Humans are apes desiring power, there’s no excuse under which you can give it to them. They’ll invent authority giving them right to judge you and think they are in the right.

Also why I absolutely despise the Silicon Valley - it’s many such people who think they are the elite now. I want that place detroited as soon as possible. Zuckerberg prosecuted for all the murders he’s committed (I’m certain there are plenty, a person with ASPD with such power just can’t be anything else) which are now unknown, Brin and other jerks playing “cooperating with legal elected authorities” while giving them something with no mandate whatsoever feeling themselves powerful - prosecuted for high treason, all these playing censorship and recommendation - prosecuted for scams on the scale of billions, yadda-yadda.

Cops saying this should be immediately sued for inciting hate or defamation or whatever against people who don’t want to be backdoored.

I have a right to not be surveilled, they don’t have a right to surveil me.

Anyway, I might all the time fly a weird trajectory between various ideologies, but they are all anarchist and Silicon Valley bosses are all thieves.

Ah. OK. Yep, people lie in their CV’s.

That and also - humans not knowing something can man up and learn it. When they need, they’ll learn.

And OP’s question about European clouds - it depends really. A lot of what this endeavor needs is just advanced use of OpenStack. I’m confident there are plenty of people with such skills in the EU countries.

As for the post content - I dunno, my experience with Kubernetes consists of using it, but not trying to understand or touch it too closely, because it stinks. Maybe those engineers were like that too.

Soviet surveillance drones, which Ukraine has used a few times as suicide drones, were not much more complex than a radiola. Had a flight program in the form of perforated tin disc, if I remember correctly, and an electro-mechanical system of following those instructions (not a computer). They’d be just sent on preprogrammed routes, make photos, those retrieved and analyzed on return. No radio communications, stealthy enough for their purpose.

Will happen anyway, so rather embrace it as early as possible so that we would be those bad actors and not the sucker good actors on the receiving end.

Though maybe not this with apparently how insecure and poorly thought out it is. Which I suppose is on brand for Dorsey.

I just had a thought how weird it is, there are people whose names millions know, with preconditions (like what basic capital would be in XIX century) millions can easily have (it’s an application in Swift running on iOS), and a lot of people can judge how well or not well they are doing those things.

Yet it’s even a case for discussion, an important thing, like a new interpretation of some opera in theater.

Maybe it’s on brand, but honestly all this is cuckoldish a bit, as if we were criticizing Jack Dorsey for f-cking our proverbial wife not well enough.

I wish there were “anti Silicon Valley” solutions which are to decentralized transport-agnostic chats and forums what Gemini is for Web. A protocol intended to be understandable for everyone, for which you can make a decent client in two-three days. Except all the notes I make for myself are not worth anything until I make a working application, because that process will help me see what I didn’t when imagining.

Not even “further”. They are driving to as many splits as possible, as opposed to ideological differences.

Difference is good, because two different systems can, eh, have kids. One can disassemble them, mix them, see how it works, make thought experiments, discuss again and again. A split doesn’t involve the kids making process.

A split is different from a discussion in the sense that you use a prepared set of shibbolets to tell friend from foe, not leaving any room for synthesis.

When you have that split mentality, you punish attempts at discussion by others by interpreting it always as the biggest split possible, - as if it were worse than actually being a foe applying the same split approach, just like you.

Totalitarian societies usually poison and punish and implicitly tax discussion, but they are always welcoming to splits. And that split mentality endures far longer than the original totalitarian regime, usually. Look at Germans, not the eastern ones, but all of them, - their political and group thinking still reminisces Nazi propaganda. Israel and Palestine are one good example, but this can be seen in many other things.

Which is also why I don’t entirely align with the idea of “new middle ages”. The mechanisms we are seeing are from 1930s, not 1330s and not even 1630s.

Nazis were a bunch of tough but dumb veterans and their conservative sponsors, doing things the way obvious for these groups.

Bolsheviks were a bunch of thieves and college dropouts and their small-noble and intelligentsia sympathizers, doing things the ways obvious for them (that crappy Soviet elitism existed because the sympathizer layer wanted some sort of Plato’s state with a “better” subset of society, ya knaw, the right kind of professors, the right kind of poets, the right kind of journalists, necessarily social sciences as you see, teaching everyone else to live (if you’ve read “Heart of a dog”, professor Preobrazhensky is very clearly that, he’s not a positive character in any way, he’s one of those people who liked social inequality, just felt markets are a wrong way to decide who is where in the hierarchy), and ex-Soviet societies still are divided into “the popular Bolshevik” view of taking everything from the “enemies of the people” and dividing it as the main solution to every problem, and “the elitist Bolshevik” view of “the wrong people that can’t be allowed to make democratic decisions”, the funniest part is that these mostly intersect in the same people, these are two sides of the same coin). They too did things the was obvious for these groups. By the way, thieves and murderers are usually the same kind of personality, and failures tend to use power they have to take revenge, and intelligentsia of the described kind.

These modern idiots are a bunch of piss-smelling mommy’s cheats like Zuckerberg or Bezos who managed to capture a new industry, and their (kinda elitist) professor-cultured predecessors who think that the treatment of the industry that allowed mommy’s cheats to do that should be maintained, and all of them willingly reinforcing the hierarchy of them, a relatively small group of “founders and visionaries”, deciding where it’ll go, but I beg your pardon, there’s no technical reason for any decisions to depend on what they want. I’m certain most of these people are actually not technically more competent or understanding of the domain areas than many other people who’ve never were anywhere close to that “Silicon Valley society”.

But still all of them used different, but similar in effects and covered areas, means of propaganda. Eh, I think I’ve recently seen a wonderful article about various ways in which human psyche adapts for totalitarianism and abuse, except I suspect it was in Russian.

So - IMHO one can draw an analogy between early USSR with Bolsheviks like Stalin (the thief kind) and Bolsheviks like Lenin (the elitist intelligentsia kind) and the tech industry, where Zuckerberg, Brin and Bezos would be like the former, while Linus Torvalds, big people of Microsoft, and so on - all very different people, it’s about culture of the resulting “elite”, - would be the latter. But combined together, as some community with a vision of the future, they are pigs. They look at the world as if it were their place to decide what it will be.

So all I have to say is - in the last ~30 years we have evolved paternalism of a very harmful kind, combined with the split mentality, combined with a structure where paternalists are in power in a hierarchical system. It doesn’t matter that those paternalists employ anti-paternalist slogans and say anti-paternalist words. What matters is what they do.

In any case - in 2012 the former group were in appearances very “liberal”, now they are the opposite thing, and some known FOSS personalities have more right-wing views than you’d expect from their public appearances (which are very liberal). But all this doesn’t matter.

What matters is that for a sane discussion about politics, for example, you should have participants equally ready to accept ancap, fascism, ancom, Confucian monarchy, Buddhist theocracy, direct democracy for every decision, Trotskyist Soviet system (no professional state bureaucrats, all state apparatus roles are filled with random citizens elected\sortitioned by councils, perpetually rotated, no professional military commanders\sergeants, the same thing, and the problem of expertise is solved by good enough common education), I can go on.

Point is that you don’t get into an argument in order to tell friend from foe, you get into an argument to synthesize something new and wonderful. An argument is like a blind date. Why the hell even spend your time on telling friends from foes, unless you are taking notes for a very big kill list, but that wouldn’t be good faith behavior.

So if you think something, you might think differently after the argument.

Except this good faith behavior I described is dangerous when there are a lot of cowards in the society and the legal protections don’t work (you sort of irritate people who’d like a hierarchical society with non-transparent concentrated power, because power is concentrated by groups, and those groups accept new people of their kind, and thus such people have a chance of getting a piece of that power and don’t like you dogfooding mechanisms for preventing such a system).

You seem to have a misconception that you are sort of a gentleman to whom others have to justify something. There’s such a thing as unneeded waste of time.

You simply don’t understand how discourse works.

This is based on your own assumption of what I think of discourse or why I said what I said.

I also said “no earlier than Saturday”.

They are not bringing anything good back. They were a nice company like 30 years ago.

That reputation held for damn long, then they killed it and created a new one of “being luxury crap for successful success”, and during the transition used both.

Now it’s just luxury crap. I don’t know how there still are Apple users who are not after that.

When some people talk how “but it’s a Unix so you can do Unix things” - with a huge pain in the butt over Linux, and there are plenty of variants of “install once and don’t care after” with Linux. As in “plenty”.

In general, I think the concept of trademark has gotten old. Same with patents. These allow companies to just abuse their past reputation and also sue anyone trying to do business in the niche their past self has created.

Or maybe trademarks are fine, but patents … when they were a good thing, new inventions were patented for some period of time. Now they patent interfaces and solutions where no new invention happened.

All these protections are needed, but the system making them has gone AWOL. We need direct democracy.

One from the list, yes.

That might be true, but also a certain revolutionary purging of world politics would do a lot to return to something close to that. The golden age happened after the world war and decolonization, when western countries were full of veterans, and laws governing their lives were much simpler.

Internet-assisted direct democracy, open borders, open trade, radical changes in patent laws, simpler laws generally - all this can exist.

We simply have too much legacy everywhere strangling development.

The bad guys are trying to make it appear that the only legacy that can be stripped is that of French revolution ideals, human rights and civilization. That actually we don’t have to strip, that is all good. Just them.

It’s normal. Sometimes humans need surgeries, and sometimes a part of an old building has to be dismantled - maybe there’s a pipe in the wall that leaks, or maybe you need to retrieve a human skeleton found using some new technology, whatever. And you throw out garbage regularly.

So a reform for direct democracy (with ranked choice between variants having, say, 1000+ initial supporters in some incubator to get to the vote itself, because we have computers, storage and connectivity to make everything desirable for such) IMHO would go a long way to fixing half the problems in the world.

Back then American industries were just complacent due to insufficient competition, and Japan’s industrial development was a bit of a miracle (that “living in year 2000 since 1980s” joke).

Japan back then had (and still has) an interesting socioeconomic system, a bit similar to samurai clans went cartels, where workers are supposed to work all their life in one place (or close to that), don’t squeal about worker rights and such, but be covered by lots of company-provided social nets and guarantees.

Bailouts are unacceptable period. Trained workers, factories, factory hardware, logistics specialists, engineers, patents and so on - they all remain in the economy. That a company fails and goes bankrupt is not a bad thing. It’s just that company. Not the industry as a whole. If there are no additional mechanisms.

Somehow Americans seem to have forgotten that the kind of “capitalism” which gets defended is about this exactly - a company goes bankrupt, too bad. There are other companies which will hire its workers and buy its assets. Possibly new companies created by its former employees. Its shareholders have gambled and lost, well, their problem. That’s what an unregulated market is, by the way, and not bailouts to big fish and horse dicks for small fish.

If something works differently - workers don’t find a new place to work in, factories go to scrap metal, engineers go flip burgers, patents are collected by trolls, and new companies are not being created, - then something has been broken by an existing policy.

Patents are the worst of it, but also non-compete clauses, legal impediments for creating new businesses, legal expenses making it harder, - these things have to be removed.

I mean, people on Lemmy love to dream of something like what you list, those things are good, but maybe fixing some basic things about what you already have is no less useful. Especially since these fixes do not cost any money to maintain, while, well, pensions and healthcare do.

If they are too expensive due to cost of labor, they can do, look at other comments, increased automation.

With automation China’s advantages over US are mostly in the bureaucratic efficiency area. Both in the government’s parts interacting with big companies and in the companies themselves.

US big companies are just too used to preferential treatment and solving market problems with lobbying, which worked when they were the spearhead of progress or something.

It will. It really does regulate itself, no /s needed.

Except that happens via some businesses going bankrupt and some adjusting.

And either it’s free enough for monopolies to crash, or regulated enough for monopolies to be killed, or both.

If it’s neither, then you have today’s tech industry.

EDIT: And here the fears are that big companies will go down with their shareholders whining and their political cronies suffering and so on. Whether you want free market or literal socialism, the main problem is in separating private narrow interests from the state machine.

Yes. They did. That’s called competition. It forces companies to improve by destroying them, except they don’t want that. And politicians don’t want that, cause it makes corruption unstable.

Killed Detroit too, though. But, eh, helped other parts. It’s life.

Thus already in the 90s with the TRON OS a different approach was chosen by US regulators - threaten Japan with sanctions if it’s allowed to compete with Windows inside Japan .

They can’t threaten China, but they can prevent Chinese competitive goods from entering US market and improving its economy again.

Bad economy - poor and stressed people, poor and stressed people - worse political decisions, worse political decisions - good for middlemen which in our age shouldn’t exist frankly. We have the technologies for direct democracy, it’s not 1920s.

I have an idea - make this issue solved via direct popular vote. Ranked choice, variants range from “Apple owns your butts” to “Apple should be punished with its monthly margin for failing to deliver hourly orgasms with its devices” to “Apple open sources and PD’s everything or Apple leaves”.

They’ll be interested themselves in making the OS as convenient for normal usage as possible. Including the walled garden part. OK, just a thought experiment.

Nah, just a thorough reproduction of the consequences of that wrong.