I disagree. I think the attention economy is a new, parallel universe of fame. Yes, old Hollywood and new social media interact and affect each other, but they are still fairly independent. Most Hollywood actors don't have a very large social media presence -- it is probably mostly managed by their PR team. And few social media influencers make it in Hollywood as actors or actresses.
this became extremely apparent for me watching Adam Curtis's "Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone" series. The series documents what it was like to live in the USSR during the fall of communism and (cheekily added) democracy. It was released in Oct 2022, meaning it was written and edited just before the AI curve really hit hard.
But so much of the takeaway is that it's "impossible" for top-down government to actually process all of what was happening within the system they created, and to respond appropriately and timely-- thus creating problems like food shortages, corrupt industries, etc etc. So many of the problems were traced to the monolith information processing buildings owned by the state.
But honestly.. with modern LLMs all the way up the chain? I could envision a system like this working much more smoothly (while still being incredibly invasive and eroding most people's fundamental rights). And without massive food and labour shortages, where would the energy for change come from?
A planned economy is certainly a lot more viable now than it was in 1950, let alone 1920. The Soviet Union was in many ways just a century too early.
But a major failing of the Soviet economic system was that there simply wasn't good data to make decisions, because at every layer people had the means and incentive to make their data look better than it really was. If you just add AI and modern technology to the system they had it still wouldn't work because wrong data leads us to the wrong conclusions. The real game changer would be industrial IoT, comprehensive tracking with QR codes, etc. And even then you'd have to do a lot of work to make sure factories don't mislabel their goods
That is, assuming leadership wants good data, as opposed to data that makes them look good, or validates their world model. Certainly in recent history, agencies tasked with providing accurate data are routinely told not to (e.g., the BLS commissioner firing, or the Iraq WMD reports).
> A planned economy is certainly a lot more viable now than it was in 1950, let alone 1920. The Soviet Union was in many ways just a century too early.
If the economy were otherwise stagnant, maybe. But top-down planning just cannot take into account all the multitudes of inputs to plan anywhere near the scale that communist countries did. Bureaucrats are never going to be incentivized anywhere near the level that private decision making can be. Businesses (within a legal/regulatory framework) can "just do" things if they make economic sense via a relatively simple price signal. A top-down planner can never fully take that into account, and governments should only intervene in specific national interest situations (eg in a shortage environment legally mandating an important precursor medicine ingredient to medical companies instead of other uses).
The Soviet Union decided that defence was priority number one and shoved an enormous amount of national resources into it. In the west, the US government encouraged development that also spilled over into the civilian sector and vice-versa.
> But a major failing of the Soviet economic system was that there simply wasn't good data to make decisions, because at every layer people had the means and incentive to make their data look better than it really was.
It wasn't just data that was the problem, but also quality control, having to plan far, far ahead due to bureaucracy in the supply chain, not being able get spare parts because wear and tear wasn't properly planned, etc. There's an old saying even in private business that if you create and measure people on a metric they'll game or over concentrate on said metric. The USSR often pumped out large numbers of various widgets, but quality would often be poor (the stories of submarine and nuclear power plant manufacturers having to repeatedly deal and replace bad inputs was a massive source of waste).
What you're describing is called The Fourth Industrial Revolution in Klaus Schwab's book.
Factory machines transmitting their current rate of production all the way up to International Govt. which, being all knowing, can help you regulate your production based on current and forecasted worldwide consumption.
And your machines being flexible enough to reconfigure to produce something else.
Stores doing the same on their sales and Central Bank Digital Currency tying it all together.
If I'm playing a quick pattern like this and holding down some bass note, depending on where the pattern starts, the middle two notes will become "synchronized" and play/get recorded at the same time. In my example, the top 4 notes work fine, but shifting down by one note causes the bug. I also switched between holding the bass not and not for demonstration. I assure you my fingers aren't doing anything different, I messed around with this for a while.
I'm not criticizing, sorry; just trying to understand.
I find video more compelling, generally. Obviously video has more ways to communicate - graphically, empirically, etc. It's not that reading works more effectively, but far more efficiently.
It has a lot more map data accessible and you can even overlay National Park Service maps, land ownership, accurate cell service grids, mountain biking trails, weather conditions and things like that.
Disclaimer: Just because you see a route on a map, digital or paper, does not mean it is passable today. Or it may be passable but at an extremely arduous pace.
Let me clarify. I meant the following. Assume ghb is found and evidence of sex. The woman claims she didn't take it and didn't want to have sex. Wouldn't this be enough for a conviction?
if the jury believed the woman's claims, yes, it's enough for conviction. conviction rates are high not because it's easy to prove guilt, but because district attorneys don't bring case that are likely to be lost. the scenario you describe might not be considered strong enough to win, and resources are limited, so this hypothetical case might not get a hearing.
i'm not talking about a plea bargain, i'm talking about declining to prosecute, not filing charges after an arrest, or asking the court to dismiss the charges
i am sure that every victim allegation does not lead to a prosecution in Germany
Not necessarily... I had H4 or H1/H7 before, which were dimmer, but the edge cutoff was much smoother...
With current car that has Xenon headlights (+ LED for day), they have a much sharper cutoff at the edge, making it harder to see pedestrians and other stuff near the road.
Probably the LED/laser headlights are even worse in this aspect.
The author lives in quite a bubble if he thinks people would be excited to fund this kind of research. People want to be able to afford the cost of living, not fund extraterrestrial research. (I'm saying this as someone who would be excited to fund this)
“ I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
I found it incredibly confusing to read the following:
> Once the federal government gets into the business of allowing free speech, it can define what’s allowable free speech. And you need only look at our northern neighbor or our friends across the Atlantic to see how that’s working out.
I had to scan the article for other clues that the author is, in fact, American, and was, in fact, referencing Canada and Europe as supposedly worse of in regarding to free speech than the US.
The US consistently ranks below Europe and Canada when rated on free speech metrics by third parties [1] -- and has been trending downwards.
They don't share how they do their judgement, and it's strange how Norway ranks #1 despite having laws that allow for imprisonment for hate speech.[1] Perhaps hate speech doesn't count as speech in the ranking?
There are two rankings at your link, the freedom of speech index and the press freedom index. If you look at the freedom of speech index the USA is among the top 5 countries for freedom of speech protections behind only Norway and Denmark
The guy complains about how Google down ranks an anti-vaccine doctor. His idea of free speech is giving cranks like himself a platform above useful content.
reply