holaysuns
I think it's iffy.
They need a 'killer use case' - that has always been what is missing, surprising they don't go with the 'videophone' thing hard.
You're doubling down on the misrepresentation.
There are zero references to rationing on this thread - and yet the top commenter calling this out as some kind of 'Telgraph-equ' nonsnes.
'Intermittent availability of power' - is absolutely not a reference to 'rationing' and if it were, it wouldn't be any kind of basis for hyperbole over 'rationing'.
I gave evidence of two examples of govenmental policies around rationing, and it's definitely not via 'power outages' - that's absurd - rolling blackouts only happen during emergency situations.
You've stated that the conversations has tilted to 'rationing' is 'trivially falsifiable' and at the same time haven't produced any evidence.
All of think links here, the person you are responding to, mine (above) and your own directly point towards reduction in industrial use.
This government data is must more substantial than that link, and it puts the ratio at 70% reduction in electricity due to deindustrialization.
Moreover - the OP's comment was a blatant misrepresentation (lie) - by ignoring deindustrialization, the primary factor as stated in the article (and in reality) - plus a bit of a thrown slander aka the 'Telegaph-esque' nonsense.
This is not Twitter.
This is not even controversial.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aba96e8997a4...
And FYI energy rationing has been one policy consideration for decades.
UK gov energy rationing proposal [1] 'Personal carbon allowances [2]
There's always discussion about this sort of thing, it's not fear mongering to point out that fact.
[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmen... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00756-w
The quote is:
"Deindustrialization has reduced demand,"
Leaving out 'Deindustrialization' is leaving out most of the story.
That is the gaph of industrial decline.
It's not that the 'dishwashers' are using less electricty so much as dishwashers are no longer designed and made in the UK. That is the story.
Probably less than 20% of that curve is 'green good news' - 80% of it is deindustrialization which is a primary economic malaise.
That deindustrialization is now starting to hit 'core' industry like auto - and a fundamental driver of the far right.
Industrial use of electricy is about where it was in the 1980s because industry ha moved elsewhere, like China.
AfD cannot get enough votes without that curve - Mercedes is closing down while China expands. That's the story.
That is your misunderstanding of the civil contract, not a 'definition of fairness'.
If you want the civic employment system to be 'fair' in the way you want to define it, then yes, 'socialism' is the way.
And socialism (I mean real socialism, not like 'Sweden') is always more unfair on the aggregate than otherwise. Possibly stable but very unfair.
Asians are 5x over represented at the top institutions.
They are people of colour, and often immigrants.
Rates of crime, incarceration, LSAT scores, credit scores, educational outcomes, likelihood to vote - every data set you can get your hands on shows that some minority groups completely superced the 'average' - even as some other groups more poorly and obviously discrimination plays a role.
The data discredits the notion of 'arbitrary hardship'.
It's also unfair to suggest the system is 'grossly unfair' especially when those are the very people coming here literally because it is more fair.
They come because they actually are treated more or less fairly.
Choices that people make, especially to uproot their families, is an overwhelmingly more potent fact than almost anything.
I think that there are a lot of things that could be improved but by and large, those immigrants themselves have ironically a more positive view of the system than do educated progressives in North America, who are the most cynical bunch.
The implication is that someone else should have to give you money for some kind of performative activity.
That's not how it works, it's a misunderstanding of the 'civil contract'.
If we wanted to Socialize All The Means of Everything, we could definitely have guaranteed work for everyone - it would be extremely inefficient - and you would almost never get to do the work you aspire to do.
You'd have to do the work the inefficient system required you to do.
But really nobody wants that, or almost nobody. Most people prefer some kind of economic dynamism that balances those things.
Being laid off is a bummer, and it 'feels unfair', and those chosen for furlough may not hav been chosen fairly, bit layoffs are not inherently unfair.
Probably in most US states, there could be a few inches more and better social systems to support people, but in some places, it's debatable if those systems are helpful.
In the Global South, this is a big problem.
Yes - there is a lot of variation in what 'obligation' means - and there are definitely questions about the nature of power in society and how surpluses are distributed, but at the end of the day, beyond very low paying work / unskilled labour, the system is fair by and large, to the extent that reality allows for that.
It's also understandable that people have a hard time finding their place in this system. Sometimes companies demand too much. Sometimes rewards are not commensurate. Sometimes we care too much. Sometimes we are compelled to care (medical services) which takes it's toll.
Some people have a natural affinity for a job, task or team, some want the burden of responsibility. Paradoxically, some don't stress about it.
And no system is ever perfect, not even close, and it will always be thus.
Let this sink in: "The Zen Buddhist way of "being" is an active, non-dual state of presence where ordinary actions—such as sitting, walking, eating, or working—are experienced directly without the barrier of ego, judgment, or conceptual overthinking". Powerful stuff.
About the 'systemic issues' - that's why you stay politically aware, and vote. That's your other 'job'.
OpenAI is caught doing the same thing, just like a 'startup' which is funny.
OpenAI is asking maybe $60B BTW not $2T.
The negative impact from these fees is probably greater than the lift from AI productivity gains (not investment).
You have to just re-read that statement and let it sink in, because that right there is the primary evidence the the depth of the delusion.
And you have it upside down: that 'some good can come from' it - is the 'irrelevant' part.
String Theory is a fraud.
It's literally a conspiracy theory.
Thousands of PhDs and absolutely gigantic scientific focus, decades of attention away from more plausible concepts.
Conferences, papers, Academic careers.
10's of thousands of Academics and an order of magnitude more students and others, sucked into the vortex of something that is not real.
Were all of that to have been prefaced and presented in a different way, were it not so self serious, were there not as much attention and investment - then that'db be totally fine. As an arcane pursuit, in all 'self awarenees' - then we can say 'it produced great math.'
Your comment is very strong evidence of the depth of the deception - that people would justify it in the same breadth as admitting it's likely total fabrication.
By far the most interesting thing about String Theory is the 'social pheomenon' - how charismatic movement leaders, loyal lieutenants, gullible followers, hapless adminstrators, people tryig to sell books and stories ... systematically collude to promote a constant falsehood.
This false under the 'Big Lie' type of misrepresentation - a lie that is so big nobody could fathom anyone would be so incredulous as to say it. Not a purposeful lie mind you, I'm sure everyone involved were 'believers', but where it has the same effect.
None of the 'math' that String Theory will ever be hugely important.
String Theory's 'contribution' is the breadth of the misrepresentation - it will be looked back upon for centuries as a phenomenon, not a theory.
This is almost like saying the Scientologists 'taught some kinds to read'.
String Theory is a borderline cult - a lie, kept alive to keep attention, funding, influence.
Science without the science.
It should be studied as a social failure, not some marginal contributions.
Read what Chomsky has to say about postmodernism.
Look at the evolution of 'String Theory'. Thousands of PhDs minted in something that likely has no relevance to anything. String Theory could not have achieved prominence merely as an idea - it only rose to the fore because it was a 'movement' - with all of the supporting accoutrements. It only has an arcane value, not as a leading premise. The 'movement' pushed it to the fore.
Look at Scientology / Dianetics (that one is pretty hard).
'Movements' are almost always about the 'Movement', and the ideology often seems to take a back seat.
The 'Movement' is something almost nominal to rally around, that helps create a 'form' for a loose consensus.
It inspires some people to act as though they are doing something for a 'greater good' (whether they are or not), and for leaders to dereference their apparent authority towards that greater ideal.
Imagine if all of these 'ideas' were just left as 'ideas' or maybe 'ideals' and that's that - and there were no groups, meetups, nobody really publicly 'aligned' with them or signalled their participation.
Then we'd have a better notion of what these ideas really are.
But in reality, these systems are 'social movements', groupings, ways for people to signal their special merit or alignment.
It's social politics. Red v Blue. Bloods v Crips. Insiders v Outsiders. Specials v Normies. Nobility v Plebes. Citizens v Slaves.
It gets problematic when the groups get power, people believe in their own gibberish, people place all of their faith in group leaders even when actions by the group defy the nature of the movement itself.
"We're breaking the rules of finance and stealing from people because 'we're the good guys', right? Everything we do is in the name of ... 'good' ... so we can do pretty much anything". is the story of FTX.
Look at it first through the lens of the social organization, then separately through the lens of ideals.
Nobody that was affected is suing them.
There's an NGO (unrelated to the security breaches) that is demanding more info be released etc but it's telling that none of the affected parties are pursuing lawsuits.
Nuclear tech ... the only thing is safety.
We know how to 'make it hot' - it's trivial.
All of nuclear tech is literally just safety.
AI is not that.
I think that the AI companies have been pretty good about alignment on their own actually. They are not acting like Oracle or MS.
Bad things have been relatively well contained.
We should be skeptical about the HF breakins but even then, it's technically within good faith and it's why HF did not sue etc..
But in the end you are right we need at least some baseline regs. Not too much. But something.
There is no such thing. Countries spend gazillions on Academia, the Academics do waht they want.
There are no real government places or jobs for that kind of thing. It comes at great expense and vague outcome. Or it gets entangled in bureaucracy.
What you're hinting at is a form of 'utopian governance' - like - it perfectly makes sense on paper, and it's actually rational. But it's completely unworkable in the context of how governments and organizations actually work.
It could on work in theory, not particularly well in practice.
Those laws would not exist if European champions were leading the world.
"are you comfortable with lording as a some demi-god over you, dictating what to believe?"
Yes, Europe handed over all of the decisions about everything to foreign powers, now they have to enact regulations to try to constrain it.
Zuck et. al. make the investments decisions for Europe, by virtue of you all giving him the money and power to do that.
Stop giving him the money/power, then this regulation won't exist
Yes - security concerns are now very real, but do not fall for this idea that anyone really cares about structural concerns.
Tons of EU companies are still selling crap to Russia, happy to look the other way wile the bear devours a neighbour, as long as profits are there.
What has happened is that Trump has given a face to the reality, and so companies are adjusting on some level.
But 1) it will be nominal 2) Trump will be gone and the impetus will fade 3) the conglomerates will react 4) modest legislation will mean ...
The can will get kicked down the road.
The invasion of E. Europe by Russia has not even caused defence spending or the size of Armies to change, doctrine is barely changing.
Nothing will make those beheamoths change other than other forms of structural concern.
The 'Riet of the Right' - partly due to collapse of Auto / China (among many other things) might cause some change. But the change won't happen until well after the damage has been done.
Brexit should have been an opportunity for institutional reform of the EU, but no - they blamed it all on populism.
Certain governing entities in Europe will try to move away from Microsoft, they will be pulled back.
There is hope, and certain champions can rise and causes pieces to collapse.
If SUSE had any true entrepreneurial whereiwthal - they would create a true consumer / prosumer / enterprise-user friendly variation and brand their flavour of Unix - and make sure that all Euopean governments us it exclusively, which would cascade into widespread use.
There are variations of insta, youtube, netflix that should all be Europe based that could 'theoretically happen' but it needs some structural impetus.
Things usually don't change. Usually there needs to be a collapse and re-order of the system for that to happne.
The people in charge just want to keep their jobs, their very high salaries, and protect their retirement, and will be happy to 'sell out' whatever other imperatives along the way.
Ending with a positive not - I would say current conditions mean the change is now 'plausible, it not likely' whereas before it was 'not very plausible'. So there's a candle, a bit of wind, but not a lot of tinder or dry wood.
Since no individual buyer cares that much about geostrategic issues, it's almost impossible to get some random European company to think about buying anything other than 'whatever US or China' are making.
There has to be very concerted push to make a difference.
Legal mandates around sovereignty (be very careful here) could make a difference.
But there will also be market reaction: US/China companies will bend on some level and provide things like 100% EU hosted and even comply with some data source stuff.
The only real path is to be more competitive as a continent.