diabeticApe

Obviously its alot more than that. Its about having the ability to control public discourse in its favor. A path that could have drastic consequences to those that the chinese government has already decided should be put under subjugation. For starters there are the Tibetans, the Christians, the Uyghurs, Hong Kong's activists, Falun Gong practitions, journalists, etc. Australia already had issues around that when chinese officials were sent after Australian protesters of chinese decent to shut them down. As if they were criminals engaging in criminal acts in a location subject to its jurisdiction. Its not just about Taiwan. Its about who the party deems undesirable. US citizens potentially pose one of the largest obstacles to its foreign policies. Instead of sending armed troops to dissuade them through military intimidation however, they can just put on a demonstration of force and pit us against each other. The abilities that TikTok provides the government are not limited to dissuading the US from defending Taiwan but things like sowing division in democratic countries, curating data to enact targetted propoganda campaigns, curating data to go after political opponents, tracking and hunting of dissident journalists, etc. "Knowledge is power" is the common expression but more accurately, applied knowledge is power and this gives them knowledge that they are applying. This in and of itself is not too different from what the snowden revalations revealed about the US other than perhaps the extent to which compliance is mandatory. However the biggest point of contention is arguably more in how the knowledge is being applied. Should we empower a government that has a track record of kidnapping falun gong practitioners and harvests thier organs or silencing critics that they deem difficult to manipulate or the government that has a track record of racist policing and military intervention over false pretext? If we can agree that the Taiwan issue is not a false pretext and that the average US citizen is better informed about our previously hidden activities abroad and about the social plights of their fellow americans of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds would that be an improvement? I think so and in my opinion a future with that type of US righting its wrongs and setting the example would be preferable to one where they give the reigns to the ccp . even better would be where the reigns were given to the international community as a whole but the details of that are a whole seperate diacussion. i do agree however that the worst possible outcome would be one in which we go to war and somebody pushes the nuclear button out of preassure, insecurity, spite, miscalculation, technological distortions, equipment failure, hacking, manipulations, subversion, extremism, terrorism or any other one of the million things that could go wrong and lead to everyones untimely demise.

Well if TikTok is obligated by law to cooperate with the military, its main value proposition to the PLA is probably going to be its repositories of data on the citizens of foreign nations (particularly the US and its allies) and you can be pretty sure the data collection efforts are not being used to recommend some tasty local dim sum restaurants. In other words its highly probable that the data collected is used to support its propoganda efforts abroad. Given the close knit nature of the public and private sector fusion in China it might be safe to assume they are one and the same thing. Maybe TikToks role is not limited to just propoganda purposes but thats just too easy and valuable of a use case for it not to be employed in that context. I know of a few people on opposite ends of the political spectrum that eat up content that makes caricatures out of the other side. Not that this problem is limited to TikTok but in thier case being obligated to serve as an extension of the communist government it seems to be a ripe opportunity for spreading division and uncertainty in the citizens of rival countries.

This is a silly comparison. Were basically comparing the use of data to conduct political repression to the use of data to recommend content relevant to your own interests.

Also governments use thier access to target people for political repression or death not to recommend you a local restaurant or laundry detergent. Not even close to the same thing.

Idk, I have a brother that was double jabbed and boosted and he still got it. Granted most of my family with similar vaccination records never got it at all. Meanwhile an aunt who never vaccinated never got it either while other family members (many with pre-existong conditions) pre-vaccine passed away from it early on. Not sure if its worth worrying about to the extent that it seems out of our hands but still worth keeping tabs on in case something changes. Seems a little random sometimes but mostly consistent with the idea that people with pre-existing conditions are the most at risk but there could be other reasons why some that dont vaccinate dont get sick. If its diet related for example that would be very useful to know.

Simple. Gold is an asset that is not used as currency but provides the holder with certain desired benefits and the asset can be liquidated if needed. Crypto is similar in that it prodives a financial vehicle that posesses certain properties. Im not saying they should all be thought of as digital gold but that lile gold, they provide value not only in thier price tag but in some inherent property that provides value to the user (this property varies wildly from crypto to crypto and is what makes each project distinct and unique.

Why not? Its a new asset, what is wrong with improvement? I mean using that logic does it also disturb you that somebody invented the seat belt? Would you prefer they didnt invent seat belts? Would that have been more reassuring of the relative safety of the vehicle if they never admitted that you could die in a car crash? The point of stable coins is really only apparent if you're trading crypto just like the importance of seat belts might make more sense to somebody that drives daily.

While i agree that this is not really a crash as much as a long overdue correction, i have to respectfully disagree with your point about cryptos being little more than a ponzi scheme. Unfortunately the ones that have been getting most attention (Bitcoin, Doge, Ether) have been a poor representation of what the crypto space has been brewing thse past couple of years. I would highly recommend looking into DeFi projects such as AAVE or maybe a better representation of whats possible with Smart contracta on Cardano or Solana. There are a lot of "shitcoins" but there are also a few innovative gems that are going to make a major difference over the next decade imo.

Well seeing as stock trading is inherently risky, democratizing trading makes this risky activity more accessible to more people. Now instead of just the elite manipulating the market to benefit themselves at the expense of the public, the public gets a chance to turn the tables. Some of the newbies will make mistakes or do stupid things along the way. To consider them mutually exclusive seems a bit disingenuous. Also I dont recall this much media turmoil over the credit default swap mortgage crisis fiasco of 2008. But then again that only screwed over the entire economy instead of the few elites that benefited from everyone else's loss.

Can you give us a link or the name of this person?

Maybe so but i would assume the barrier to entry for creating a synthetic pathogen is likely to be much higher than somebody tinkering with a Kali Linux VM. I dont know much about gain of function experiments and limited working infosec knowledge so take that with a grain of salt.

Nanotech and mass adoption of graphene based products. I understand the cost hurdle but so was solar which has been seeing major improvements lately to help reduce cost and improve efficiency. I'm still surprised by how little has been done to make nanotech and/or graphene based products more viable and affordable.

Well put. I would say that one possible remedy to this issue is transparency but seeing as the specific details of how transparency is implemented would be determined by the same corrupt officials that rely on financing by "k-street" as you've put it, it will likely mean total transparency for the average citizen but special edge cases and exceptions a-la "Citizens United" or Too Big to Fail Banks for our elite rulers and thier scientists.

I would argue that science would be a good welcome addition if it can be decoupled from this "k-street" dilemna. Otherwise its likely to make matters worse because political interests and agendas can be more easily legitimized as absolute and unquestionable truth. Couple that with a tight grip on information flow and weve got a serious problem on our hands.

Well my suggestion is that instead of waiting around and crossing our fingers that everything will work out, we just figure step 3. Because otherwise someone else will and they probably wont give two shits about any of us if it interferes with thier incentives.

Im trying to find what youre quoting but nobody is saying anything about a priest. This comment seems disingenuous and im surprised it hasnt been flagged as such like some of the other comments below.

Im not saying we shouldn't put the intentions of our founding fathers into context with the modern world im saying we should still protect individual human rights from government abuse of power. Isnt that what we were discussing? Protecting individuals from government abuse and authoritarian rule?

Great commentary was a Joe Rogan clip? Im not impressed. And your arguing a point i never made.

Well i wouldn't be too concerned about climate change if i were you. United Nations Agenda 2030 is already in full force were likely to have dealt with those issues by then as a result of incentives given to participating business leaders like Ben Geortzel, Bill Gates and Elon Musk. But you do make a good point about about what we do about the next Trump-like president whether on the left or the right. Im not picking sides here theyre both full of shit imo but i do worry about a single person or group obtaining a monopoly on information and scientific discourse. Thats bad and will lead to a very dark future if we dont address it soon. Even if we do and we screw this up the damage could result in a butterfly effect that will be utterly devastaing to humanity in a decade or two.

Yes. I share your concern but its becoming apparent that the current state of affairs is breaking down. People are too smart they're seeing through the b.s. more and more by the day, and they're pissed. So what do we do now?

No i do understand your point and i would agree that we need to introduce some science into the mix to protect us from our leaders and even ourselves in a sense. But since we're opening this can of worms you cant blame me for taking a critical analysis of the situation. We agree for the most part im just trying to spark a discussion to we can start thinking about some of the caveats of how to make this work in practice. As for the video i havent yet watched it so please excuse me if it already addresses some of what im saying but i appreciate the honest dialogue and i very much intend to take a look shortly. Ill follow up after ive taken a look.

Also the rapid pace at which scientific progress is made may overwhelm society's ability to cope with the changes. That may be a moot point because i think were only talking about science serving as an advisory function but where do we draw the line as to what is an acceptable rate of change and what is not? See thing is there are a whole bunch of issues that need to be worked out. Im glad that this is being discussed in a public forum but as ive already suggested it seems these decisions have already been made for us and our discussion over them is mostly irrelevant. Its more a matter now of justifying what has been done over determining what we should do as a society. Nobody voted for this. But thats whats happening. So now we just have to deal with it and try to keep it from turning into something ugly.

complexity

Furthermore especially in the early stages of any scientific venture, the scientific method basically necessitates trial and error. Is that really an optimal approach over agreed principles AKA the social contract? Im hesitant to jump to conclusions but just because things are a mess doesnt seem to me an adequate reason to totally throw away the current approach without a careful assessment of potential pros and cons

Well assuming a lack of political incentive i would agree that this would be the best course of action. What im trying to get at is how do we keep them from devolving to politicians with scientific titles.

What would you think about a forum of scientists endorsed by years of published and peer reviewed research that is open to public scrutiny. I guess something like open source for scientists where thier track record and connections are transparent and not blocked by needless complecity and or paywalls. Scientists with skin in the game that have an incentive to stay faithful to honest investigation.

Im just thinking out loud. Overall i agree with you as things currently stand. I'm just trying to think through a set of possible solutions.

I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?

What do you propose would be appropriate in the hypothetical scenario in which science conflicts with basic human rights? Say for instance in the extreme example, there are too many people science suggests we need to depopulate. Or maybe such and such person is genetically predisposed to engage in disruptive or criminal activity therefore eugenics or pre-emptive incarceration. Reality may or may not reflect that but it wouldn't be the first time a powerful few used science to impose draconian and/or racist policies for political purposes.

Technocratic World Government here we come..

https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/

What concerns me is that science is ever changing and those that promote it are not in any way immune to human falability like corruption, self interest, deception etc. Im sure someone here knows what im talking about i dont need to say more..

Altered Carbon, especially season 1 was pretty good imo

While i dont think the threat from the CCP is something that can be reasonably boiled down to nothing more than made up Trump antics as you seem to imply, you do raise a relatively good point about targeting specific companies as opposed to an all out ban on Chinese tech companies in the US.

Its not that there isnt something to it but i would agree that his handling of the situation is poor and ineffective. For instance, rather than risking thier intel on TikTok specifically, they could try spreading awareness about the Belt and Road Initiative for instance which went from 60 something pledged countries in 2018 to ~138 pledged cpuntries in 2019. Simple, immediate, effective. No need for divisive identity politics.