It's not about it being occupied, it is about what is happening inside.

Everyone knows what's happening inside.

Indeed, people are snorting coke. Hence why they want doors.

Good thing they were already in the stall, as that coke was bunk, and cut with laxatives

“Got off” would be more appropriate

"got off" implies he was guilty but got away with it. I'd say "vindicated" or "absolved" fit the bill here.

How is searching encrypted data not going to be used for exfiltration? What a terrible idea.

I’m sure you can name benign useful things you could use it for. But it seems to me you’re blatantly overlooking the obvious flaw.

There is no getting around doing search on encrypted data reducing the level of secrecy. To have an even minutely useful search result, some information within the searched corpus must be exposed.

Waste… I can’t stop thinking about the waste of human talent and potential. The waste of resources to run AI data centers. The waste of the now old school CS ethos. Yea, wasteland checks out.

The future is wastemaxxing

Considering how disdainful our descendants may once look upon this time, we may as well hope it won't be remembered.

Fish are pretty sensitive to temperature. It may seem like a river is a great heatsink, but it isn’t without side effects.

Ok, great movie. But man, I hate that this is what everyone thinks about when they think of nihilism.

It is very challenging to truly believe in nothing. I think it is much more realistic to see nihilism as a label applied to others’ belief systems that we find entirely void of valid belief.

Organizations described as Nihilistic Violent Extremists do have beliefs that motivate them, they are just vacuous beliefs in the eyes of the vast majority of human beings.

However if you can show me someone who can convincingly claim to be that they really are a nihilist I would be curious to see it.

I suspect that this categorization is a result of confusion on the part of law enforcement and their inability to cope with the post-ideological landscape of the internet. Someone who believes all manner of contradictory things is not a “nihilist,” they just have an unsettled or dynamic belief structure. This may be because they haven’t fully worked out their beliefs, or it may be because they are willing to readily adopt new beliefs if they seem advantageous. In essence this seems more Discordian than nihilist.

There’s also a third option, the person doesn’t see a problem with superficially adopting other beliefs as a form of camouflage, but they do have a core set of beliefs.

In general I think the chaos of the internet and the exposure to multiple points of view encourages fragmentation and dynamic systems of belief. I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing, either.

While we’re at it let’s get rid of wire transfers, and transactions by bank id / account number. Something more fool proof and transparent is far overdue.

> let’s get rid of wire transfers, and transactions by bank id / account number

You can’t sent a Fedwire with only account number [1]. And this woman wasn’t shot because of wires, the man was told to hand over hard cash.

[1] https://onrr.gov/document/fedwire.pdf

The social constructs were the entire point. The spacey stuff was just a vehicle to get a more relatable protagonist into the story.

Authoritarian regimes don’t run on facts. They run on the primacy of Authority. Cameras record factual information. Facts are inconvenient for Authority. You know, 1984 Department of Truth style.

Yeah but the camera was broken that day the policeman beat you. On protest day? It's magically up and running.

They will have the AI just make a video of you doing whatever they feel like accusing you of and publish that from a .gov website.

It’s not a coincidence that the CIA just took down the World Fact Book.

When you control the cameras you can memory hole any inconvenient truths.

well if you never read about how any of those work you might think that.

In reality they are very much interested in facts, because they give them info who to oppress harder

This is really a failure to understand how oppressive regimes work.

The goal is not to accurately target people, the whole point is you don't care. The exercise of power is the point.

It doesn't matter who's door you kicked in: you were right to do it no matter what, and they were guilty no matter what.

Facts _are_ weapons for them though. If they have the video they can pick out the 12 seconds that looks like what they want, or if it's all bad just hide it.

They don't need it, but it's convenient.

You're talking about partial facts and misrepresentations at this point. You're also saying it yourself, facts aren't their primary concern, sure they can be convenient, anything can be made convenient if you're allowed to cherry pick. But the bigger problem is they also have no problems lying and making shit up. Not what I would call caring about facts.

I'm specifically saying that them having access to thousands of random cameras is to their benefit, and not because it will lead to accurate law enforcement.

Yes, they can take advantage of privacy violations, being able to misrepresent facts, and pointing to an infallible technology stack even though it is not.

Sometimes they don't even need real evidence. In 10 years if they get their way, if the AI says you're guilty, you're guilty. Not to mention all the extrajudicial punishments like getting banned from having a bank account or a job, which is like a death sentence.

Municipal cameras do exist for speeding, tolls, and maybe other road research. But Flock is the definition of let's get everyone in dragnet surveillance so we can pick on whoever we want, at least try.

You will need a lot of evidence to make such a counterintuitive claim, when surgically eliminating your enemies without bothering anyone else is such a logical strategy.

I don't think fascists are that smart, they will go after those that get in the way and those who they perceive as weak. They are bullies who are cowards and all that.

There are a lot of ways to inflect this question. To ask it bare is usually not the best.

Note in the authors third approach they first validate the feelings and then ask for more details. That is a really great move. Tailoring that to the vibe of the situation is where it’s at. It really does work like a charm.