verisimi

4 ms·

31.
by verisimi 3mo ago
> It's going to be interesting watching nation states fight over how best to do this As others have said, there is a coordinated push to drive this legislation everywhere. There is no fight in nation states. Just capitulation.
32.
by verisimi 3mo ago
Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?
33.
by verisimi 4mo ago
It always was.
34.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Why can't they spend the tax money they collected on secret contracts or however they are fit? It's their money!
35.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Change the governance. Both red, blue and the corporate sides are supportive of this.
36.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Monetary wealth is a proxy for power. > Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried. I think this is already the case.
37.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Nice story. I believe that dogs are capable of moral judgements too. The idea of 'evil' is a human idea though.
38.
by verisimi 4mo ago
I agree. But I don't think pecking the eyes of a deer, thereby providing all the crows food, would be considered 'evil'/'bad' by other crows. I think crows would acclaim the action as 'good'/&#
39.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Thanks for clarifying. Re matters of degree, I would disagree. The opposite of selfishness would be selflessness. This sounds like a good thing, eg being altruistic is assumed to be 'good', but then, it could also be about i
40.
by verisimi 4mo ago
'Evil' is a human characterisation, and is not applicable to animals imo; to apply it is to anthropomorphise the animal. An applicable use of 'evil' for an animal, would be if you believe the animal 'knows better&#x
41.
by verisimi 4mo ago
> Great question does intelligence require selfishness / evil? You think 'selfishness' and 'evil' are equivalent?
42.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Its the Apple way too. Its the corporate way.
43.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Organic food can use organic pesticides.
44.
by verisimi 4mo ago
They (developers) did what they did for money. Just like everyone else. And they would do it all again. At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point. If 'keeping freedoms' is a sel
45.
by verisimi 4mo ago
"Presumed". Awesome, dude.
46.
by verisimi 4mo ago
You are putting words in my mouth. And not answering anything. I made a statement, have defended it, asked your position, and in order to sign off with a bad faith message you put words in my mouth (that I admitted my logic has no basis in
47.
by verisimi 4mo ago
I'm presuming that is the case, because you are questioning my straightforward and obvious suggestion that funding by corporations can provide whatever statistics you like. Feel free to explain your actual position if you want.
48.
by verisimi 4mo ago
You don't. How do you know your trust in corporates isn't an understandably conditioned response, given 13+ years of education?
49.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Given that you can just throw money at the solution you want to engineer, and create the illusion of science, perhaps believing nothing is a better position to be in. At least you're not buying into what is essentially just another av
50.
by verisimi 4mo ago
But.... you can get statistics on anything you like, if you are prepared to fund (or defund) them. If you pay to see the relation between crime and how many cats there are in a neighbourhood, you can get that! Ie statistics themselves are
51.
by verisimi 4mo ago
So you're saying that the government engineers the situation (more crime) in order to justify the solution (more surveillance) that they already intended. Once the surveillance is in place, they would then clear the blockage (start
52.
by verisimi 4mo ago
People love the EU and its oh-so-lovely legislation to keep them safe/lose privacy. "EU laws", the EU in general is plainly the excuse that will carry the day - people seem to believe this 'good cop' rendition.
53.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Where's the 'Open Source Car'? Where's the open source phone? The open source washing machine?
54.
by verisimi 4mo ago
Let's finish that thought too. You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want. It's a closed
55.
by verisimi 5mo ago
Anyone can write anything, it doesn't make it true. Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment". Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment". Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were or were no
56.
by verisimi 5mo ago
> in fact it was 100% AI And you know that how? And, how do you know news itself is not 100% ai? News corps may simply fail to disclose that it was ai, be taken in, remove watermarks, etc. The fact is no one can say what one sees on a s
57.
by verisimi 5mo ago
... and anyway, maybe it was hungry? Or getting the sniffles?
58.
by verisimi 5mo ago
> CNN misses one detail in a highly scientific story and they get accused of having an agenda If it's as the earlier poster said that sinking is 8mm per year, versus 3.2mm and they point out the 3.2, don't you think this news o
59.
by verisimi 5mo ago
You work for cnn?
60.
by verisimi 5mo ago
OKR: Objectives and Key Results

More ›