The exploited software is conveniently developed and controlled by Iran’s adversaries. In another episode of the geopolitical sabotage show,
“In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a memoir by a Reagan White House official.”
True or not, the risk of software Trojan horses in the big energy game was recognized pretty early. The lesson here is, potentially dangerous technology ought to be matched by a comprehensive security protocol.
Yep, don't run your centrifuges on windows 98 is probably sound advice.
>In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions..
My impression is that the government tried to 'solve' the problem with one main constraint in mind: to never allow the prices go down in any meaningful way. Hence the ham-fisted attempts to instead tweak taxes and ease credit conditions.
I guess that's the implicit constraint that none likes to talk about or admit. It doesn't help that no matter what you do, some population will be screwed over. I have seen that people who used to worry about not being able to afford a house, and who have now somehow managed to buy one, now start worrying about their house value going down.
This cannot be solved with just one trick or just in a few years. You need strong, resolute, long-term actions. But that doesn't fit in an election cycle.
Definitely. People don't hate the game, they hate losing at the game.
Problems can be either solved in a constructive way (we see that's not going to happen) or in a nonconstructive way (societal explosion or breakdown of some sort). Or sometimes problems get superseded by bigger problems. Like when recently the home prices went down just a little bit, it was because of ECB's hand forced into fighting inflation with higher interest rates, which made mortgages less accessible.
There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum? If not, they’re likely going with “the current thing” of their preferred echo chamber, which may or may not be real.
> There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum?
Simple? What if they think the entire range to care about are “my conservative grandfather” and “my liberal in-laws”? In other words this isn’t a litmus test unless the person even knows what the spectrum is.
Which is the point at which you return to Orthodoxy Privilege, or rather Ideology as people other than Paul “Not Invented Here” Graham has been calling it for over a century.
This heuristic would essentially lead one to believe that independent-mindedness is largely not possible would it not (the explicit "probabilistic" claim in the conclusion)?
I meant it in a more technical sense, as in “I start my morning by checking 4-5 news outlets from different corners of the political field and try to figure out what’s really going on by comparing the narratives”. That of course is not sufficient; one has to do their homework on prior history of whatever the contentious issue is.
And yes, probably it’s not an activity most people engage in.
That is certainly a fine practice, but my disagreement is with the claim that doing this is necessary for open-mindedness, and that those who do not are "probably" doing something highly silly.
There was a website aimed at something similar called “the factual” but they never really got the algorithm off the ground before they were bought - by yahoo news by all things.
Hello! I work in local politics as a side-hustle/volunteer effort. This litmus test is absolute bullshit because it ignores the massive swaths of issues that are party orthogonal and don't make headlines. When actually pressed the liberalest liberal who's ever liberaled with a car bumper full of stickers will actually have a unique set of political views once you move past the like six wedge issues and vice versa. And the more interesting one is the reasons behind a view vary wildly. I was taken aback when I talked to a very conservative gay veteran who said that trans people shouldn't be in the military because, "they won't get the care they need" and that people should all have guns to shoot crooked cops.
And the other problem is that those "unrelated" views on both sides of the spectrum are actually way more related than people assume and those common threads define the group so it's not at all surprising that you can see a theme and make predictions based on it.
An easy one for liberals, asymmetric power dynamics are bad. You can follow this theme to lgbt rights, blm, general anti-corporation, defund the police, drug decriminalization, generally anti-prison, supporting Ukraine, supporting Palestine against Israel, but also supporting Jewish populations at home, reducing the size of the American military, strong labor laws, unions, immigration, defunding ICE, civil rights, anti-insurance/single-payer healthcare, breaking up monopolies, taxing billionaires they all stem from this. You show me a sympathetic underdog and I'll tell you who the liberals will support lol.
Leaving aside your focus on political views (even though the test I proposed is more about getting better informed than diversifying one’s beliefs and prejudices), what’s the typical case you’re getting at: do people have unique sets of political views or are those views more clustered “than people assume”? You sort of started arguing for the former and then pivoted.
There are two groups of issues, ones that stem from the core defining beliefs of the groups that cause individuals to self-label as members in the first place and everything else. You'll see a lot of unity on the former and surprisingly little unity on the latter outside of transient political coalitions of convenience. Once you stray from things that are rooted in the core values of a group you'll find huge amounts of disagreement and that individuals have extremely varied views taken holistically.
If the SVB debacle taught us anything, it is that even the most libertarian free-market aficionados love their “nanny state” when it’s them who’s in trouble.
Don’t know about the guy, but the outlet seems spook-infested. Bigwigs connected to the Council on Foreign Relations, the German Marshall Fund, etc. By definition they have and promote a US-exceptionalist worldview. Apparently, Dalio’s openly realpolitik business approach is a thorn in their side.
Funny, I too thought of that very video the moment I’d read the news. Rich was barely managing to feign just enough engagement without appearing rude. Happy he has escaped.
They prefer stealth layoffs here in the Netherlands. The end result is the same: you’re out, but with no severance and gaslit AF. Thanks Rutte, I guess?
Yeah but that is only in large corporations right? I have one friend that works at KPN and survived 3 rounds of lay-offs. I personally could not cope with that kind of stress. I only work at and for smaller companies. Currently I am the only employee at my company. It's only me and my employer.
When a corporation runs out of money, the managers get an assignment to hand out a high number of performance improvement plans to their direct reports. Those who can leave, prefer to resign. Those who can’t, stay and play along and face either no pay adjustment / no promotion or risk getting fired for “underperforming” after a while. Either way, the company achieves its goals of reducing the costs and headcount.
Of course this works only if you have a well-oiled HR machine and docile managers, which is typical for every Big Corp out there.
“In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a memoir by a Reagan White House official.”
True or not, the risk of software Trojan horses in the big energy game was recognized pretty early. The lesson here is, potentially dangerous technology ought to be matched by a comprehensive security protocol.