> But using a multipurpose computer without qubes is unsafe at any speed, worse than driving without a seatbelt.
Could you elaborate on the odds of death and permanent disability occurring through use of unsecured general purpose computers? Because if not using qubes has the same risk profile as not wearing seatbelts I might feel like taking some measures
hah. There are computing death and dismemberment risks-- but I wouldn't expect qubes to solve one. (I'm thinking of my friends CNC router with the windows controller where windows decided mandatory upgrade time is NOW during an operation and it left an axis unsafely in motion necessitating a dive for the e-stop).
The serious point in my quip is that I've been a driver for over 30 years and yet to have a seatbelt protect me. I've been hit with computer attacks that qubes has limited. Might be kinda tricky to kill me from compromising my computer, at least today. Who knows about the computer.
What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing? I mean they could be neat for visualizing some useful route calculated as vectors and further used as vectors, but it would still be of mostly an aesthetic value, appealing to the viewers emotions, which could be achieved just as well with some palm oil and sugar.
> What are the practical uses of a world scale map beyond sailing?
Wow, is this even a genuine question?
I can use a world scale map to illustrate or explain some geographic point I make in a presentation. I can use it as a quick reminder of the geography related to some current news, etc.
If the mariners want to continue using Mercator, who's stopping them?
I remain unconvinced. Even with regional maps people struggle with conceptualising that similar distances at places even relatively close can vary dramatically in time needed to traverse, or with regard to energy/fuel cost to cover, or population density, or a number of things that are important in the moment. It would be extremely hard to use a world scale map to convey actionable information that couldn't be delivered better in another way, the more likely outcome is that it would just be misleading the audience by making them rely on their (almost certainly wrong) intuition rather than the information actually needed in the situation.
As far as the news usecase goes I also don't really see how checking world maps would be applicable outside the news in question being consumed as entertainment, where my previous point on entertainment boiling down to personal pleasure and being fungible still stands.
> So because some people can't use some information well, we should deny that information to all?
The argument isn't that using information is bad, it's that world scale maps are so shit at conveying usable information that there is no point in picking one projection over another (or any really) outside niche settings like sailing. Better to just use other non-map representations of the relevant information at that point.
> I do not consume news purely for entertainment, neither do those in my circle
Here my point was not that all news is entertainment, but rather that news one needs to reference a world scale map to make sense of in all likelihood isn't impacting anywhere near where one is living, nor near anyone amongst family or friends living abroad (hopefully one would remember the closest relevant neighbours), so those pieces are basically entertainment for the masses. (The assumption being that local impact to where the media is would be what's highlighted if there is some, hence the non-need for checking world scale maps in the event that the piece of news is impactful to the individual. So the pieces one feels like checking where on the globe are actually happening, one is in all likelihood checking because one is personally amused by finding out, not because it is useful beyond emotional gratification. And again no projections one could choose from would change the non-impact on the actions/decisions of the consumer of that piece of news.)
I don't know, while I miss the super+right click drag to resize window and super+left click drag to move window from KDE on my work machine, I also kinda miss the smoothness of macOS's handling of many windows and desktops utilizing the trackpad on my gaming desktop. The swipe up and down/ctrl+arrow up and down to juggle windows within the desktop, and then left/right to move between desktops even makes their at first awkward handling of fullscreening apps feel right and efficient. What I really miss in KDE though is multiple virtual desktops per display I can switch independently per display. Actually makes me enjoy using multiple monitors slightly slightly more on macOS. What I sadly can't see happening is a merging of KDE, macOS, and the superior i3, as there would be too few few safe shortcut combinations available for programs to rely on.
I always found writing to be an unnecessarily arduous tool for communication, so I never do it until I've overthought what I want to express and approximately how. At that point I flesh out the skeleton of the message, and pile on words and structure and references and other rhetorical tricks until the packaging feels sufficient. Rarely, if ever, have I experienced writing things down altering my perception of the strength or weaknesses of the chosen arguments, or revealing new ones. That is to say, I really don't vibe with the concept of writing being thinking, rather it's a waste of humanity's resources to push it as The Tool.
As our surroundings grow more secure, the justice system variant of swatting becomes a greater portion of the threats to worry about. There will be abuseable bugs and situations in our non static world, there is no way we'll ever have perfect security of anything. So a motivated actor with a grudge should be able to plant something a place you provably beyond reasonable doubt have sole control of, given enough time. How do you propose then that we secure deniability once the justice system is wielded as a weapon against the innocent, when everyone feels that there is no reasonable way defects exist and could have been used? Just look at the British post office scandal, real world justice systems have already operated under the assumption that software doesn't have bugs for decades, which speaks volumes on their inclination to believe that they both exist and are used by a unknown third party with ill intent. Thus the widespread trust in that things are secure is a threat in itself. And unlike airports we don't need the users to have an artificial sense of security for computers, networks, software, and digital services to be viable markets.
PoE2 is still in early access, I feel it would be wrong to say that it is out until the makers claim that the product is ready to stand on its own two feet in the market
Using Denmark as an example of somewhere doing well because they didn't adapt the euro would be wrong though. They pegged the Danish krone to the euro decades ago, and have as far as I know had to follow the European central banks interest rates fairly closely as a consequence.
It's a fair point but it means they are not part of the Euro financial system and would not have the oversight, lending rates, financial integration etc. etc..
And they have the option to leave at any time.
Case and point: nobody is strongly complaining about getting Kroners for travel etc..
Imagine if every nation did with Denmark did - and made small adjustments - then you'd have 'currency harmonization'.
So I think you have a fair point but still, Denmark is not Euro.
"Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though. Sure, it's an easy and accessible one for the masses with some mental gymnastics around how you view your income generating activities (or by having kids). But it's still dependent on others, as you need them being at hand to impact. See all the needless depression arising from kids moving out, or when people retire and complain about not being needed instead of finding new activities to explore or grow in.
As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding. Second, large amounts of young idle people has tended to result in stupid destructive behaviour at scale. So I'm confident there will be created opportunities for paid work for mostly everyone, and the conditions won't be too poor as there would be no profit motive to push people too far. Rather, the people having both the resources, time, and energy to consume, would still be what props up the system (until we can agree on trying something better now that we have excellent tools for guaranteeing transparency and optimising allocation at scale in real time).
> "Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though
This has nothing to do with existential happiness or contentment
It is about existential fear that if I am no longer needed then there's nothing useful I can provide to earn an income. At best I wind up living a destitute existence or homeless, at worst I wind up being executed by murderbots owned by rich people to reduce the risk that I might take action against them
> As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding.
In the past governments and rich people still needed working people's labor to keep their lifestyles. In a fully automated world that's no longer the case. I am very confident that if the ruling class of society could slaughter all of us and still maintain their lifestyles forever they would in a heartbeat. Foolishly, we are delivering that possibility to them in the form of automation.
I'm not sure if this brings you hope, but let me try ...
What the rich want is not to be content. They want to get richer.
And it's terribly hard to extract money from other rich people, because they want to get richer, not poorer too.
The easiest way to get richer (and pretty much only feasible way) is to take away the money from the poor. And the best way to do that is to take those suckers' money by giving them products and services that are worth a little bit less than the money you take from them.
But if the poor have no money the whole system that served the rich so well breaks. Some of them already see that. There are millionaires advocating higher taxation of millionaires. Because they see what's up. Spontaneously the money flows only one way, from the poor to the rich. And there is less and less money to extract, that could make you wealthier than your peers. But if you tax all rich equally, which is a fair game as it doesn't disadvantage you. And then transfer that money back to the poor, it's a new pool you can compete for with other rich and get wealthier than them if you succeed.
Have you seen in the game of the monopoly when the one person gets winning hard, it's natural instinct to borrow money to other players, without collateral, against the rules of the game or even gifting it? Because for the rich the pleasure is in taking not in having. You are sure it all ends up in your pocket anyways, because you see yourself as the best at the game.
This flow of money is in play for decades and you can plainly see its effects in economic charts. It can't stay like that regardless of how much more automation we'll have. The strong will need to create a mechanism for funneling resources back to consumers, before they run dry. Employment barely works for that purpose. Without customers there's no business, and without business, getting richer is very, very hard.
You might think of yourself as a worker and believe that's your utility. But in reality your utility lies in the fact that you are first and foremost a consumer. And your ability to consume is a vital interest of the rich, even if not all of them realize that yet.
> You can't use propaganda to trick people into becoming experts at calculus, for instance.
Perhaps not an individual instantly. But how about settling for making a generation of parents fear that there will be no future for their kids unless they get fantastic grades, and that they have to use them to go into stem?
It is for netflix, or the cloud image storage provider that wants to secure against the consumer easily extracting data and going to someone else. The user being able to easily take a program made by a third party and have it completely rearrange the guts of any other program is the basis of consumer security in a world without a unified government keeping commercial interests at bay.
Could you elaborate on the odds of death and permanent disability occurring through use of unsecured general purpose computers? Because if not using qubes has the same risk profile as not wearing seatbelts I might feel like taking some measures
reply