wirehead

I feel like Starfleet in Trek accidentally but directly led to the modern US Space Force.

Trek always had to soft-sell some of the socialist ideals (e.g. "we don't need cash" without really explaining how things really do work) and then also a lot of science fiction that was popular in the more literary side of things during the 80s was actually frighteningly right-wing.

There's not really a good version of conservatism that works in this modern era, especially when you come to where the parties are staked in the US, but even in general. You can't have a modern society with all of the complexities and interrelations and cost and then have it be entirely hands-off conservative capitalism. This is why even when you talk to people who are nominally part of the right wing and actually go through the checkboxes of things that they must necessarily adhere to, you see a lot of people who are so-called RINO people ... and then a bunch of weirdos who nobody likes.

The brain's got a bunch of structures probably to prevent us from spiraling into depression when we were hunting the African savanna when our buddy got eaten by a tiger and there wasn't anything we could have maybe done about that that cause today's cognitive dissonance.

So basically the only way you can get a frighteningly actually unpopular platform through the electorate is by taking advantage of cognitive dissonance. Because you have to project this idea that a fundamentally backwards idea is going to move us forwards somehow.

If Copyright hadn't been extended for so many centuries, Trek characters would already be in the public domain and we'd see them fictionally used much in the way that we use all of the characters from actual public domain works. Shakespearean heroes, for example. But, even as things are now, the characters of Trek have had such a presence in the media scene that they do kinda take that aspect on. Thus, basically repeating the plot of part of the Babylon 5 episode "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" where you have the crew of Babylon 5 being used by a new fascist empire being holographically simulated to say 1984-esque things... one of the weapons to maintain a state of cognitive dissonance is to go back and kinda put fascist words into leftist mouths.

So it's a bit of an accident on the part of the person, who is being dragged along politically, but it's very much part of the conservative movement to "reclaim" old media and the relatively milquetoast treatment of alternatives to capitalism and a complete abandonment of queer issues in middle-era Trek makes that kinda easy, which I guess is why NuTrek does go through some pains to state things a bit more forcefully.

Well, one option, which can be pushing the boundaries of selfhosted for some, would be to use a hosted k8s service for your public-facing stuff and then a home real k8s cluster for the rest of it.

Engineering leaders have to work as bullshit detectors. People aren't even necessarily trying to lie, they just built up an unconscious tower of their own ego and it's hard to step back far enough to get them to realize that maybe the surefire solution they are emotionally invested in that's theirs is actually super-sketch. Presumably there's a bunch of people on the Boeing team working thrusters who were totally convinced that they understood it well enough, the simulations all showed it was fine, etc.

But you can't, as a leader, inspect everything in deep detail. So you have to have a shortcut, which is you detect bullshit.

Boeing triggered the bullshit detector. (Or, depending on how you see things, "Boeing finally triggered the bullshit detector") And once you've triggered the bullshit detector, now everything's going to be checked for bullshit.

So, there's a lot of things to unpack here.

First, the idea that your spouse is your primary sole emotional connection is a relatively weird new concept on the scale of things. There's been a huge period of history where your primary emotional connection was your male companions and your spouse was infantalized by comparison. If you were well-off you might be so lucky and have your group of emotional companions, your group of romantic companions, and the person who bears your legitimate children.

Second, there's really not much of a good underlying working model for actual modern conservatism. The frontiersman/"house on the prairie" sort of rugged independence was never actually a thing back then and a lot of big issues like medical bills were a lot simpler when the answer to having any sort of illness was that you either get over it after relatively inexpensive and simple treatments or you die. So the conservative movement must necessarily sell you a false bill of goods. US politics are such that there is no actual fully-left political party, so that by default makes you a democrat.

There's also a bunch of added uniquely christian baggage. So there are left-wing christians who also have their own set of weird baggage.

Third, mostly irrespective of politics, there's a lot of cultural programming for males that they can't actually worthwhile work though their emotions in a productive fashion. Movies, TV shows, books, literally everything in the media creates this idea of maleness and the writers are just trying to write a catchy story and seldom have time to think about what kind of male they are creating. This is, overall, a relatively recent concept.

Fourth, "things men need emotionally that women cannot provide" is actually pretty silly. Outside of practical advice about what to do with specific pieces of anatomy where maybe it would be nice to have some reference, the things people do is a pretty wide field. "Oh, someone to watch football with" ignores female football fans, et al. This ties in a lot with right wing men because they can't necessarily have an emotional connection with someone not-male because that's equivalent to messing around with someone's property. And it also ties in with the social programming that created a stereotype for how men are supposed to relate to each other that's just a writer trying to put a good story together without thinking of the social implications.

Radicalization doesn't work on people who are emotionally connected and comfortable. Part of why we are where we are is that there's a whole class of people whose happiness has been precluded by the structure of their lives and the best people who can take advantage of this are fraudsters selling a false bill of goods. And I don't even really feel sympathy for those people anymore because they are hurting people who I do very much care about and after a point it doesn't matter if they are just too dumb to see it.

But, I guess, to return to your initial point, the idea that if you find a person and get married to them that you have "solved" connection, that's the road to unhappiness. Partially because marriage generally requires a commitment and effort to stay together as things happen and people change... but also because relying on one single person without other social connectivity is not a stable equilibrium.

From the article: "Tesla began delivering the Blade Runner-inspired truck in November 2023"

Me: Fuck you. That is an insult to Syd Mead's legacy.

I hope that, at some point in the series, they reference his prized bottle of Chateau Picard that he's been saving for a special occasion.

It's the Pravda of the VC-centric tech scene and has been for a very very long time.

(I am referencing the Soviet Union implementation thereof, for clarity)

It's never going to bite the hand that feeds it, where people will voting-ring or the owners will just force-edit it to prevent that from happening. Outside of that, sometimes it might say something useful. The problem is that today's problems are not because of a lack of advanced mathematics understanding or new programming languages.

I mean, I think he's a textbook example of why not to do drugs and why we need to eat the rich, but I can understand the logic here.

When you navigate a car as a human, you are using vision, not LIDAR. Outside of a few edge cases, you aren't even using parallax to judge distances. Ergo, a LIDAR is not going to see the text on a sign, the reflective stripes on a truck, etc. And it gets confused differently than the eye, absorbed by different wavelengths, etc. And you can jam LIDAR if you want. Thus, if we were content to wait until the self-driving-car is actually safe before throwing it out into the world, we'd probably want the standard to be that it navigates as well as a human in all situations using only visual sensors.

Except, there's some huge problems that the human visual cortex makes look real easy. Because "all situations" means "understanding that there's a kid playing in the street from visual cues so I'm going to assume they are going to do something dumb" or "some guy put a warning sign on the road and it's got really bad handwriting"

Thus, the real problem is that he's not using LIDAR as harm reduction for a patently unsafe product, where the various failure modes of the LIDAR-equipped self-driving cars show that those aren't safe either.

It's important to realize that the nerd you saw on the news has always been someone wearing nerd as a costume and the entire history of technology is loaded with examples of the real nerd being marginalized. It's just that in ages past the VC's would give a smaller amount of money and require the startup to go through concrete milestones to unlock all of it so there was more of a chance for the founder's dreams to smack up against reality before they were $230m in the hole with no product worth selling.

... you mean the skies are looking Fantastic tonight?

More to the point, the company using shady means to collect the data does not need to care if the data is useful, just that it's marketable.