jokes aside, and perhaps romantizicing noisy channels, but the fact that communication was not guaranteed maybe made it more appealing (thinking 56k modems or long-wave radio).
This is interesting. I agree, to some extent, but there's nuance in what do you include in the objectification of the concept. The usual argument, as I perceive it, is that we can be objective if we just quantify protocol interference, or DPI, or bogus DNS resolution.
But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.
If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.
Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.
(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).
But that is precisely what I was talking about. You do not seem to find any commonality between censoring different categories of websites or apps. As far as I understand it, "media", "gambling", "porn", "politics" are quite common categories when researching (and defining) online censorship. See, for instance, https://censoredplanet.org/censoredplanet
You say "banned", but that is not quite the same as "censored". Just try and search, you will see the US "bans" and China or Iran "censor". Perhaps one regime's "censorship" is experienced as "lawfully banned" from within the context of their legal and cultural system.
And no, I don't see why would I keep my edgy observations to myself. That would be self-censorship :)
Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.
What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.
There's an interesting cognitive bias in the western media that tends to define freedom of the press (and freedom of expression) as exactly what is perceived as freedom in this side of the iron curtain.
Libgen domains are "seized", and tiktok "goes dark", but of course other countries "censor" porn or news outlets.
For additional context (I think some was lost on a bug tracker migration), he's the author of https://gitlab.com/akihe/radamsa, a fuzzer implemented in owl, that was quite popular finding vulns in the chrome codebase some time ago...
The second iteration will be interactive books - like that forsaken episode of Black Mirror was exploring. Taking us one step closer to "Diamond Age". Human connection doesn't necessarily has to be in the plot - the human behind can be at any extra layer.
To be honest, I see a continuum between using spellchecker, grammarly, or anything that comes above. You seed the intention, and you get an improved result - by means of huge datasets.
In a way, the hollywood machinery has been doing A/B testing on the likelihood to get a human brain hooked on the way to tell a story - structurally, there are not so many different stories. This only removes the need to have monkeys at the typing machine.
And yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic. But only a tiny bit. That way you can be sure it's a human writing this.
> Better math and even computation doesn't necessarily help in some cases
It is my impression that, at least on the topic of climate modelling, climate change denialism (which, frankly, is less and less common among educated population) was sustained by the rhetoric about models not being certain about linking anthropic change and its effects.
So at least here I see that better understanding (accuracy/reliability) about the climate system (which the azimuth group claims to have contributed to, if I remember correctly) might have a direct effect on, at least, social perception of the uncertainty surrounding science...
Sounds good. Sadly, there's this thing called "hyper-stimulus" - someone mentioned recently "Infinite Jest" and the desire to watch a particular video over and over again. I do think the fear of this thought played a deep role in DFW's desperation.
All this to say: some social attractors are way more attractive than others (that's why they are "dark" patterns). Only physical constrains will do the trick, I'm afraid.
After some custom wooden cases for my ergodox, I'm really excited about the keyboardio model 100 https://keyboard.io/ basically an ergodox with style, and what seems a bit more ergonomy. I laughed a lot with the video for their last crowdfunding campaign, chicken jokes included :D
Solarpunk. Ultra-low-powered whisper radio telecommunications across the globe. People baking ICs in their basements. Hardware that can be repaired for decades, disaster-proof Operating Systems. Text-only protocols, heavily immune to the ad industry. What a time to be alive!
I wonder if some of the nerdiest corners of the internet from nowadays do not make the exciting 90s pale in comparison (all this looks like aspects of a potential renaissance).
As hobbies, they all sound amazing. Even though, or perhaps due to their apparent futility. "Secession from the broadcast" and "the knowledge" come to mind. A possibility, among many others.
You might be referring to some of the studies associated with the "original affluent society" proposal. To think that all basic needs can be covered by a 3-5 hours of work a day is quite shocking for a judeo-christian that has been indoctrinated in the "work as a curse" tale.
For sure it all depends on how you define "basic needs", and how do you divide "work time" from "leisure time".
At some moment I've heard of more recent studies about the myth of the increase in leisure time, but I don't manage to find any good reference now. In any case, I suspect Graeber had a point.
jokes aside, and perhaps romantizicing noisy channels, but the fact that communication was not guaranteed maybe made it more appealing (thinking 56k modems or long-wave radio).