91–100 of 217 posts
[flagged]
And to be honest, the UK surveillance thing is somewhat exaggerated; it's highly London-centric, and they're mostly privately-owned cameras; the main driving factor is the insurance industry.
Ireland, say, has some of the strictest gun laws in the developed world, and doesn't have a large number of CCTVs or other forms of surveillance.
I encourage people making snap comments to read at least one entire paragraph of the article: > “We’re going to have supervision,” Ellison said. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”…
This relies on, normatively, shame, and legally, a Stasi-esque police state. I don’t know what about the last twenty years of politics or culture would imply the former is an option.
> This relies on, normatively, shame, and legally, a Stasi-esque police state. You can get the populace to swallow surveillance if you give them an enemy. See: PATRIOT act. Anyone wanna take bets on what this one will be called.
I encourage people making snap comments to read at least one entire paragraph of the article: > “We’re going to have supervision,” Ellison said. “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”…
It's really not.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is deeply unfair. Plenty of people, including those responsible for more focus on environment and human rights, are in that age group. They are leaders and allies. Ageism is just another way divide society.
You are correct, I put income level in there too. We can't let Peter Thiel or Mark Zuckerberg off the hook either.
May I ask what your rationale was for picking $1m as the threshold? Hundreds of thousands of Americans make between $1m and $5m (another arbitrary range) and millions of Americans worth more than $1m.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone failing to exercise their political rights I see what you did, there... I tend to get a lot done. Not really into the whole "sound and fury" thing. I like to actually have results.
> see what you did, there Genuinely asked if you’re politically engaged because I’m curious how that squares with your views on this topic? Most Americans are not civically engaged. That’s sort of expected. Their principal opposition to surveillance revolves around being creeped out. Most folks who are civically engaged, on the other hand, recognise the risks to themselves and their projects if the opposition can com…
I'm a recovering drug addict. I have quite an appreciation for privacy and anonymity. I have a lot more skin in the game than most.
However, there's the fantasy world in our heads, and the reality of the truth. These don't always overlap.
It's my job to work with yucchy reality. It doesn't give a damn what I think it should be. It's my responsibility to modify my approach to be most effective, given the context.
"When the map and the terrain disagree; believe the terrain." - Swiss Army aphorism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the Global Peace Index, the UK is number 30 in the world and the USA is 128, below Rwanda, China, South Africa, India, Bangladesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
The GP’s comment has nothing to do with the US though. So what’s your point?
If I was trying to say that the UK is safe because it's #30 on the Peace Index when the USA was higher, then my comment wouldn't carry much weight. Or if the USA was a place or two behind then my comment wouldn't be strong.
Larry Ellison is in the USA and presumably his "Citizens will be on their best behaviour" is mostly aimed at USA citizens, and HN and the internet are USA-centric so USA makes a big obvious comparison.