361–370 of 495 posts
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it odd that Gates is the go to source for public health issues. His biggest contribution is money, which pays for really smart people to tackle these issues. So why not talk to the really smart people he hired?
An excellent question that shouldn't be downvoted. Why is Bill Gates "the guy?" Don't read that in a conspiratorial sense, just in a rational "can someone explain this to me" sense.
He has a very weird habit of looking happy when people mention bad things happening, such as the collapse of the economy, second waves of COVID, etc.
He could smile because it's refreshening to hear questions or other people talk about critical things that are constantly being ignored by even the highest ranking politicians. He could also smile because he might find it funny that people bring those topics to him as if he were responsible for everything. We'll never know.
I think Gates is right. What is the problem with the government controlling communication? There are clear advantages, like handling illegal things. What are the disadvantages, the nude photo of your ex-girlfriend being analyzed by a machine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it impossible to argue against encryption. People should have the tools to do things secretly. If you want to prevent all the bad things Bill talked about, attack those things, not the tools.
Not that I agree with this but here's Nick Bostrom basically arguing for the end of encryption https://www.businessinsider.com/nick-bostrom-mass-surveillan... IIRC the argument is basically that as tech progresses it will get easier and easier for any one person to destroy the planet. According to Bostrom the only way to prevent that is no secrets and ubiquitous surveillance.
I would love to see someone let Bill talk about covid, the implications of economic damage and increased debt over the next 1-2 years, the inequality which covid magnifies, and future methods of prevention - for an hour or two, with a good host. This interview is good but barely scratches the surface. edit: I've just found a recent interview - while still high level, it's a bit more detailed. However, the comments se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's frustrating about this question is that it (inevitably!) commands the top of the HN thread with a discussion of the least interesting thing in the article. It's an article about COVID and Facebook, and here we're recapitulating the end-to-end encryption debate for the 8-zillionth time.
Bill Gates said something stupid and people are talking about it. His phrasing is what I expect an old person who doesn't have decades of industry pioneering experience in technology to say. So weird. Point is, who cares what else he has to say if he says stuff like this? He's as much an expert on technology as he is on pathology, so if his opinions on technology are bad... well you get the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it was created before internet/computers but sure. I don’t see your point though as we can and do scan media to combat that creation, without nuking the internet... Without the ability to scan, the battle seems seriously kneecapped. If currently reported counts from automation in the US are in the order of magnitude of 100 million (I forget exact numbers, but it was near this) from a small number of companies,…
Here's the greater point no one is talking about. Reread Gates statements. Illegal porn was practically an aside tossed in at the last minute. His point was lies. Encryption was the enemy because it enabled lies. The difference between Gates and LEO/Politicians? Gates lacks their dishonesty. LEO & pols have a terribly long history of leveraging extreme behavior as justification for increasing LEO/Gov power+budgets, a…
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it odd that Gates is the go to source for public health issues. His biggest contribution is money, which pays for really smart people to tackle these issues. So why not talk to the really smart people he hired?
Bill Gates is a public health expert. He has been working on these problems with some of the smartest minds in the field for decades now. How long does someone need to be working on a problem before they're worthy of being a "go to source", in your opinion?
I think Gates is right. What is the problem with the government controlling communication? There are clear advantages, like handling illegal things. What are the disadvantages, the nude photo of your ex-girlfriend being analyzed by a machine?
Iraq clearly has weapons of mass destruction. Censor all communications claiming otherwise.
The American government is not performing mass surveillance on its citizens. James Clapper Confirmed this in a Congressional Hearing. Censor all communication claiming otherwise
South Korea's President is not being influenced by a cult leader. Censor all communication claiming otherwise
And countless other examples where government controlling communication would lead to censorship of topics that the general public MUST hear. One cannot make an informed decision without information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never been easier to do #1 and never been harder to do #2.
Cancel culture is #2.