I could cite dozens of examples that I've personally witnessed, of governments abusing their position wrt developing and maintaining roads. Projects consume orders of magnitude more money and time than would be required by a private contractor to complete.
In a sense, this is similar to the problem with ISPs in the US, because they must overcome the roadblocks put up by Federal, State, and Local governments (often at the behest of lobbyists from competing businesses).
There's another angle on this that is even more disturbing, and it's not just limited to the US. Governments like to surveil users of telecom systems. Surveillance becomes more challenging as speeds increase. Keeping speeds down is in the interest of the IC.
There's a breakfast spot that I visit sometimes, with a sign on the wall that reads; "We do not have 'WiFi' -- Talk to each other -- Pretend it's 1995"
I totally support the phone-free bar and restaurant experience and encouraging people to socialize verbally instead of online but the thing is that I like to eat breakfast alone.
It's a meditative process to me. There's nothing better than sitting in a greasy spoon looking out at a rainy day eating bacon and hashbrowns while sipping coffee and reading the newspaper. Just watching the world and gthe people go by while flipping and folding the pages of a large newspaper. That's bliss.
Now that newspapers aren't really a thing anymore I like to read the news on my phone, or a paper about a topic that interests me.
It's good to promote socializing as long as it doesn't come at the expensive at reflective processes.
What experience are you expecting in a phone-free breakfast joint if you are there by yourself? Interupting other patrons meals to randomly talk to them? That sounds kind of like hell.
Of course not, but its also not an exclusive experience you can only get at resturants.
And quite frankly noisey busy resturants are a subpar place to have that sort of experience. Most people who want to do that sort of thing go to a park or somewhere quiet with nature.
I knew someone was going to pull on that little thread.
So let's use a dictionary definition: meditative -- of, involving, or absorbed in meditation or considered thought.
In that context I have for decades now enjoyed sipping coffee, reading the news, and watching peope go by, smiling at the waitress, and considering how it all fits together. The cream in my cup, the man crossing the street, the price of tea in China -- it's all connected. Sometimes do this without a phone or a newspaper or a book. Sometimes I don't.
This is just how I like to spend my Sunday breakfast. Alone. Not talking to people. Watching them and the world.
I agree that a phone provides a suboptimal experience for this kind of thing.
I loved seeing the pile of newspapers that have already been rifled through by previous patrons who have finished their morning meal. Picking the exact paper or sections that I want, perhaps grabbing a finished section from an old man who has already sat down and made it half way through his morning breakfest ritual.
thumbing through the pages, holding the paper up to fold it over, putting it down on the table and pressing that edge of the with your thumb to make a sharp edge and then sipping your coffee.
Organizations such as OSF/OSI (Open Society Foundations, not Open Software Foundation) have successfully placed their preferred candidates in positions of power in many major US jurisdictions. If you research, you'll see many cases of OSF DAs prosecuting or not prosecuting based on their political ideology. Many prosecutions are politically motivated, but now we have foundations funding activist candidates who are all pushing the same agenda. The result is diminished trust in government, which the activists will exploit to eventually make things even worse, because "capitalism is not working."
You make it sound like they are doing corruption. I.e. don’t prosecute your friends, do prosecute your enemies. But this is more like using the power at your jurisdiction level to oppose unjust laws.
I.e. where i live the city council long ago directed police to stop arresting people for marijuana possession - on the grounds that this is an unjust law and criminalizing it is tying up resources and doing more harm than good, and because the majority of the city’s population supports legalization. City gov doesn’t have the power to change those laws, but they can fix it locally by directing enforcement away from them. A decade later, it was legalized - imo proving that it was the right decision.
This did not “diminish trust” in the gov. In fact, laws that the majority disagree with but stay on the books do far far more damage to the credibility of gov, in my opinion
If you want to effect change, then change the laws through the approved processes. Do not install a DA that ignores the laws. Doing so WILL diminish trust in government.
Actually, DA discretion is a normal part of the functioning of government. There are a thousand laws on the books that get ignored every day [1]. And every election, candidates run on platforms promising to “crack down” on this or that crime (read: selectively increase enforcement).
Gov enforcing laws that the majority of people do not want is a subversion of democracy that alienates people from the idea that gov can be responsive instead of oppressive. I don’t trust a gov that claims to represent the will of the people, but charges people for crimes most don’t see as criminal.
So maybe you trust a gov less when you see laws you want enforced being set aside, but you’re in the minority here. How do i know? Because these DAs are getting elected (not installed) to do this.
Prosecutorial discretion is a normal part of a DA's job. If extenuating circumstances exist, a DA can charge a lessor crime. If exculpatory or insufficient evidence exists, a DA can decline to bring charges.
These circumstances are altogether different from a DA making blanket declarations that they will not bring charges for certain crimes. The latter indicates a dereliction of duty. They're not doing their job.
Elections are a dirty business. The candidates who spend the most money are often the winner.
Nefarious foundations donating large sums of money with the intent to install DAs who will subvert justice could be seen as a threat (and a conspiracy) to the US justice system and prosecuted as a crime.
What you say is often true, but in the case of Discord, at least in my case, you are wrong. My Discord email address is discord@xxx.com, and I am still receiving emails from them.
It happend to me when i created my account in 2025. Within seconds of verifying the address I got a email that my account was band for TOS violation. I than created a seconds account (within minutes from the same IP) only writing "dc" instead of "discord" and that worked. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've got a few dozen domains, and primarily use two of them for business interactions. One is a catchall, while the other requires me to create explicit email addresses (or aliases).
Aside from issues such as the business entity (sometimes silently) prohibiting their name in my email address, I have sometimes encountered cases where part of the email validation process checks to see if the email server is a catchall, and rejects the email address if it is. It takes a little extra effort on my part to make a new alias, but sometimes it's required.
Lots of organizations (such as PoS system providers) will associate an email I provided with credit card number, and when I use the card at a completely different place, they'll automatically populate my email with the (totally unrelated) one that they have. Same goes for telephone numbers.
I've had many incidents similar to the author. More often than not, it's a rouge employee or a compromised computer, but sometimes it is as nefarious as the author's story.
Wildcard email addresses will subject you to a torrent of spam when spammers try dictionary attacks against your domain. It's better to explicitly create aliases, I built a web UI for Postfix to do this for myself and family (https://GitHub.com/fazalmajid/postmapweb)
DDJ was my favorite of those mentioned. Byte was #2. The rest were a pass for me. After DDJ called it quits, they released a CDR containing an archive of all issues, which I still have. Much of the content was timeless.
Allow the device user to create a different (duress) password, which when entered, will immediately wipe the phone without any secondary warnings. The user could then provide that password to the people who seized their device, and be in compliance with all laws, while maintaining information security.
I wonder what would happen if HK tried to force somebody to unlock their business phone. It's typically a violation of corporate policy to allow a third party to access the encrypted, confidential information on corporate mobile devices.
The poor device user would be faced with a choice of losing their job and being held criminally liable for breaching their company's systems, or going to jail in Hong Kong.
Police in HK will not ask you to unlock your business phone, or personal phone.
They are pro-business and want to remain an attractive international business hub so they are nice to foreign visitors. Likewise China (mainland) is nice to Western visitors and will not create trouble to you. If you visit the mainland these days (visa free if coming from Europe!) they also make efforts so that you are not impacted by the Great Firewall.
The way it works on the mainland and HK is that you must have shown by your actions that you are a "troublemaker" and got onto their radar. Then you are in trouble.
China is keen to attract Western visitors for tourism, business, and to stay if you're top talent (visa-free travel, new work visa for STEM talent) so they will try ot project a positive image.
That just boils down to “you have no real rights, but if you keep your head down and dont get unlucky, you probably won’t be targeted”.
I’m a white US citizen who worked on oil rigs in GCC countries (Arabian Gulf). I was put on a global watch list for 6 years due to my work in the middle east.
I still don’t know why - maybe due to colleagues in my contacts? There was a “mega church” near me that some of my coworkers attended which was the “minority religion” of Saudi Arabia, so perhaps I was a few degrees of Kevin Bacon from some people that Saudi had flagged. Or maybe just travel patterns - I often didn’t know exactly when my rotation would end and I frequently bought last minute flights to head back home / to vacation destinations.
I certainly was not put on a list for any of my speech (public or private), which had been extremely measured at the time (and still is), due to understanding that my host countries had different laws and constitutions from our own. I very carefully observed all the laws and social expectations. But nonetheless, I found myself on a list anyways and for that 6-7 year duration, all of my boarding passes globally got “SSSS” written on it and all my luggage + carryons got unpacked by hand and hand-searched prior to every flight, including connecting flights.
Every flight I flew those searches were a very personal 20-30 minute long reminder to carefully manicure who I’m in contact with, what I say, how/where/when I travel, and any other records/data that I might generate. I often had to give a heads up to anyone I was traveling with (colleagues or personal friends) that we had to leave a little extra early to accommodate those searches.
> That just boils down to “you have no real rights, but if you keep your head down and dont get unlucky, you probably won’t be targeted”.
It's not about luck in this case. They want to be 'nice' so you need to actively do something, that's not the same as as "keeping your head down". Also note that as a Western visitor to China, if they have flagged you they are more likely to deny your visa or to deny you entry than to look for further trouble. In general the least waves the better.
funny. people are probably more likely to know him as geohot here. and afaik he is ex-comma. a more likely motivation (if you wanted to suppose one) is that he sells local compute. https://tinygrad.org/#tinybox
People used to call him "egohot" back in the day when he was cracking playstation games, because he was already incredibly arrogant even at a young age.
Yeah. This has strong self-selection bias. Egohot thinks about this stuff a lot so obviously everyone does!
Most people only care about money as they have no choice. Absent a cash-first system money has become a social construct. The valuation of a dollar is entirely ephemeral now.
I see that social reality becoming more realized and the existing social system around money collapsing due to generational churns attenuation of the social significance.
Tech bros are little more than disciples of a dogma being missionaries for their dogma. There are other dogmas.
How is paper money any less of a social construct? How is a gold coin that you can't actually use in any other way than trading it to another hairless monkey?
Fuck Geohot for lending his hand to Musk during the Twitter takeover. He is obviously "sorted" and successful. But his recent blog posts suggests to me that he has started to realize, despite all his success, that if/when the system collapses, he'll be queuing up in the breadlines just like the rest of us.
The sooner the other techbros get the same realization the better.
It was actively good that Elon Musk took over Twitter. Twitter itself is exactly as free a social media platform under Musk as it was under Parag Agrawal (which is to say, it was a privately-owned platform that made arbitrary moderation decisions and engaged in de-facto user lock-in both before and after the acquisition); and the political distaste that a lot of the most active users of Twitter had for Musk actually got them to move off of Twitter and onto to alternate social media platforms, typically Mastodon in the ActivityPub ecosystem or BlueSky in the ATProto ecosystem. Both of these protocols have issues with not being decentralized enough to really mitigate censorship from the system operators, but the status quo now is certainly better than it was before the Musk acquisition.
I didn't know that Geohot had anything to do with the acquisition, but insofar as he did, I'm glad it happened. There's a bunch of different and mutually-incompatible ways "the system" might collapse in a way leading to breadlines, and I have no reason to think your theory that it will be a result of Musk buying Twitter is any better than any other random person's theory about why the world is going to decline in terms of material prosperity in the near-future.
Tesla was an outstanding technologist, but a poor businessman. He had a "vision" (actually more than one) about how his ideas could transform the world. Some of his ideas were amazing, but he was swindled out of his patents because the investors knew he had a passion and wanted to see them in use. The polyphase AC motor or fluorescent light bulb could have made him millions.
IMHO, the vision he had about universal free electricity (transmitted wirelessly) was the dumbest. It was a novel idea, and he invested a lot (his time and other people's money) in it. The problem with his idea is that there was no way to monetize it (and profit from it). (There were also the technical issues of the power loss over distance (1/R^2), the harm to the environment, and the interference with radio communications.)
Edison was quite a villain. He stole many of his "inventions", and orchestrated a PR campaign against Tesla touting the "evils" of AC power. AFAIK, the electric chair was either invented or inspired by him.
I know these things because I've read many books on various topics related to Tesla, and all of this knowledge predates the Internet.
Essentially none of this is true. The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse, not Tesla. Tesla's downfall was that he turned into a crackpot who rejected modern science, such as Maxwell's equations, and started defrauding investors. Edison was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, and the electric chair used AC simply because it is much more deadly.
Westinghouse was using Tesla's patents. Get your facts right.
Every so often, I see or hear a new narrative of history that does not align with reality. I used to wonder how this could happen, but one of my sons explained to me that in his college history courses (in multiple accredited universities), the professors would teach their version of history, using their notes as the course material. They circularly cite other like-minded revisionist material, and most of their students just accept what the professor says as fact. He has seen this again and again in both lower and upper division courses.
This is a disturbing trend, and aside from "woke culture" indoctrination, I don't know what's behind it, or why these professors are not held to basic academic standards.
> The war of the currents was between Edison and Westinghouse [...]
Thank you for quashing the gross misinformation. I was going to post this, but searched and found your comment. `\m/`
(I learned of the "Current War" in the 70's, since the Edison Museum was in my "backyard" -- and was a common destination of local school field trips.)
Edison did not invent the electric chair. When the inventors were trying to choose between using AC or DC he helped them decide on AC as part of his PR campaign.
reply