this became extremely apparent for me watching Adam Curtis's "Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone" series. The series documents what it was like to live in the USSR during the fall of communism and (cheekily added) democracy. It was released in Oct 2022, meaning it was written and edited just before the AI curve really hit hard.
But so much of the takeaway is that it's "impossible" for top-down government to actually process all of what was happening within the system they created, and to respond appropriately and timely-- thus creating problems like food shortages, corrupt industries, etc etc. So many of the problems were traced to the monolith information processing buildings owned by the state.
But honestly.. with modern LLMs all the way up the chain? I could envision a system like this working much more smoothly (while still being incredibly invasive and eroding most people's fundamental rights). And without massive food and labour shortages, where would the energy for change come from?
A planned economy is certainly a lot more viable now than it was in 1950, let alone 1920. The Soviet Union was in many ways just a century too early.
But a major failing of the Soviet economic system was that there simply wasn't good data to make decisions, because at every layer people had the means and incentive to make their data look better than it really was. If you just add AI and modern technology to the system they had it still wouldn't work because wrong data leads us to the wrong conclusions. The real game changer would be industrial IoT, comprehensive tracking with QR codes, etc. And even then you'd have to do a lot of work to make sure factories don't mislabel their goods
That is, assuming leadership wants good data, as opposed to data that makes them look good, or validates their world model. Certainly in recent history, agencies tasked with providing accurate data are routinely told not to (e.g., the BLS commissioner firing, or the Iraq WMD reports).
> A planned economy is certainly a lot more viable now than it was in 1950, let alone 1920. The Soviet Union was in many ways just a century too early.
If the economy were otherwise stagnant, maybe. But top-down planning just cannot take into account all the multitudes of inputs to plan anywhere near the scale that communist countries did. Bureaucrats are never going to be incentivized anywhere near the level that private decision making can be. Businesses (within a legal/regulatory framework) can "just do" things if they make economic sense via a relatively simple price signal. A top-down planner can never fully take that into account, and governments should only intervene in specific national interest situations (eg in a shortage environment legally mandating an important precursor medicine ingredient to medical companies instead of other uses).
The Soviet Union decided that defence was priority number one and shoved an enormous amount of national resources into it. In the west, the US government encouraged development that also spilled over into the civilian sector and vice-versa.
> But a major failing of the Soviet economic system was that there simply wasn't good data to make decisions, because at every layer people had the means and incentive to make their data look better than it really was.
It wasn't just data that was the problem, but also quality control, having to plan far, far ahead due to bureaucracy in the supply chain, not being able get spare parts because wear and tear wasn't properly planned, etc. There's an old saying even in private business that if you create and measure people on a metric they'll game or over concentrate on said metric. The USSR often pumped out large numbers of various widgets, but quality would often be poor (the stories of submarine and nuclear power plant manufacturers having to repeatedly deal and replace bad inputs was a massive source of waste).
What you're describing is called The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Klaus Schwab's book.
Factory machines transmitting their current rate of production all the way up to International Govt. which, being all knowing, can help you regulate your production based on current and forecasted worldwide consumption.
And your machines being flexible enough to reconfigure to produce something else.
Stores doing the same on their sales and Central Bank Digital Currency tying it all together.
If I'm playing a quick pattern like this and holding down some bass note, depending on where the pattern starts, the middle two notes will become "synchronized" and play/get recorded at the same time. In my example, the top 4 notes work fine, but shifting down by one note causes the bug. I also switched between holding the bass not and not for demonstration. I assure you my fingers aren't doing anything different, I messed around with this for a while.
I'm not criticizing, sorry; just trying to understand.
I find video more compelling, generally. Obviously video has more ways to communicate - graphically, empirically, etc. It's not that reading works more effectively, but far more efficiently.
It has a lot more map data accessible and you can even overlay National Park Service maps, land ownership, accurate cell service grids, mountain biking trails, weather conditions and things like that.
Disclaimer: Just because you see a route on a map, digital or paper, does not mean it is passable today. Or it may be passable but at an extremely arduous pace.
Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?
if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.
i'm not talking about a plea bargain, i'm talking about declining to prosecute, not filing charges after an arrest, or asking the court to dismiss the charges
i am sure that every victim allegation does not lead to a prosecution in Germany
Not necessarily... I had H4 or H1/H7 before, which were dimmer, but the edge cutoff was much smoother...
With current car that has Xenon headlights (+ LED for day), they have a much sharper cutoff at the edge, making it harder to see pedestrians and other stuff near the road.
Probably the LED/laser headlights are even worse in this aspect.
The author lives in quite a bubble if he thinks people would be excited to fund this kind of research. People want to be able to afford the cost of living, not fund extraterrestrial research. (I'm saying this as someone who would be excited to fund this)
“ I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
I found it incredibly confusing to read the following:
> Once the federal government gets into the business of allowing free speech, it can define what’s allowable free speech. And you need only look at our northern neighbor or our friends across the Atlantic to see how that’s working out.
I had to scan the article for other clues that the author is, in fact, American, and was, in fact, referencing Canada and Europe as supposedly worse of in regarding to free speech than the US.
The US consistently ranks below Europe and Canada when rated on free speech metrics by third parties [1] -- and has been trending downwards.
They don't share how they do their judgement, and it's strange how Norway ranks #1 despite having laws that allow for imprisonment for hate speech.[1] Perhaps hate speech doesn't count as speech in the ranking?
There are two rankings at your link, the freedom of speech index and the press freedom index. If you look at the freedom of speech index the USA is among the top 5 countries for freedom of speech protections behind only Norway and Denmark
The guy complains about how Google down ranks an anti-vaccine doctor. His idea of free speech is giving cranks like himself a platform above useful content.
this is actually exactly what has been happening over the past few decades, and with the current proposal, for HSR from Toronto to Montreal, two of the largest cities in terms of both population and economy in Canada.
Ottawa felt excluded, and is where the federal govt is based, so instead of going along the 401, a straight highway that follows a river valley and lake and has existing rail corridors, it has to go from Montreal to Ottawa (a short stretch also along a river) and then cut from Ottawa to Toronto via Peterborough, which requires new track, fixing old windy track to allow HSR, some sections have to be speed limited, and has to build through hills and dense forest.
Also, Quebec feels that they don't get "enough" out of the project connecting their largest city to another economic powerhub, so it of course also has to be extended the extra 250km to Quebec city (luckily along a river)
The logical method would be to build Toronto to Montreal 30 years ago, then build a branch to Ottawa one day, and an extension to Quebec another day.
The Canadian economy would probably be much stronger if that was the case.
Or we can just wait 30 more years and have this project not be implemented.
The fact is that politicians are insanely car-brained and nobody has any enthusiasm for improving rail infrastructure. Via Rail is trapped in this insane spiral of service cuts where it's miserable for staff and riders, and the solution is to cut more to make up for declining ridership.
The new HSR is only happening because with the innovation of P3 deals the government can pay for the project but give all the profits to their private-sector pals. Suddenly investing in public infrastructure is appealing again (as long as the public doesn't actually get to own it!)
Cars also contribute to an immense amount of misery in society - the financial burden, being stuck in traffic, road expansions demolishing houses, noise and pollution, injuries.
A lot of being "car brained" is because even the best transit sucks compared to a Taxi.
People objectively don't want to share space with the masses. Even in Singapore or Japan, the stress of being in crowds is simply not worth it. Its slower, requires far more mental energy to plan your route, and requires a lot of physical movement which is hard for fatass americans.
Especially when America has quite cheap, awesomely fast and fun cars (your local C8 Corvette can be had for 15% off MSRP from the factory right now).
Cars are freedom. Mass transit is biopolitics/biopower. Big ass off road capable trucks literally don't even need roads.
How does 'stress of being in crowds' in big cities indicate all those people would prefer to drive? Is stuck in traffic not the 'stress of being in crowds'?
The stress of 2 ton machines flying around at 120 km/hr and operated by the angry and impatient-- that is simply not worth it. You think automated trains with 2 minute headways in a network covering 85% of local journeys at $3/ride would be worse than a Taxi at $1/minute with traffic?!!
A lot of being "car brained" is not realizing that even decent transit by global standards would be far far better than the subsidized freeway only-if-you-can-drive $8,000/year horrorshow of the US/Canada. No one's going to take away your fun cars, but a system maximizing freedom needs to account for the young, old, disabled, drunk, poor, and motivated to read instead of drive. Mass transit is freedom. Cars are consumption-politics/corporate-power.
It’s unarguable that driving requires more mental energy. Which is exactly why we have licensing, sobriety requirements, age floors and limits, etc.
Route planning itself is a mostly solved problem for an average pedestrian in any developed city. You type in your destination in maps and go.
Cars are only freedom to able bodied people of a certain financial means and age. Or when you live rurally. To everyone else in a city, they make it harder to get around.
You should go to the third world and see how much cheaper gas is there.
A lot of third world countries exist almost entierly off of gas subsidies from the government. Go look at what Libyans paid per liter of gas during the Gadaffi years.
Americans already pay a "fair price". No, no one in the world properly accounts for "externalities" of consumption.
This is every attempt to improve a software project in a corporation ever… Small QoL fix gets pushed off because “the big rewrite work will fix it anyway” and five years later the small fix still hasn’t been done.
Exactly. A huge part of these projects is proving to the public the value. So even a short, direct line is useful - as some will start to use it and then extending it becomes a simple "this thing we have is good, it should be good more."
But the short direct line might also not get built, if the projections show passenger volume will not be high enough to justify the costs.
Passenger rail has high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Even with high-speed rail, you generally want to maximize the number of passengers rather than speed. Making detours to nearby major cities often makes sense, while stopping at smaller cities the route already passes through might not.
A direct connection between Toronto and Montreal would serve one pair of major cities, while a Toronto – Ottawa – Montreal – Quebec City route would serve six. The longer route could be economically more viable, even if the costs are twice as high, as the number of potential passengers is much higher.
I know this is super late and nobody will likely see it, but the population of Quebec + Ottawa together is 18% of the population of Montreal + Toronto.
And the amount of track to connect the 4 cities together is double the simple Montreal-Toronto route -- on paper. In reality it's much larger, because most of the track along the Montreal-Toronto corridor is useable for HSR, but the proposed Ottawa-Toronto stretch is the one that needs a lot of new track.
There already are trains connecting to all of these cities, so HSR would still benefit people trying to get from, say, Toronto to Quebec City (the current rail service has a ~30 min stop in Montreal anyway, a transfer wouldn't add any real delay in that respect, and you'd cut down several hours of the journey with HSR service for the first leg). I'm simply saying that it would be great to just lay the damn track for HSR between the two largest Canadian cities, and deal with the smaller ones down the road.
At the high level, it made huge sense to create a Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal -QC route.
Up until a few months ago, the plan was to create a new link between Toronto/Detroit/Chicago and upgrade the links between Toronto/New York City and Montreal/New York City. In this previous world view in which we were all friends, getting as many larger Canadian cities as possible connected to this rail network was worth the cost.
But so much of the takeaway is that it's "impossible" for top-down government to actually process all of what was happening within the system they created, and to respond appropriately and timely-- thus creating problems like food shortages, corrupt industries, etc etc. So many of the problems were traced to the monolith information processing buildings owned by the state.
But honestly.. with modern LLMs all the way up the chain? I could envision a system like this working much more smoothly (while still being incredibly invasive and eroding most people's fundamental rights). And without massive food and labour shortages, where would the energy for change come from?
reply