happened, then maybe on my side of the screen everything would already be surveilled (or maybe it is).

A few stolen elections in a row were approved by US politicians and various European politicians almost unanimously, because of “supporting Yeltsin against reaction”, and “if not this imperfect democracy, then Commies or neo-Nazis”, and “but we’re having a reboot of relations”, and then with almost open realpoliticking shit about how Putin is convenient to do business with, and if there’s a change of regime, it won’t be as easy.

So I would argue about root causes a lot. Especially since the root cause would be Western interference during USSR’s breakup, first aimed at preserving USSR, then after that failing aimed at preserving Russia as 1) some sort of superpower, 2) authoritarian regime led by Yeltsin’s crowd.

It doesn’t even matter that they likely didn’t know what they were doing, likely led by Tom Clancy books style idiotic ideas of the dangers and chances in that process, and the main “threat” perceived was some “radical reactionary takeover” leading to someone launching nukes just for the sake of it. It even reads idiotic, but such opinions were said officially, however nuts it was.

EDIT: And also there’s the subject of Ukraine’s nukes. If someone didn’t know, it’s not Russia that pressured Ukraine to get rid of its nukes in favor of Russia. It’s USA. Convenient to have one hegemon in a region, with whom you can deal, except that hegemon might eventually accept the idea that they are the hegemon.

Früher war mehr Lametta?

As someone still in Russia, a bit of the same.

That is, I expected things to get worse, but not “avalanche of shit, cockroaches and rat bones” levels of worse.

Except the idolization part started receding much earlier, when I actually learned English well enough to understand that these are very intolerant societies. Say, where in Russia people disagreeing with you on some key matters would look at you like a fool or just decide to stop this conversation so that neither of you would offend the other, in English-speaking countries, it seems, there was simply no way to survive outside of some echo chamber and God forbid you find none to fit into. But that was like 10-15 years ago, now, of course, in Russia you can get jailed or strongly fined for words.

But I thought there’s some deeper wisdom and in those harsher societies people are also somehow better capable to maintain their common freedom and dignity yadda-yadda. In fact that’s not what I see.

As a bit of gloating - at least now the “why are you not all revolting against Putin” Western types can be answered with their own regrettable example instead of common sense and logic, these are fine, but an example is more efficient.

Their kind never leaves the chat, it’s a professional habit

Nah, a logical OR in their favor is not how democracy should work.

Frugal tech idea and degrowth are more capitalist than a handful of monopolies owning you in every orifice and billing you for it.

If by “capitalism” we don’t mean paleo-industrialism of XIX-century aristocrats with monocles and child labor. If we do mean the “free market with protections for property, rights, safety and anti-monopoly regulations yadda-yadda” moderate-normal-classical model.

Fucking simple concept which major businesses are economically compelled to gaslight you out of.

So the problem is in economics.

Each such business provides all of their infrastructure, expensive, good and well-maintained (Google has its own Internet cables), which is not separated from their application services.

So one provider of infrastructure (in the wide sense, solving all the problems) usually serves many users of their own application and many application providers (I’m inventing terms) without their own infrastructure.

While user of an application generally can’t switch infrastructure providers as they want. It’s kinda technically fine and normal (there are NTP server pools, one could in the olden days search many FTP servers for the needed file, and so on), but doesn’t happen IRL. Because there’s no standard way for pooling resources and tracking them, and there’s no applications using it.

So - the data model (cryptographic global person identities, globally identified by some derived hash posts (a post is, say, datetime, author, some tags, content, hash of it all, signatures, I dunno) (creation of a group or a vote or a changing of privileges or moderation can be a post too), for forming a representation for the user a group is “replayed” in the right order to know which user had a privilege to, say, moderate posts etc ; one can also generate group snapshots from time to time when replaying thus, by the group owner identity, to make it faster) is orthogonal to the service model. That’s important so that it were fit for alternative service models, like sneakernet or offline-enabled mesh or anything delay-tolerant. Or at least a p2p kademlia DHT-based service model.

The service model - the core of it all is a tracker service. It works like a tracker in BitTorrent (or maybe Hotline, but that’s old), except with signed announces, and it tracks search and storage and relay and maybe even computation services (which announce themselves to it). A search service gets storage services from trackers and indexes their contents (one can even announce objects to a search service similarly to trackers, might be better) to search by tags. A storage service just stores objects and yields them. A relay service must be harder, you the user must somehow announce (to trackers too?) which relay service you are registered on at this moment, a bit like SIP or like SMTP (only very temporary), so that messages to that relay service would reach you.

The client would just request a bunch of trackers for all things they need - to search for stuff for services, then request these services and merge their results. Forming a group representation is “searching for stuff” too, and then getting the objects referenced by index service responses from a bunch of storage services. To notify another user that you’ve sent them a message one can use a relay service.

I think it’s easy to see that it’s kinda primitive other than requiring proper cryptography. And it’s a global system working over the Internet (except no, it doesn’t exist). Similar to NOSTR, but I think better due to separation of data model and service model.

The advantages of this - one still can make any kinds of applications using such common infrastructure, but the resource-based feudalism we have this might hurt. Similar to how BitTorrent keeps working despite quite a few people not liking it.

The disadvantages - well, stuff will get lost, there are paid BT trackers but no paid BT peers, while in such a system paid storage and other services would be a thing (still much better than Facebook).

Honestly horrors get old when you can read in the news about “respected people” calling to exterminate Gaza and build beachfront cottages there. Even from just reading that and knowing that the same people can put anything onto your Android devices via a Facebook update or any of the Google applications update, on a whim. Nobody will even know.

About this - is it even legal to obey such pressure?

EDIT: I mean, how is it different from banning sellers by skin color when racists complain, or by religion when Muslims complain (all Hindus are Satan worshipers, didntcha knaw), or whatever else.

EDIT2: But it pains me to see how public offering was, in fact, an important part of market regulations, when everybody just ignores it without getting 9 lifetimes in jail for executives. I was against it at some point. That is - customer associations are important, and there are almost none, and when customer associations demand businesses to act like public offering, then it’s almost as good as if enforced, and no such regulation is a good stimulus for customer associations to keep existing. But - feels shitty when it’s in the law of most countries and hasn’t been removed.

“Rich people” should be replaced with “authority”, which is more general. Otherwise yes.

I also think that if George Lucas violates some law during operation of his museum, he will get all the problems intended by the law. He’s not involved in building a digital concentration camp, he’s also not an Epstein island visitor, and he’s actually a rare example of a famous person who honestly should be richer than they are. At the same time there are different dimensions of “rich”. The fact that his museum actually happens makes me feel <erased, too personal>.

OK, I can’t be impartial about Lucas, of the people big in various parts of humanity he’s among the few who haven’t betrayed their picture in my childhood one bit. Star Wars is the most anti-fascist, anti-evil, anti-mediocrity, anti-surrender, living thing that I know (other than the living things like earth, wind, water, plants, animals and humans, but you get the idea).

I dunno, the right to bear one arm releasing a grenade is honestly enough

It’s obvious that they are different. In the old understanding of things, you sometimes have to do illegal stuff when it’s moral. Enemies have to be fought, laws have to be broken before changed. At the same time laws were perceived as something specific and precise.

Now there’s some weird perception that all laws have an inertia of moral virtue because of being descended from popular will or something like that. At the same time it’s a fuzzy, almost mystical, entity and asking “why the hell should I do that” from authority is like attacking that entity. In the old understanding of things it wasn’t. So laws have become fuzzy, and it has become a small sacrilege to question them.

Which is what always happens, a thing perceived strictly and literally will always run into contradictions resolved outside it, and such a resolution is a normal process. Like with segregation.

And if you make an outside resolution absolutely impossible, the thing will become fuzzy.

Something is very fucking wrong with people who want to solve our problems this way. Don’t let them pretend this is normal or how this shit should he handled. What the fuck are we doing?

It’s just psychology.

Suppose you are a bunch of pedophiles and murderers making laws.

You don’t want the societal mechanisms against pedophiles and murderers to reach you, but the society has a desire to do to p/ and m/ or against them a certain set of things. So they optimize by doing those things to the opposite part of the society.

The society would want to know what politicians do - they make surveillance against everyone but themselves.

The society would want to thoroughly deal with the pedo problem, preferably IRL where it happens - they direct everything connected to fighting pedos on the communications and the Internet.

The society would want accountability for hierarchy and fewer levers for pressure given to people in important positions, - they make the mandates as fuzzy as possible and create limitations for doing anything outside of hierarchy.

The society would want children to not be taught to obey and fear, and everyone to have privacy, because only in privacy you can say everything you’d want, - they try to turn everything into a surveilled prison camp.

The society would want to be able to answer violence with violence, - they make draconian laws against all kinds of resistance.

The society would want legal clarity, - they try to reduce clarity as much as possible.

It’s basically a bunch of people who should be in jail trying to put in jail everyone else purely out of spite. Who are criminals by too many laws, trying to make legal practice as unpredictable and illogical as possible.

Not a new thing really, like people involved in drugs trade getting into institutions for fighting drugs trade.