6 ms·

The Great Aboveground Empire

75 points by pabs3 3y ago

textfiles 3y ago
Yesterday, I turned off the caching, thinking "It'll be fine." Whoops. Going back on again.
masswerk 3y ago
Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20230523070732/http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/5528 https://web.archive.org/web/20230523070732/http://ascii.text...
wolverine876 3y ago
> people want all the cachet of being outside the boundaries, in lawless territories where you survive on the wit and bravery (or brutality) of Taking The Initiative and damn the costs and risks, but also want to be protected and safe with all the constructs we in Civilization provide One fundamental problem is in the second word, "want". Many people take this childhood perpsective, based around 'want', like someone else will provide it for them. When you're an adult, you provide. There's nobody else to do it. The government, the community, the society is you. If you don't act to create a free, safe, prosperous, harmonious community, there's nobody else to do it. There's no cavalry, no parents, it's just you and me. What you do determines what community we have; if you're lawless, your community will be lawless - that's what you built.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  My sense is that community has always been something like a (inexact numbers) 5%, 35%, 60% split of "make things happen" "help those who make things happen" and "enjoy the fruits of the work of the minority, while occasionally making token gestures of contributing"
  - wahern 3y ago
    The prosaic version of Lenin's vanguardism. I also like to remind myself that those groups aren't fixed--at any moment the composition of the 5% can be different, and any particular person can often be placed in different groups according to context.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Except the implementation of Lenin's principles is 35% locking down those 5% by preventing their freedom of movement and competitive employment, so that their results may be bought at far below market rate and distributed between the remaining 95%. This is where you begin to see state serfdom and exit visas. Compound by the fact that everybody tends to be quite poor as productive people don't feel the need to overstretch themselves producing.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - jgon 3y ago
    My sense is that our current society is pretty similar to what you write here except with the labels completely reversed, and the 5% that depend on basically the rest of society to operate and maintain the titanic lifestyle they've accustomed themselves to tell themselves that they are "the minority that make things happen". Ultimately we still need to dig food out of the dirt under the hot sun more or less, and nail together wood and lay down shingles, again either under the hot sun or in the freezing cold, etc, etc. Its a whole ton of getting your hands dirty and wrecking your body for decades until the bill comes due, and then watching as someone whose hands are buttery soft says "Thanks for the fruits of you labor, remember that I 'made this happen'" in reference to their token gestures of contributing.
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      Society in the large operates in many ways this way; I was thinking about community in the small. Groups within an order-of-magnitude of Dunbar's number.
mattknightlewis 3y ago
U.S. Army libertarians
- timerol 3y ago
  My first thought was people whose disaster preparedness strategy is guns and ammo before water and food. Imagining violently defending your compound between weekly trips to the grocery store feels very Aboveground to me
  - textfiles 3y ago
    During the LA Riots, some people parked in the parking lot spaces to loot supermarkets.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    If we're talking some sort of civilizational collapse scenario, you would unquestionably want firearms over food as preparation. First of all you can hunt with a gun. Secondly, you can take other people's food with a gun. Finally you can defend your own food from being taken once you've acquired it by any means necessary.
    - cobertos 3y ago
      Doesn't this require a ton of resources (gas and mobility gear, manpower to find and move food, or continuously migrating your living area) and assume everyone you meet will be an enemy you will want to take food from?
      - chrisco255 3y ago
        Based on my reckoning, it would behoove you to hunt first and foremost with a firearm, to secure food for yourself and your family. A single deer could feed a family for a month plus. A cow could feed a family for months. But undoubtedly, skirmishes would happen. Humans are tribal creatures and tribal structures would almost instantly form in such a vacuum.
    - 3y ago
gota 3y ago
> It’s a situation where people want all the cachet of being outside the boundaries, in lawless territories where you survive on the wit and bravery (or brutality) of Taking The Initiative and damn the costs and risks, but also want to be protected and safe with all the constructs we in Civilization provide so you don’t wake up with your throat slit and your pockets turned out. I thought this was going to be anarcho-capitalism based on this introduction
- textfiles 3y ago
  I have a longer essay coming up and I was worried that I was going to be sidetracked/waylaid into a rather silly debate, so this essay is meant to be pointed to when I hit that part of the discussion. Naturally, these are themes present in a lot of discussions, I just wanted one for my set.
svilen_dobrev 3y ago
i am afraid it has long escaped tech.. and has become just everyday.. a wishfull-thinking-ocean of kind. i mean, "i did 10 headshots in a row" isn't about passport photos..
stinkytaco 3y ago
Privatizing profit while socializing risk is not a new phenomenon. But it's not all bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes and bitcoin millionaires who run to the SEC when things go south. It's also rescue services when my backpacking expedition goes wrong, or the fire department when I stupidly start a grease fire. There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  > bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes > rescue services, or the fire department I think it's around "when a life is at stake"
  - stinkytaco 3y ago
    Perhaps. But I'm also a big advocate for a social safety net because people make mistakes. I was a pretty poor kid because my parents made some bad decisions. They weren't bad people, but they were immature and unlucky. Without that net, I'm not a productive professional today. I realize this article is abou t the cultural issue, not the political one. From crypto anarchists to VCs, people want to profit of off "disruption", then fall back on the safety net of society when that goes wrong. They have all the trappings of underground with the real benefits of a structured society. I agree, but the metaphor the author is using strays closely to a world really unfortunate people inhabit either through their decisions or someone else's.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is. Probably exactly around where the rules are. If you made a legitimate mistake, well, shit happens. If enough people are making the same or similar mistakes, it points to a systemic problem, and eventually rules will be changed to mitigate it. From that point on, the bad situation stops being a mistake - it requires one to intentionally disregard safety advice and/or break the law. The society might not be willing to help you with that anymore (or rather, it will still help, but also bill you for it afterwards).
cobertos 3y ago
So if I read this right... There are multiple "symptoms" that sort of signal abovegroundedness. Like advertising the "undergroundness" or lack of life altering/nonreversable risk. But it really comes down to how much reliance on current societal functionality you have to reduce your risk (things insurers will insure, societal services or infrastructure setup to keep you safe, monetary backing provided by others who can absorb it) And as like many things it's a spectrum of "abovegroundedness" and "undergroundedness" with areas in between. Personally, I think as long as your reliance on society is not antithetical to your mission, then it seems reasonable to use society where you can and cut reliance where you cant
cobertos 3y ago
Isn't HN pretty aboveground, by the articles definition?
- textfiles 3y ago
  Fundamentally.
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
musha68k 3y ago
(GPT-4) OpenAI's push for regulations in front of Congress can be seen in two ways: OpenAI, recognizing the potential risks associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) and other AI technologies, is advocating for regulations that will ensure these technologies are used safely and ethically. This move aligns with societal expectations and the growing call for more transparency in the AI field. In doing so, OpenAI is positioning itself visibly in the public eye, taking a stance that illustrates a responsible and forward-thinking approach to AI development and use. This type of positioning is a hallmark of being "Aboveground", operating within societal norms and expectations. On the other hand, the push for regulations can also be seen as an "Underground" move within the "Aboveground" framework. By leading the conversation on AI regulations, OpenAI may be subtly shaping the regulatory environment to suit its interests. This allows OpenAI to maintain a public face of transparency and responsibility, while also ensuring that the emerging regulations are compatible with its operations and future plans. Here are a few proposals to enhance verifiable transparency: Open-Sourcing: This has been one of the cornerstones of transparency, especially in software development. OpenAI could continue releasing their models and training datasets, to the extent it is safe, ethical, and legally permissible. This allows third-party researchers to inspect, reproduce, and validate the results, enhancing the credibility of their work. However, as AI models become more powerful, there could be increasing safety and misuse concerns, which need to be carefully managed. Independent Audits: Regular audits by independent organizations can help verify claims and ensure that the practices of the organization align with their stated principles. These audits should be comprehensive, covering ethical, safety, privacy, and security aspects of AI systems. Explainability: As AI models become increasingly complex, it's important for AI developers to strive for transparency in how their models work and make decisions. Advanced explanation methods, understandable to non-experts, can help shed light on the inner workings of these models. Public Engagement: Regular communication about their work, plans, challenges, and decisions can help OpenAI build trust with the public. This could be in the form of public forums, town hall meetings, or public consultations, especially when making significant decisions. Collaboration and Partnership: By working together with other research and policy institutions worldwide, OpenAI can ensure that its approach to AI and AGI development is aligned with global standards and best practices. Transparency in Policy Advocacy: If advocating for AI regulations, it's important for OpenAI to make clear their reasons and motivations. They should also disclose their engagements with policymakers and regulators. Documentation and Reporting: Providing thorough documentation of research processes, decisions made, trade-offs considered, and lessons learned during the course of developing AI systems can increase transparency. Regular, detailed reporting on safety, fairness, and privacy measures would also be beneficial. Ethics Review Board: Establishing an independent ethics board can help monitor and evaluate OpenAI's activities from an ethical perspective. The board could provide public-facing reports on their findings and recommendations.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Huh. This seems related to a hypothesis I had that saddens me a bit - that progress of civilization, both the real one we see and a hypothetical better one (as utopian as possible to achieve with how actual humans behave) - necessarily tries to eliminate individual autonomy and self-sufficiency. This creates a conflict similar to what the article describe - people want to both do sketchy shit and enjoy the benefits of civilization, except replace "sketchy shit" with meaningful autonomy. Couple examples to anchor the intuition here: 1. Progress of technology seems to increase the amount of destruction a single individual can trivially inflict on others. We live in an era of easy access to firearms and even easier access to knowledge for building DIY bombs (conventional or chemical kind), not to mention all the extremely vulnerable safety-critical infrastructure, from residential gas pipes to water treatment plants and the power grid. Today, any motivated individual could easily kill dozens or hundreds of people. 200+ years ago, the worst a random person could do was to grab a knife and get stabby. 20-50 years from today? You can replace "DIY bombs" with "DIY engineered pathogens". And don't get me started on the space program - if we ever seriously expand past Earth surface, your average space trucker will be flying around in a WMD. Better hope they're not aerobraking under influence. Now, almost all people are nice and friendly and not murderous. But there are always some individuals who, for whatever reason, carry destructive intent. Keeping the society safe and the civilization functioning requires countering the threat of individual randos, in lock-step with the tools they have available. This seems to fundamentally require increased surveillance, more protocol, more red tape - all removing individual autonomy. E.g. there's plenty of chemicals you could easily procure 50 years ago that you can't today (and/or trying to do it will put your name on the top of terrorist watchlist). 2. Everything as a Service. When you buy and own stuff, you have full control over it (and full responsibility for maintenance), at least within the limits of applicable laws, which mostly deal with concerns adjacent to point 1 above. However, there's a trend of replacing property with services, renting instead of buying. Each case of this, however, puts you in a relationship with some organization. Usually one involving recurring payments. There are various and perfectly good reasons one would prefer renting to owning, but their side effect is fixing your role in the modern economy. Instead of accumulating and spending resources, what you're really doing is more of securing and allocating cash flow. There's much less buffer here. If everything you use is rented, then you can't go off the grid, and temporarily losing your income source might make all your tools and amenities suddenly disappear. The impact of that is, again, reduced autonomy. In an Everything-as-a-Service world, you need to advance on an optimal (effectively prescribed) path of a worker drone, producing value, collecting reward, and spending it in limited ways afforded by your civilization. I could go on, but it's late, and I hope the two examples make it somewhat clear why I feel the future is "wonders of civilization vs. individual autonomy, pick one".
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
This thing reads like a weird adolescent fever dream with the multiple mentions of an unspecified cool "underground" unrelated to an actual sense of purpose for why you are breaking the law. I mean you can clearly be a criminal, an radical activist or a any kind of excentric if it suits you while negotiating your own relationship with the rest of society as you see fit if you are ready to deal with the consequences of your actions but I'm not sure I would call that an "underground".

75 points by pabs3 3y ago

Yesterday, I turned off the caching, thinking "It'll be fine." Whoops. Going back on again.

Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20230523070732/http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/5528 https://web.archive.org/web/20230523070732/http://ascii.text...

wolverine876 3y ago

> people want all the cachet of being outside the boundaries, in lawless territories where you survive on the wit and bravery (or brutality) of Taking The Initiative and damn the costs and risks, but also want to be protected and safe with all the constructs we in Civilization provide One fundamental problem is in the second word, "want". Many people take this childhood perpsective, based around 'want', like someone else will provide it for them. When you're an adult, you provide. There's nobody else to do it. The government, the community, the society is you. If you don't act to create a free, safe, prosperous, harmonious community, there's nobody else to do it. There's no cavalry, no parents, it's just you and me. What you do determines what community we have; if you're lawless, your community will be lawless - that's what you built.

aidenn0 3y ago
My sense is that community has always been something like a (inexact numbers) 5%, 35%, 60% split of "make things happen" "help those who make things happen" and "enjoy the fruits of the work of the minority, while occasionally making token gestures of contributing"
- wahern 3y ago
  The prosaic version of Lenin's vanguardism. I also like to remind myself that those groups aren't fixed--at any moment the composition of the 5% can be different, and any particular person can often be placed in different groups according to context.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Except the implementation of Lenin's principles is 35% locking down those 5% by preventing their freedom of movement and competitive employment, so that their results may be bought at far below market rate and distributed between the remaining 95%. This is where you begin to see state serfdom and exit visas. Compound by the fact that everybody tends to be quite poor as productive people don't feel the need to overstretch themselves producing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- jgon 3y ago
  My sense is that our current society is pretty similar to what you write here except with the labels completely reversed, and the 5% that depend on basically the rest of society to operate and maintain the titanic lifestyle they've accustomed themselves to tell themselves that they are "the minority that make things happen". Ultimately we still need to dig food out of the dirt under the hot sun more or less, and nail together wood and lay down shingles, again either under the hot sun or in the freezing cold, etc, etc. Its a whole ton of getting your hands dirty and wrecking your body for decades until the bill comes due, and then watching as someone whose hands are buttery soft says "Thanks for the fruits of you labor, remember that I 'made this happen'" in reference to their token gestures of contributing.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Society in the large operates in many ways this way; I was thinking about community in the small. Groups within an order-of-magnitude of Dunbar's number.

mattknightlewis 3y ago

U.S. Army libertarians

timerol 3y ago
My first thought was people whose disaster preparedness strategy is guns and ammo before water and food. Imagining violently defending your compound between weekly trips to the grocery store feels very Aboveground to me
- textfiles 3y ago
  During the LA Riots, some people parked in the parking lot spaces to loot supermarkets.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  If we're talking some sort of civilizational collapse scenario, you would unquestionably want firearms over food as preparation. First of all you can hunt with a gun. Secondly, you can take other people's food with a gun. Finally you can defend your own food from being taken once you've acquired it by any means necessary.
  - cobertos 3y ago
    Doesn't this require a ton of resources (gas and mobility gear, manpower to find and move food, or continuously migrating your living area) and assume everyone you meet will be an enemy you will want to take food from?
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      Based on my reckoning, it would behoove you to hunt first and foremost with a firearm, to secure food for yourself and your family. A single deer could feed a family for a month plus. A cow could feed a family for months. But undoubtedly, skirmishes would happen. Humans are tribal creatures and tribal structures would almost instantly form in such a vacuum.
  - 3y ago

gota 3y ago

> It’s a situation where people want all the cachet of being outside the boundaries, in lawless territories where you survive on the wit and bravery (or brutality) of Taking The Initiative and damn the costs and risks, but also want to be protected and safe with all the constructs we in Civilization provide so you don’t wake up with your throat slit and your pockets turned out. I thought this was going to be anarcho-capitalism based on this introduction

textfiles 3y ago
I have a longer essay coming up and I was worried that I was going to be sidetracked/waylaid into a rather silly debate, so this essay is meant to be pointed to when I hit that part of the discussion. Naturally, these are themes present in a lot of discussions, I just wanted one for my set.

svilen_dobrev 3y ago

i am afraid it has long escaped tech.. and has become just everyday.. a wishfull-thinking-ocean of kind. i mean, "i did 10 headshots in a row" isn't about passport photos..

stinkytaco 3y ago

Privatizing profit while socializing risk is not a new phenomenon. But it's not all bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes and bitcoin millionaires who run to the SEC when things go south. It's also rescue services when my backpacking expedition goes wrong, or the fire department when I stupidly start a grease fire. There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is.

jareklupinski 3y ago
> bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes > rescue services, or the fire department I think it's around "when a life is at stake"
- stinkytaco 3y ago
  Perhaps. But I'm also a big advocate for a social safety net because people make mistakes. I was a pretty poor kid because my parents made some bad decisions. They weren't bad people, but they were immature and unlucky. Without that net, I'm not a productive professional today. I realize this article is abou t the cultural issue, not the political one. From crypto anarchists to VCs, people want to profit of off "disruption", then fall back on the safety net of society when that goes wrong. They have all the trappings of underground with the real benefits of a structured society. I agree, but the metaphor the author is using strays closely to a world really unfortunate people inhabit either through their decisions or someone else's.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is. Probably exactly around where the rules are. If you made a legitimate mistake, well, shit happens. If enough people are making the same or similar mistakes, it points to a systemic problem, and eventually rules will be changed to mitigate it. From that point on, the bad situation stops being a mistake - it requires one to intentionally disregard safety advice and/or break the law. The society might not be willing to help you with that anymore (or rather, it will still help, but also bill you for it afterwards).

cobertos 3y ago

So if I read this right... There are multiple "symptoms" that sort of signal abovegroundedness. Like advertising the "undergroundness" or lack of life altering/nonreversable risk. But it really comes down to how much reliance on current societal functionality you have to reduce your risk (things insurers will insure, societal services or infrastructure setup to keep you safe, monetary backing provided by others who can absorb it) And as like many things it's a spectrum of "abovegroundedness" and "undergroundedness" with areas in between. Personally, I think as long as your reliance on society is not antithetical to your mission, then it seems reasonable to use society where you can and cut reliance where you cant

cobertos 3y ago

Isn't HN pretty aboveground, by the articles definition?

textfiles 3y ago
Fundamentally.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

musha68k 3y ago

(GPT-4) OpenAI's push for regulations in front of Congress can be seen in two ways: OpenAI, recognizing the potential risks associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) and other AI technologies, is advocating for regulations that will ensure these technologies are used safely and ethically. This move aligns with societal expectations and the growing call for more transparency in the AI field. In doing so, OpenAI is positioning itself visibly in the public eye, taking a stance that illustrates a responsible and forward-thinking approach to AI development and use. This type of positioning is a hallmark of being "Aboveground", operating within societal norms and expectations. On the other hand, the push for regulations can also be seen as an "Underground" move within the "Aboveground" framework. By leading the conversation on AI regulations, OpenAI may be subtly shaping the regulatory environment to suit its interests. This allows OpenAI to maintain a public face of transparency and responsibility, while also ensuring that the emerging regulations are compatible with its operations and future plans. Here are a few proposals to enhance verifiable transparency: Open-Sourcing: This has been one of the cornerstones of transparency, especially in software development. OpenAI could continue releasing their models and training datasets, to the extent it is safe, ethical, and legally permissible. This allows third-party researchers to inspect, reproduce, and validate the results, enhancing the credibility of their work. However, as AI models become more powerful, there could be increasing safety and misuse concerns, which need to be carefully managed. Independent Audits: Regular audits by independent organizations can help verify claims and ensure that the practices of the organization align with their stated principles. These audits should be comprehensive, covering ethical, safety, privacy, and security aspects of AI systems. Explainability: As AI models become increasingly complex, it's important for AI developers to strive for transparency in how their models work and make decisions. Advanced explanation methods, understandable to non-experts, can help shed light on the inner workings of these models. Public Engagement: Regular communication about their work, plans, challenges, and decisions can help OpenAI build trust with the public. This could be in the form of public forums, town hall meetings, or public consultations, especially when making significant decisions. Collaboration and Partnership: By working together with other research and policy institutions worldwide, OpenAI can ensure that its approach to AI and AGI development is aligned with global standards and best practices. Transparency in Policy Advocacy: If advocating for AI regulations, it's important for OpenAI to make clear their reasons and motivations. They should also disclose their engagements with policymakers and regulators. Documentation and Reporting: Providing thorough documentation of research processes, decisions made, trade-offs considered, and lessons learned during the course of developing AI systems can increase transparency. Regular, detailed reporting on safety, fairness, and privacy measures would also be beneficial. Ethics Review Board: Establishing an independent ethics board can help monitor and evaluate OpenAI's activities from an ethical perspective. The board could provide public-facing reports on their findings and recommendations.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Huh. This seems related to a hypothesis I had that saddens me a bit - that progress of civilization, both the real one we see and a hypothetical better one (as utopian as possible to achieve with how actual humans behave) - necessarily tries to eliminate individual autonomy and self-sufficiency. This creates a conflict similar to what the article describe - people want to both do sketchy shit and enjoy the benefits of civilization, except replace "sketchy shit" with meaningful autonomy. Couple examples to anchor the intuition here: 1. Progress of technology seems to increase the amount of destruction a single individual can trivially inflict on others. We live in an era of easy access to firearms and even easier access to knowledge for building DIY bombs (conventional or chemical kind), not to mention all the extremely vulnerable safety-critical infrastructure, from residential gas pipes to water treatment plants and the power grid. Today, any motivated individual could easily kill dozens or hundreds of people. 200+ years ago, the worst a random person could do was to grab a knife and get stabby. 20-50 years from today? You can replace "DIY bombs" with "DIY engineered pathogens". And don't get me started on the space program - if we ever seriously expand past Earth surface, your average space trucker will be flying around in a WMD. Better hope they're not aerobraking under influence. Now, almost all people are nice and friendly and not murderous. But there are always some individuals who, for whatever reason, carry destructive intent. Keeping the society safe and the civilization functioning requires countering the threat of individual randos, in lock-step with the tools they have available. This seems to fundamentally require increased surveillance, more protocol, more red tape - all removing individual autonomy. E.g. there's plenty of chemicals you could easily procure 50 years ago that you can't today (and/or trying to do it will put your name on the top of terrorist watchlist). 2. Everything as a Service. When you buy and own stuff, you have full control over it (and full responsibility for maintenance), at least within the limits of applicable laws, which mostly deal with concerns adjacent to point 1 above. However, there's a trend of replacing property with services, renting instead of buying. Each case of this, however, puts you in a relationship with some organization. Usually one involving recurring payments. There are various and perfectly good reasons one would prefer renting to owning, but their side effect is fixing your role in the modern economy. Instead of accumulating and spending resources, what you're really doing is more of securing and allocating cash flow. There's much less buffer here. If everything you use is rented, then you can't go off the grid, and temporarily losing your income source might make all your tools and amenities suddenly disappear. The impact of that is, again, reduced autonomy. In an Everything-as-a-Service world, you need to advance on an optimal (effectively prescribed) path of a worker drone, producing value, collecting reward, and spending it in limited ways afforded by your civilization. I could go on, but it's late, and I hope the two examples make it somewhat clear why I feel the future is "wonders of civilization vs. individual autonomy, pick one".

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

WastingMyTime89 3y ago

This thing reads like a weird adolescent fever dream with the multiple mentions of an unspecified cool "underground" unrelated to an actual sense of purpose for why you are breaking the law. I mean you can clearly be a criminal, an radical activist or a any kind of excentric if it suits you while negotiating your own relationship with the rest of society as you see fit if you are ready to deal with the consequences of your actions but I'm not sure I would call that an "underground".