211–220 of 405 posts
I've been reading Chip War and it seems like original funding for chip design was for the Space Race and for guided missiles - so basically most of Silicon Valley was started / funded by military all along
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defense was always just a euphemism for War. That’s not the signal you think it is.
> Defense was always just a euphemism for War. That’s not the signal you think it is. No, it was not. Tom Nichols, professor emiritus of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College: > It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was originally entitled “Department of War” and was changed after World War II for better PR. Whether it is called “Department of War” or “Department of Defense”, it’s still the same organization maintaining the same mission operating under the same budget. Personally, I view “Department of War” as more honest, because War has always been its business.
> it’s still the same organization maintaining the same mission operating under the same budget WWII demonstrated wars of conquest don't work in the industrial age. When America and its Department of War and Navy were founded, invasion and conquest could still be done profitably. WWII showed that was no longer true–industrial machinery and skilled workers are destroyed by invasion and even base resources quickly beco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an undeniable conflict between "Don't be evil." and "Evil pays.". A lot of what militaries do can be best described as the lesser of two evils. Murdering people is bad, but sometimes a little murder can prevent a lot of murder. However ethically or unethically a state uses force, there's usually a lot of money to be had in supplying that state with the means of force. Is there room for ethics in military res…
> You might make less money, but you'll almost certainly sleep easier Idk, there's something unethical in outsourcing ethical grey areas to other people while reaping the benefits of the peace (or war far from your home) it brings. Predatory monsters exist. A wealthy society that demilitarizes learns the lesson Europe is now. (If Ukraine didn't have a domestic defence industry, it wouldn't have been able to fight the…
As for "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument). That's true of a lot of things, and I sleep great at night choosing not to steal from people even though I know others will choose to steal. It turns out I don't have the ability to choose their actions for them, only my own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if enough tech workers at Microsoft felt strongly about these ethical issues, they could influence Microsoft's decisions internally This isn't how companies work or are structured. If you have the CEO's ear, potentially. If you don't, the only ethical thing to do is to quit. (I don't personally have an issue with the military per se . I have other issues with several tech companies which would make taking a job the…
If something bad is going on and you don't agree and you quit, that is just absolving you of your guilt. I mean think two steps ahead. Is M$ going to go "gee, Jimbo quit, maybe the project is just no good and we ought to stop." Hell no. They will fill your position with someone who will be thankful for the opportunity. And I think ultimately you know it, but a bit of cognitive dissonance makes you think you did somet…
But you won't be doing it. Companies are run top-down. If you're within the organisation you're advancing the goals of those at the top. You aren't going to change that by complaining internally (unless you have a direct line to the CEO).
It's fine to disagree with something and just not contribute to it. If you want to be principled and militant, staying is hypocritical. In that case, you should whistleblow.
> attempting to keep their body holding that door shut as they possibly can
Unless you're conducting sabotage, which within this context seems like a gross overreaction, you aren't holding any door shut. (Again, assuming you don't have a line to the CEO.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the problem with capitalism. Nothing is ever enough, all the top tech companies, it's not enough that the conquered the global market, not enough that they dominated commerce, media, automotive, cloud, space ... it's not enough that they have the largest headcounts on the planet (outside India / China). they always need to do more and bigger the next quarter. no morals, no core market, no other guideline, sim…
> I really hope the Chinese keep killing everything that gets too big to fail. Be careful what you wish for. What happens when China gets too big to fail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defense was always just a euphemism for War. That’s not the signal you think it is.
> Defense was always just a euphemism for War. That’s not the signal you think it is. No, it was not. Tom Nichols, professor emiritus of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College: > It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world re…
I wanted to address this though:
> The Department of War had a different function for a different geopolitical outlook that no longer matched reality in the post-WW2 world.
The reality of the post-WW2 world is that those who were most responsible for bringing big messy & complex wars to the world were no longer able to litter their own little subcontinent hanging off the western edge of Asia with as much ordinance as they could manufacture. It was too expensive & they were either too occupied or too preoccupied with the rather expensive operation of trying to maintain their hold on their colonial enterprises. We could afford to pretend that all of our wars were “defensive” because our goal was to make sure they couldn’t pull that shit again & there was only one or two relevant powers at a time we were in direct competition with that was otherwise keeping us busy. Telling the UK & France to fuck off during the Suez Crisis was approximately a phone call.
But whether a war was actually offensive or defensive still came down to what story we wanted to tell ourselves at the end of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to elect better leaders when you do not have multiple billions of dollars to spend.
Oh, do they have some mechanism by which they just took people's votes away entirely?
As an aside, I emailed my congressman (blue) about one of the proposals (bipartisan) to essentially force device age verification and his office emailed me back well after it passed with a few reguritared sentences about protecting the children. I bet if I called a lobbyist in Maryland and had him meet the congressman for coffee to express my view he might be more willing to listen.
The standout example of this from the Ukraine war is artillery shells.
We should maybe have a state owned corporation for making artillery shells in America, because there does not seem to be enough profit to incentivize private corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason you call Thiel immoral or psychopathic is because he's wealthy and this evokes jealousy in you, it's a threat to your ego and your own sense of self worth. It's really that simple and this is a good illustration of what I'm talking about.
Quotes from the man himself: On Democracy and Freedom: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" On Competition: "Competition is for losers" On Technology and Control: "One of the things I like about technology is that when technology is unregulated, you can change the world without getting approval from other people. At its best, it's not subject to democratic control and not subject to the maj…
I wouldn’t say these statements even have moral judgments in them either way. For example, this doesn’t even ascribe moral weight to “freedom” or “democracy” just that they are at odds.
This is why these types of things are better left to elite minded people who are capable of these types of discussions. You’re just responding essentially to the valence of these terms.
“Democracy = good feeling, freedom = good feeling, how can good feeling != good feeling?” This is the level at which you’re engaging.