Not that. Because their IP and copyright and patent laws are softer, and also more bendable. In practice those laws don’t matter much.

Now “AI”, surveillance and such are ways to bypass those stricter laws on IP in the west. Technologies exist in some socioeconomic context. A big company doing surveillance and “AI” breaking those laws doesn’t expose that it breaks those laws often, and when it does, it can sustain pressure to get its way.

So the appeal of these technologies is to launder data. Which is, fundamentally, same as perfect obfuscation of executable code. And other such things.

That’s money against right, money wants no reverse engineering, no alternative compatible software, no examination of what their stuff does, and no responsibility for the data used. While in right, of course, examination and compatible tools being possible and verifiable supply chain and so on are basic for industrial civilization.

Technically they are funded by taxes, so it’s rather “whatcha gonna do, declare war on me?”.

and the robots are going to be plentiful because once enough of the process of making a robot becomes automated, the cost of it will go to zero.

That’s wrong, new layers of generalization do you know what? They make the thing cheaper or more expensive depending on the balance between the buyer and the seller, which is changed. Nothing more.

And suppose you’re the all-powerful and simultaneously benevolent seller, as a thought experiment. The thing becomes cheaper or more expensive based on its applicability to tasks and your ability to generalize that.

It’s a big matter, manual labor and trades are the part of economies least affected by centralized control and computerization. With software development you can’t replace people with chatbots. But with repeating manual tasks like replacing a window or painting a wall - possible. I mean, no, I don’t think that’s possible either, too many small complications. I don’t know what Elon is on again, of course you need some substances to keep you going in this world when you’re autistic, none of us will judge him for that.

Anyway, your direction of thought is kaboom idiotic, see, you’re as valuable as you’re needed, everything else is driven by that. I mentioned autistic people, well, most people not autistic don’t even notice how rules of dignity and morality they start applying only the layer above their basic one, of social hierarchy and power and alliances. Elon is known to be autistic and there’s a trillion in the title, so he really might believe what he’s selling, but those of us without trillions or even measly billions should know better.

So - robots fulfilling demand mean people not being in demand. That sucks.

SKG doesn’t specify how companies need to solve the problem, only that games need to continue to function after the company stops supporting them.

And that’s the friendliest to companies way possible, just people used to setting laws in their favor think it’s still rude to them.

Some of the quotes are good, yes.

And I agree the more because entertainment involving social interactions is as important as political spaces. It’s not aristocrats complaining about bad cake when people don’t have bread. Most of my social interactions were, actually, concentrated around

The bullshit about it being hard to design anything without a kill switch is irritating. A kill switch is the additional expense and complication. Something without a kill switch might not be readily available to run after the company shuts down its servers, but nobody needs that really. Simplifying things, there are plenty of people among players capable of deploying infrastructure.

In any case, when the only thing you need is documented operation and ability to set the service domain name and\or addresses, where the former the company needs itself and the latter is trivial, it’s all farting steam.

Commercial risks are something businesses have to consider themselves, it’s not government’s job.

Legal risks are exactly their problem to solve.

Company is a body of people, and its moderation can’t be more or less safe, in principle, than moderation by some other body of people with responsibility for that.

Excuses.

Go a few levels of logic deep and all you’ve got left is noise.

Which you often don’t need. Mechanical computers for aircraft operation, or hydraulic computers for modeling something nuclear, things like that.

But there’s nothing “century-old” about all this. They might have non-deterministic steps for some calculation where determinism is not needed (like if you need to ray-trace a sphere, you’ll do fine with a bit different dithering each time) and without it better performance is achievable.

The idea seems to make sense, just - it will never be revolutionary.

That’s all true, but there have been a few things similarly widespread and harmful, which weren’t solved until their turn came. Like lead in everything (not that nobody knew lead is poisonous or that things containing lead end up in the air and in the water and so on), or like child labor in factories, or like slavery (slavery was considered barbaric and gradually outlawed in Europe in the Middle Ages, then it made a comeback during the triangle trade, and for all its time of relevance people argued about its social effect, and that of racial segregation, still it lasted long enough).

This is a problem. It will eventually be seen as a threat. But it’s not that much different from radio.

Meeting up in a pub is a good enough idea no matter which pub it is, apparently, if the Internet shuts down.

That is as it was originally designed. Nobody promised freedom to people starting to use a system the development of which was paid for with military budget. It’s resilient enough. It’s not intended to protect people like us willing to not be controlled by bigger services.

Yes, that’s the point. Their glass ball and Tarot layout say you’re guilty, so now you have to prove your innocence. And to prove your innocence you have to collect all the data on yourself.

BTW, this is far more subtle than it seems, collecting and giving to someone all the info on yourself all the time is nonsense, but collecting it and having just in case for such situations might seem normal for many honest people. Except in fact these are the same, you don’t have tools to collect it all without giving it to someone predictable. So this whole big tech and surveillance con abuses good faith participation in the society. And encourages everyone becoming a cheater.

The police and other such people know that these are bullshit machines, but use them to cheat with impunity. Sometimes to charge a clearly innocent person, because they have an excuse - the computer did it. And the rest of us are incentivized to cheat to get better ratings for loans and worse ratings for scammers, and better danger rating so that police wouldn’t just use as a scapegoat to close a case like this, instead choosing someone less dangerous.

Wait till witchcraft becomes a crime again. Nobody would believe in it, of course, but it’d be an easy win for everyone except the convict.

I don’t care if Soviet caricatures (“Neznaika on the Moon” specifically) were wrong back then, they are correct now. I mean, yeah, they are correct everywhere now, but still.

Oh, they should, but similarly to “AI” as a tool, with the whole responsibility for the tool being on the person using it.

Similar to screwdrivers, pencils and guns.

That’s intentional. Someone just makes shit up, using a magic machine, so that their responsibility were in doubt for other similar irresponsible people with ability to fuck up others’ lives.

There should be a responsible policeman for every such decision, going to jail for at least as much time as she would were she convicted, when the decision is wrong.

Wow. In ex-USSR past convictions are a problem, but when you were cleared of charges - that really is wild. I mean, OK, the rate of convictions is not exactly normal in ex-USSR too.

I mean by this comparison that people here usually think we have it worse with the conviction record.

Why can’t they see the outcome?

So you’re a billionaire and one is not different from the other for you, gotcha.

There are far more seconds in your life than hundreds of millions dollars.

11.4 bln is 100 mln away from 11.5 bln. I’m not sure “so close” is correct here.

It’s typical, a bit how Russian politicians and members of their families often touch criminal folklore (the higher kind related to student culture, not the lower kind about homosexual ranks) with their mouths, despite being dirty by default for any carrier of that. They also love to similarly spoil patriotism.

In this case a bunch of stinking orcs is showing that they are the elves you’re gonna get. Get used to it. They’re in control.

This was never about security. That’s just the excuse.

Every technical decision is an excuse to fulfill a social desire.

There was a time when I was 14 and happy and saw such things in everything around me, and all the fiction I was reading often touched that trait of the surrounding reality. Those books are not considered something for intellectuals or artists, and I have nothing to discuss with such people - that is, strictly speaking not true, but I never know why some things I know and mention are interesting or not, and why some my opinions meet hearty agreement and some are politely ignored. And I never find continuations for those agreements and interests. But I feel as if that planted something deep in my head that has endured all the degradation.

So. You should also look at things where it seems that technical decisions were made for technical reasons.

The desktop paradigms, the platform paradigms, the OS paradigms, the ergonomics, - of course. But also aesthetics and visibility, how separate or mixed with the offscreen reality everything is. Also why the Internet is built as it is, why multi-user operating systems and Java really exist, what really is Unix and what really is Windows. About software design and why what embedded developers make when allowed is considered bad design, while what web developers make is considered rather good design, yet the former is usually more stable, secure and maintainable than the latter.

Not just software, but why is our consumer hardware is what it is, what do we need such complex systems for.

Not just computers, but construction design - the world now is very different from the world where that brutalist idea of making apartment buildings having a terrace as a “street” to which you have another exit from your apartment was bad due to all the crime. And also there are plenty of covered passages and malls with the same idea, except the framework building is always privately owned, having a different juridical status than a street or a bridge. While Soviet-style microdistricts, and things similar to them, are similarly bad due to crime, yet honestly the “right and good” modern European urbanism moves in that direction.

All the choices around us are made by humans, driven by social stimuli - that’s the meaning of the word “social”, all the stimuli are there, and economics and technology act more like framework of the possible for the social.

Just treat whatever “advice” these things “give” as given by the person who made the decision to host them.

Should be simple.

Instead they are already being treated as some magic, not a tool inseparable from the owner, or as a living thing. It’s idiotic.