While I 100% do not support violence against Sam Altman, or anyone else for that matter, what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape? And I am genuinely interested in ideas that people think will work, not just trying to be combative.
The people saying it doesn’t work are the same people who can’t must the effort to even contact their representative.
I had a professor in college who was big on entrepreneurship. So he formed an organization, got others involved, went to Washington to lobby his rep. His rep said “let’s do it”, and sat him down with her staff to write a bill. That bill was brought to the floor for a vote and passed.
Until you’ve done that, dont complain the system doesn’t work.
The issue with politics today is the level of engagement of the average voter. Few people ever get involved, so the vacuum gets filled with whichever power-hungry mediocre person who puts some effort in.
I have worked on electoral and initiative campaigns, and traveled thousands of miles to knock on doors. I’ve donated money. I’ve called my congresspeople. I’ve gone to and spoken at public meetings. I’ve protested, been tear gassed, beaten, and thrown in jail. I’ve been doing all of this continuously for about 20 years. I can tell you, from extensive experience going through the official channels, that the formal mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally broken. We need to seriously face this problem and fix it, or things are just going to keep getting worse.
Yeah, America as a whole voted for Trump, and later atleast reading online I am seeing people be like: "I didn't know he was this bad" when reading his policies, he was exactly this bad :-/
People don't vote for their own gains but rather the gains of the few and to be honest, one can argue that within America this is a both-party problem and sometimes you are just picking for the less wrong politician and then you have these biases which blind them.
if this is the case, I have seen American people online say that "But, people know that the American govt and american people are different"
It is almost as if people are saying whatever is convenient at the time. This can only be one or the other.
If the average American's intent is of the system which is current administration, then forget about the trust within the system. I find your position with a bit of irony.
The system isn't working and that's a fact. You can say that people are to be blamed for that, sure, but then the people will be blamed entirely.
To be honest, The americans I sometimes talk online to don't share this ideal of the govt. and are fighting against it in some way or another but they are tired and hopeless, for the most part. I really take a deeper offense to your statement as that makes all the problems persist longer and thus to many people who have nothing to lose, violence feels like the only option which might be what GP might be referring to.
Either America needs to fix itself or violence will keep on happening. To be honest, I am not that much hopeful that America can fix itself though in the sense that the corporate influence is so immense with the two party system and the trust is still lost in some ways in America and times in future are gonna be even more harder yet America is completely polarized. These problems are also existing in other countries to be honest but America is at another magnitude and at these levels of inequality, violence to many people feel like the only way to share their voice which has been suppressed by the system for far too long. From my time reading history, this is a very repeating phenomenon and in a sense, history is messy but when people got really pissed at the system failing, mass scale revolt and violence was always picked as the last resort and we are in those times now.
I feel like we can either condemn or do anything as a society but if people (and humans just like you and me actually) get so frustrated within the system that violence seems like an good choice, then that is upon the fault of the system and I feel like the condemnation of act just does nothing in the long grand scheme of things.
TLDR: People should really act together to solve these things peacefully but its very far from happening in reality and reality is messy and always has been in some regards, we just read it from the line of statistics and history.
Yes many people couldn't vote (say youngsters) and many people didn't vote on the election day and from that sample who could and did vote did Trump win and within the election itself Democrats had gotten 75 million people.
In a similar fashion, my point is, I actually agree with you sir @mbgerring and your original comment. you tried your best to raise awareness and there are people who do the same and there are many who reach the support of millions but still no change is enacted because of the way system is enacted.
Yet the system can make someone like trump with maybe even sometimes far fewer people supporting it and billionaire's capital flowing into propaganda etc. too thus the people saying "we didn't vote for this"
My point was that the system is ultimately rigged by some people at the top against the average person and @refurb saying to you that oh this is then what the people must want, is a factually wrong statement.
I think you yourself have put it right: "We need to seriously face this problem and fix it, or things are just going to keep getting worse."
And I also agree with your overall statement that if the system continues on being as hopeless as it is, then for some people violence would become the only option for their voices as their voices get shutted from every peaceful way.
Because so many people are being ground down. You have time to organize something, instead of making rent? Well now you have to fight to even get your voting rights back, that you were silently stripped off because of your skin color and demographic, or social status. Then you need to see if you can ever get the gerrymandered border back to where it should be so the other party will ever have a chance at winning in your area, instead of losing by default. Pretty sure the next election is only about two swing-states again.
> I had a professor in college who was big on entrepreneurship. So he formed an organization, got others involved, went to Washington to lobby his rep. His rep said “let’s do it”, and sat him down with her staff to write a bill. That bill was brought to the floor for a vote and passed. Until you’ve done that, dont complain the system doesn’t work
This is a sign of the system not working. A well connected professor, with plenty of free time to form an organization and go to Washington to talk to his rep
Might as well be an industry lobbyist.
Could a worker from Walmart do the same thing? In theory sure. In practice unlikely, for any number of reasons. Not least because people are unlikely to take a Wal Mart worker seriously enough to join their organization.
> Nothing stops the average citizen from organizing and getting similar access to representatives
I disagree pretty strongly. There are tons of soft power social levers and bureaucratic structures designed exactly to prevent your average Joe from getting access to representatives
Even a comparatively powerful person like a wealthy CEO of a big company often experiences friction trying to get access to public servants. That's why they hire lobbyists whose job it is to get past the friction
This system totally works so long as you can take time off work to form a lobbying group -- this does not pass the sniff test to me.
Reminder that even in the scenario that constituents 100% support or 100% reject a policy, their opinions hold almost no statistical sway to their elected representative. It's actually worse than a coin flip.
It's only when you restrict your constituent demographic to just those in the top 10% of wealth (...like a professor in college for example...) that suddenly their voting decisions align to constituent opinions.
Look up "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", this has been known for some time.
> what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape?
The honest truth? They're supposed to do nothing and take their licks with a smile. If that's not good enough for them, they are allowed to occupy themselves with ineffectual political activities, preferably on issues that are exhausting and do not disturb the power of the elite (e.g. abortion, transgenderism, etc.).
> what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape?
California has a referendum system. Get signatures for a policy and put it to the voters.
They absolutely do. On September 12, 2001, ~nobody in the United States was interested in starting a war with Iraq.
Two years of propaganda later, and all of a sudden, half the population had acquired keen geopolitical insights which necessitated an invasion and occupation of a country that had exactly fuck-all to do with 9/11.
A decade later, all of a sudden, nobody wanted to fess up to wanting anything to do with that mess.
Public wants aren't discovered in some interference-free democratic vacuum. The people who own the press put a millstone on their side of the scales.
> Two years of propaganda later, and all of a sudden, half the population had acquired keen geopolitical insights which necessitated an invasion and occupation of a country that had exactly fuck-all to do with 9/11
There was desire for vengeance on 12 September. Reporting and politicians channeled it. That’s very different from driving consensus against something people would otherwise support.
You're proving my point. The thumb was put on the scale, he public was bombarded 24/7 with self-serving false dichotomies and viola, you've just manufactured mass public support for insane bullshit.
It works the same way in other countries too. Look at any country that you believe to believe in insane shit - most of those beliefs aren't organic.
Neither are the insane things you believe in. It's just that you can't even see that they aren't the product of your own reasoning. Fish don't have a word for water.
> You're proving my point. The thumb was put on the scale, he public was bombarded 24/7 with self-serving false dichotomies and viola, you've just manufactured mass public support for insane bullshit.
See also Covid-19. Same shit only waaaaaaay more batshit insane and waaaaaaaay more crazy 24-7 fear mongering.
Similar thing at my company. Someone /very/ high up in the org chart recently said to the entire company that OpenClaw is the future of computing, and specifically called out Moltbook as something amazing and ground breaking. There is literally no way security would ever let OpenClaw in the same room as company systems, never mind actually be installed anywhere with access to our data.
It should be noted that this exec also mentioned we should try "all the AIs", without offering up their credit card to cover the costs. I guess when your base salary is more than most people make in a life time, a few hundred bucks a month to test something doesn't even register.
MoltBook is vibe coded. It passed its own API key via client side JS, and in doing so exposed full read/write access to it’s supabase db, complete with over a million API keys.
That is groundbreaking for a product held in such high esteem, just not in a good way.
I lack the words to explain my frustration at this timeline.
Am I missing something or are both of the "we convinced someone to let the AI out" claims missing any logs of what was actually said? Why wouldn't that be shared? You can't just claim something is true because you have proof, but not share the proof.
You're not missing anything; I can't remember what his reasoning was, just that he gave one, therefore his say-so was only worth as much as your trust that he was honest.
Today though, with headlines like this one in response to events such as it quotes from people in positions such as they are?
That is why I miss the old days, when not believing Yudkowsky's statements about the AI Box experiment only meant your views were compatible with the norms of corporate IT security rules.
> 35,000 emails. 1.5M API keys. And 17,000 humans behind the not-so-autonomous AI network
Wow, this is sure a brave new world. I'd just recently heard about the project and they've already been pwned so massively. We're accelerating into a future beyond our control.
If I'm reading you right, you're saying if one country does something bad, that makes it OK for another country to do the same? You can likely find a country in the world doing any heinous thing you can think of, so is everything on the table? What about positive things? Lots of countries have socialized medicine, so by your logic doesn't that mean the US should, too?
And if you think activism is bad for non-residents (non-citizens?) who do you think should decide what constitutes activism? A student goes to a pro-Israel rally, is that deportable activism? A tourist goes to an 'adopt-a-puppy' event at a no-kill shelter and donates $10, is that deportable activism?
> Contrary to the national security threat machine’s picture of a country at war with itself, we all got along so swimmingly that the idea of a civil war or anything like it struck me as laughable, as did the notion that the statistically insignificant number of politically-motivated killings, though real, said anything at all about the vast majority of real-world Americans.
This line of thinking drives me crazy, especially from someone like Ken. Just because a bunch of privileged Americans were friendly with each other while enjoying an amazing time in nature doesn't immediately negate the very real problems going on in the US.
I think what he is trying to say is that if we all sit down with each other and stop requiring that people agree with our worldview before engaging in good faith, we would find that we actually get along peacefully. He is saying that it isn't as bad as he thought it was before he experienced a situation where that happened.
See them discuss about how much someone of them gets paid or taxed, if he has medical help if needed or if he can afford to live where he's living now.
This person lives and breathes politics, he is a political blogger. Just interacting with people outside of politics was new for him.
He isn't saying 'ignore politics', and he isn't saying 'we can all agree on everything'. What he is saying is 'making your life about political issues distorts your perspective to where you think that everyone hates one another to point of declaring a civil war' and is advocating sitting down and just socializing with people without the baggage.
But this is an environment where people aren’t talking about real and very important issues.
We obviously get along as a society when we are just doing day to day things. You don’t have to be on vacation to witness that.
But when it comes to discussing whether my trans friends have basic human rights, or whether we should treat foreigners like criminals with no due process by default, whether we should build
coal power plants or nuclear power plants or solar power plants, or whether we should start a war, or whether healthcare should be a human right, it’s easy to find people I’ll have strong disagreements with these days.
And those are disagreements that have real consequences. Just ask the people I know who are discontinuing healthcare coverage due to ACA subsidies ending.
Ignorance and avoiding discussing these issues is bliss…until one day it might affect you.
The polarization is unfortunate but I think one way to lessen that is to actually confront issues and solve them. And that’s a fight since there’s a whole system setup that intends us to never solve those problems. But perhaps we might observe that a lot of the solved problems no longer occupy the debate space.
If you want to get people on your side, the best way to do that is not to argue with them, but to be friendly with them. This doesn't mean rolling over and letting them say untrue things or not advocating for causes that are important to you, but it means respecting that other people have different views and putting aside disagreements to socialize with them. There is a reason why armies disallow 'fraternizing with the enemy'.
It would be interesting to do a study (if one hasn't already been done) on whether password manager use reduces the number of compromises an individual has or not.
I think if used correctly they can be a net benefit, but the question is how many users actually use them correctly. Isn't the security they offer based on a user only having to remember a single complex and unique password for the manager, and then let it handle unique and complex passwords for everything else. The question is, however, how many users just set the password manager password to 'ImSecure123!' and use it to autofill the same old reused passwords they've always used?
This is why all the top/good password managers will alert you of: 1) password reuse between sites and 2) weak passwords. One can hope that the users will listen to those suggestions. In an organization, you can enforce compliance.
I find it interesting that the comment about VPNs offering little additional privacy or security benefits is wrapped up under 'Avoid Public WiFi' rather than being called out explicitly. It drives me nuts all the ads I see for NordVPN or whatever claiming that by using their services you are now totally safe from all the hacks. If anything, it makes the median user less safe because they have a false sense of security.
And why did you go straight to whataboutism? Just because one person does bad things it doesn't excuse other people from doing the same bad things. You don't see serial killers lawyers arguing, "I know my client killed 17 people, but what about that Jeffrey Dahmer, eh?"
Exactly this! I just don't understand how this is hard for otherwise competent people to grasp. The explanation I've used in the past is the choices are either being stabbed in the face or kicked in the balls. Ideally I'd not have either, but forced between one or the other I know which one I'd pick.
David Sedaris: “I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”
> I find it hilarious that everyone is scared of Trump when there was a concerted effort by the other side to use the justice system to stop him from ever running again.
I honestly don't get what you mean by this. Lets say all your comments about Biden, the FBI, laptops and whatever else are 100% true. How does that change if I should be worried about stuff Trump might do? To use a totally extreme example, if John Wayne Gacy went around talking all the shit in the world about Jeffrey Dahmer, does that somehow make Dahmer not a serial killer?
> He ran on “lock her up” in 2016 and never followed through.
So that proves he lies and makes promises he can't/won't/doesn't keep? Is that a positive trait in a politician? How are we supposed to determine when he is 'just joshing, bro' and actually is being truthful? And yes, I know Biden and the dems also make promises they don't keep, but again that doesn't excuse Trump from doing the same.
