#1 is like tactical nuke tech available for all civilians, #2 would make sense if all the production line and consumers are in space too, #3 would make sense as part of the same.

Earth gravity well is a bitch. We live in it. Sending stuff up is expensive, sending stuff down is stupid when it’s needed up there, but without some critical complete piece of civilization to send up at once, you’ll have to send stuff up all the time.

It’s too expensive and the profits are transcendent, as in “ideological achievement and because we can”. Also they may eventually start sending nukes down.

Thus it all makes sense only when we can build and equip an autonomous colony to send at once. Self-reliant with the condition that they will get needed materials from wherever they are sent.

I suggest something with gravity though. Europa or Ganymede or Enceladus. Something like that.

Quantum was popular as “oh god, our cryptography will die, what are we going to do”. Now post-quantum cryptography exists and it doesn’t seem to be clear what else quantum computers are useful for, other than PR.

Blockchain was popular when the supply of cryptocurrencies was kinda small, now there’s too many of them. And also its actually useful applications require having offline power to make decisions. Go on, tell politicians in any country that you want electoral system exposed and blockchain-based to avoid falsifications. LOL. They are not stupid. If you have a safe electoral system, you can do with much more direct democracy. Except blockchain seems a bit of an overkill for it.

3D printing is still kinda cool, except it’s just one tool among others. It’s widely used to prototype combat drones and their ammunition. The future is here, you just don’t see it.

Cloud - well, bandwidths allowed for it and it’s good for companies, so they advertised it. Except even in the richest countries Internet connectivity is not a given, and at some point wow-effect is defeated by convenience. It’s just less convenient to use cloud stuff, except for things which don’t make sense without cloud stuff. Like temporary collaboration on a shared document.

“AI” - they’ve ran out of stupid things to do with computers, so they are now promising the ultimate stupid thing. They don’t want smart things, smart things are smart because they change the world, killing monopolies and oligopolies along the way.

The bitter miserable thing is that American Christians have fully infested countries like Uganda, Nigeria, and Kenya, with predictably awful results.

Do you really believe that?

Much of those countries’ population are peasants.

You in USA don’t quite understand what a peasant is. It’s not a farmer. It’s not a hillbilly. It’s not an uneducated worker class member. It’s not a shantytown inhabitant.

A peasant doesn’t know any kind of work other than physical work, everything else they consider dishonest. A peasant only believes in blood, soil and fortunetellers. They really do, take a peasant from any culture across the world and they’ll be deeply racist (believe that human’s personality is defined by genes) and deeply superstitious (believe in magic and every “sign” out there, believe that “heart” and emotion affect more in life than your actions). A peasant’s idea of morality is that people with pitchforks and torches can’t be wrong, and if they lynch someone, even their family member, then they were right. A peasant’s idea is that poor people are virtuous and rich people (everyone who’s not poor) are always worse. A peasant considers lying and stealing and scamming from “rich” people cunning and a virtue.

It’s a human animal, with their lifestyle very slowly adjusted by evolution for a bunch of such people coexisting without any legal or moral authority in one place for many years.

They are by default, naturally anti-vaxxers. Their “natural” existence is virtuous and vaxxines are poison.

They are by default, naturally anti-LGBTQ, if something is less than 30 percent of the population, then it either hides or is killed with fire.

Turning a peasant into a human to which you can turn your back is a hard problem of education, in USSR and in China and in many other countries they haven’t fully succeeded with that! There are still plenty of masquerading peasants among their population.

Thank you for your attention to my opinion. My dad was such a person (maybe not the worst kind, but a carrier of such worldview, and I have met others).

Threats work well for scams. People who couldn’t be bothered to move by promises of something new and better can be motivated by fear of losing what they already have.

It’s really unfortunate psychology is looked down upon and psychologists are viewed as some “soft” profession. Zuck is a psychology major. It’s been 2 decades, most of the radical changes in which were not radical in anything other than approach to human psychology.

BTW, I’ve learned recently that in their few initial years Khmer Rouge were not known as communist organization to even many of their members. Just an “organization”. Their rhetoric was agrarian (of course peasants are hard-working virtuous people, and from peasantry working the earth comes all the wisdom, and those corrupt and immoral people in the cities should be made work to eat), Buddhist (of course the monk-feudal system of obedience, work and ascese is the virtuous way to live, though of course we are having a rebirth now so we are even wiser), monarchist (they referred to Sihanouk’s authority almost to the end), anti-Vietnamese (that’s like Jewish for German Nazis, Vietnamese are the evil). And after them taking power for some time they still didn’t communicate anything communist. They didn’t even introduce their leadership. Nobody knew who makes the decisions in that “organization” or how it was structured. It didn’t have a face. They only officially made themselves visible as Democratic Kampuchea with communism and actual leaders when the Chinese pressured them. They didn’t need to, because they were obeyed via threat (and lots of fulfillment) of violence anyway.

This is important in the sense that when you have the power, you don’t need to officially tell the people over which you have it that you rule them.

So - in these 2 decades it has also came into fashion to deliberately stubbornly ignore the fact that psychology works over masses. And everybody acts as if when there’s no technical means to make people do something, then it’s not likely or possible.

If each unplanned death not result of operator’s mistake would lead to confiscation of one month’s profit (not margin), then I’d think it would help very much.

Don’t get me wrong, AI has its uses, but their whole “solution for everything” mentality

They are trying to somehow undo or redo personal computers.

To create a non-transparent tool that replaces the need (and thus social possibility) to have a universal machine.

The difference between thinking robots and computers as we have them is that thinking robots take some place in the social hierarchy, and computers help everyone who has a computer and uses it.

Science fiction usually portrayed artificial humans, not computers, before actually, ahem, seeing the world as it turned out.

It’s sort of a social power revolt against intellectual power (well, some kind of it).

Like a tantrum. People who don’t like how it really happened still want their deus ex machina, an obedient slave at that, that can take responsibility at that. Their 50 years long shock has receded and they now think they are about to turn this defeat into victory.

only making it bigger and last longer which will only make it worse when it does actually pop

I think that’s deliberate. There are a few companies which will feel very well when the bubble pops, having the actual audience as their main capital, while their capitalization and technologies are secondary. The rest are just blindly led by short-term profits.

This is, I think, true. Would be pretty traditional for empires, to test everything new in colonies first, then bring it back. From weapons to beer to laws.

Why do all these idiots behave as if they knew where the future is?

If it’s about all the achievements they’ve read about and seen in games like Civilization, real-life doesn’t quite look like that. Though in some sense these games, though good, have kinda simplified and made degenerate the understanding of the progress by many people. Similarly to what Soviet school program did, but in a more persuasive and pleasant way.

There’s no tech tree. There’s been plenty of attempts at any breakthrough before it actually happened. Suppose this “AI” is to some real future AGI what Leonardo’s machines were to Wright brothers’ machines, even in that case there’s no hurry to embrace it.

If he thinks he’s looking at a 90% achieved tech tree point with powerful perks, then his profession should probably be that of a janitor. Same day schedule, same places to mop up, you know.

Yes, I meant in case you have a library of FLACs. In that case it wouldn’t be too problematic cause, well, it’s just a script recursing your library, encoding from FLAC to Opus and if succeeded, removing FLAC files.

It’s supposed to be growth related to the things which didn’t progress, so to say. So it’s not literally supposed to be growth of processes, just that stagnation makes things diminish in value, and compared to them things more alive “grow”. Something like that.

Kinda like inflation. And that’s fine, that can describe a pretty sustainable society, it’s not about consuming more and more, it’s like rotation.

Except with today’s oligopolies there’s a different idea, that they really have to grow as in capturing more and more of humanity’s resources. The AI bubble (or not) is their most recent approach to that.

That’s because expectations were shaped by the 90s when many things exploded (unfortunately much of that were countries, also landmines and other expendable means of destruction).

In the 00s it was possible to create illusion of that explosion still going on brighter and brighter, despite just continuing what started in the 90s, and then to create a few large-scale scams (or madness pandemics, or tech fashions, whatever ; point is they weren’t the same as years 1993-1999) with iPhones, new Apple in general, Google, Facebook, Twitter.

I’m not saying it was fake or worthless, it was a revolution too, but not what companies try to show since the dotcom bubble.

So - they are still trying to show that, with kinda rough, generic, and insincere effort, a bit like sex workers in their makeup.

And they can’t show that without such expansion in width, not in height.

I remember it when old sysadmins would remember OS/2, Fidonet and be respectful to FreeBSD (despite not having touched it for many years). And I’m kind young.

There are now “old” sysadmins loyal to Windows? Something is wrong with this decade.

So dramatic, LOL

If you buy\rent a house (suppose) intended as, well, housing, and make a family diner there without registration, you will break the law.

They can easily do this with the Internet.

They have a demographic pit in front of them which they themselves created with “1 child policy”.

Also CCP too doesn’t exactly serve the people. It’s a hierarchy of (possibly benevolent) bureaucrats.

Well, from this description it’s still usable for things too complex to just do Monte-Carlo, but with possible verification of results. May even be efficient. But that seems narrow.

BTW, even ethical automated combat drones. I know that one word there seems out of place, but if we have an “AI” for target\trajectory\action suggestion, but something more complex\expensive for verification, ultimately with a human in charge, then it’s possible to both increase efficiency of combat machines and not increase the chances of civilian casualties and friendly fire (when somebody is at least trying to not have those).

I initially perceived piracy similarly to how or perceive reading about archaeology and such, so the fact that someone is sincere in hating p2p copying and calling it immoral just felt preposterous.

Yet now it seems plenty of normies will agree. Then go listen to something they didn’t pay for on YouTube or Facebook or whatever, because “everybody uses that”. What “everybody uses” is fine, see. What they condemn me the pirate for is using ed2k, torrents and such other technologies. Even when I’m literally downloading public domain stuff or abandonware.

Opus is far better, but with MP3’s there’s been plenty of hardware players only working with that format. Also Opus is new, before it was Vorbis which was kinda as good as MP3 but far less popular.

And yes, MP3 is very “good enough”, like JPEG.

Year 2025 - politicians are held under control by evidence of them having raped children

Year 2035 - politicians are held under control by evidence of them having made children outside of the state incubator

The point is to make children used to checks.

It’s a didactic law.

IRL usually children grow up feeling they are free (except for their parents) to an extent.

This is intended so that identifying yourself in the Internet were normal by the time you grow up for it to matter.

But, of course, there might be some good considerations, if you’re into playing devil’s advocate. People might remember which stupid shit they were posting when they were younger, and want for future generations to be always conscious of the difference between pseudonymity and anonymity, and superficial anonymity vs real. People might want to make it so that nobody had a false sense of security, leading to really bad mistakes. People might want this to be the step preceding some way to fight bots.

And they might even not have good considerations, but eventually realize that the oppressive system they are building is best rebuilt for something better and used differently. Wouldn’t be the first time in history.

It’s just that laying down your arms in hopes for that is unwise.

YK, guys. Maybe it’s not a bubble. Just people prefer the future of hunger and poverty to the future of random unaccountable murders and totalitarianism plus hunger and poverty.