domain:mattlakeman.org
2rafa
6m ago
Some good writing this month. I enjoyed @coffee_enjoyer and @FiveHourMarathon’s brief discussion of the Amish Question. There’s a risk when discussing isolated and backward tribes that one projects the way that we do today onto hunter gatherers in the Amazon or the Sentinelese, where we assume that we were like them instead of acknowledging that they - for not having settled, for not having advanced - are the unusual ones and so may not tell us as much about our ancestors as we think. Similarly, the Amish aren’t necessarily a fair or accurate example of most traditional civilizations in many ways, or of what ‘we’ could be if we attempted to restore some of those institutions.
A second issue is the peculiarity of the group. I think it unambiguously true that the Amish probably are happier and have higher QOL than most modern westerners, but the degree to which this is the product of trad-ness is hard to measure. Consider those Mennonites who stayed in the Alps and assimilated into normal mountain Swiss society. Today they live in one of the richest and highest functioning countries on earth, a place bus drivers make a hundred thousand dollars a year, where the median household wealth is among (possibly the) highest in the world. A clean and exceptionally safe country, an ordered country, a place in which one’s neighbors will indeed send the police to tell you to stop playing music after 9.30pm. A place where the recycling is always sorted (God help you if it isn’t). Possibly, alongside Denmark (which has its disadvantages) the final remaining civilized country in the West.
It is hard to compare the Amish with their assimilated cousins in Switzerland because Swiss statistics are muddied by lower performing French and Italians (and others). But a lot of the ‘Amish QOL advantage’ might just be HBD.
shakenvac
6m ago
State criminal courts don't do constitutional debates. He broke NY law. Whether that law is unconstitutional (probably yes) is outside the remit of that court.
FistfullOfCrows
11m ago
I'm not keen on watching the billionaires all raise 12 little versions of "Chadius Maximus Esq. the IIIrd."
functor
17m ago
DEI is the natural state of humanity, the 90s was an extreme outlier. Throughout history humans have always been tribal and worked for their group interests. A group of people working as a group will easily outcompete individuals. Tribes, clans, nations etc exist for a reason. The US is well over 400 years old, not ignoring the first half and ethnic interests were a central part of conflicts throughout nearly all of that. The 90s were an outlier, not the norm even in the US. Go to other parts of the world and democracy simply doesn't work since people vote for their ethnic candidate.
The 90s required the US to be so white enough for white culture to be the norm. The whiteness was implicit and black people were seen as white people with brown skin. This level of implicit whiteness no longer exists.
The 90s came after decades of rising living standards and a high point of the American empire. There was less competitiveness.
The cat is out of the bag and lots of groups have realized that their lobbying gives results. Good luck convincing black people to adopt meritocracy and opposing government transfers of wealth from haves to have nots. If fighting for your group delivers big results, people will do it. Historically people have been more than willing to die for it so expect people to continue to do so.
FistfullOfCrows
18m ago
While we're dreaming can we get omnibus bills to be banned? Also make a law where anyone in congress/the house can put anyone else present on the spot for knowing the bill's text from memory. If he doesn't know it verbatim then the bill is delayed until everyone involved( yes every single one) learns what it says.
Further make it so you can't add random bullshit to a bill in an amendment.
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
21m ago
Thank you for sharing. I have a jaded view of arts magnet schools because my wife attended one where she experienced bullying and a generally poisonous atmosphere. It seemed like each student wanted to undermine the others. It's reassuring to know that this isn't always the case.
zeke5123a
22m ago
The provision also needs read in connection with the militia clause of art 1
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
43m ago
In the US public schools I attended, we were restricted to eating lunch in the cafeteria. We were only granted liberty to leave the campus for lunch during our senior year. In suburban/rural districts most students are bussed and walking home and back within a 45 minute period isn't practicable (and at many schools, walking isn't an option at all).
Do you think that this is enough to also say that no major IoT startup success is likely to be based in California any time soon?
Nah
Ok, cool. Then epsilon regulation doesn't instantly kill 100% of innovation.
I think we're talking past each other. This regulation in and of itself is a nothingburger. It's the tendency I'm speaking to, which is what was alluded to in the OP.
Regulation is a dynamic process, it never stops at one law and very few of its slopes are not slippery.
Well, then we can probably dig back into the history books to find the first actual regulation that was placed on the tech industry. Whenever it was, it was in the past. The complaint that if we have epsilon regulation, it will definitely be a slippery slope to infinite regulation was valid then, but we're past that threshold now. Now, regulation is a dynamic process; the question is whether this regulation is part of a slippery slope toward infinite regulation, or if it's actually mostly basic shit that everyone has already known they should be doing anyway.
In this house we discuss the Bailey, not the Motte.
I mean, no? It's literally TheMotte. And this betrays that your reasoning doesn't even follow the Motte/Bailey dynamics. It was
So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
If anything, you're the one who is making bold, controversial statements (that innovation will grind to a halt, that no innovation happens anymore in any other industry that has any regulation). There's nothing comparable happening in the other direction. What even is the Bailey that you speak of?
2rafa
1hr ago
Tradcaths are extremely overrepresented on the far right which does on occasion advocate for political violence. Seems very cringe for the GOP to spend years being completely fine with the FBI spending billions infiltrating random mosques and then get upset when they target extremist tradcaths who openly advocate for violent revolution online. Obviously it isn’t any substantial percentage of tradcaths, but the same is true for Muslim extremists.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
There are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars, but almost no one is even interested in trying to overcome them because the regulatory barriers to marketing them and getting the general public to be allowed to fly them are obviously insurmountable.
Here is where we get to the BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT part. Every couple years, I see another flying car concept from some start-up. Every couple years, it's technologically fucking absurd, because "there are of course substantial technical barriers to flying cars".
You have zero reason for anyone to believe that the core reason why we don't have flying cars is regulatory and not technological/cultural/practical, especially when I can see with my own two eyes that every proposal that comes up is obscenely whack from a technological/cultural/practical standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm no FAA-lover, and they would almost certainly get in the way, but they're the reason we don't have flying cars in the same way that Space Force is the reason we don't have aliens invading earth.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Ok, so California required default passwords four years ago. Your nightmare world has already arrived. We've already crossed over the epsilon threshold. The boot has already eternally stomped the artist, and you should have already exited the terminally ill tech sector. I don't know why you're complaining now.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Now this is the type of response I was hoping for! Actually engaging with the substance!
FRAM
Perhaps they'll issue a clarification, but from the note in this section, I think someone could read this as "memory"; it has "memory" right in the name! In general, I do expect there to be some clarifications along these lines as folks like you bring up additional concerns.
5.4-2 (unique IDs)
This one is conditional, and I imagine ultra-small or ultra-disposable devices won't qualify in the first place.
5.3.4/6/10 (updates)
Same here; conditional. We'd at least have to get down to the level of thinking about each of the devices you've mentioned in terms of the conditions.
Mandating that "For constrained devices that cannot have their software updated, the product should be isolable and the hardware replaceable" (5.3-15) could mean almost nothing, or it could require vendors to commit to support any optional part of a product until they retire an entire series.
Notice how they define isolable:
isolable: able to be removed from the network it is connected to, where any functionality loss caused is related only to that connectivity and not to its main function; alternatively, able to be placed in a self-contained environment with other devices if and only if the integrity of devices within that environment can be ensured
EXAMPLE: A Smart Fridge has a touchscreen-based interface that is network-connected. This interface can be removed without stopping the fridge from keeping the contents chilled.
In the section describing the rule, they continue:
There are some situations where devices cannot be patched. For constrained devices a replacement plan needs to be in place and be clearly communicated to the consumer. This plan would typically detail a schedule for when technologies will need to be replaced and, where applicable, when support for hardware and software ends
I think I would interpret this as, sure, you need to support any part of a product until you tell the customer that you're not supporting it anymore, and the type of support can vary.
SecureBoot (5.7-1), hardware memory access controls (5.6-8)
Yeah, I have a feeling that these aren't going to pop into the Mandatory category for a while. The real good news is that concerns are really of the type, "Will they at some point make these Mandatory, when it is still too soon?" Because pre-rule-dropping, I imagine the worry would have been of the type, "Will they make this stuff Mandatory now?" And, they, uh, didn't. I think this document shows a pretty decent level of care in getting some of the really basic stuff right and showing the industry the direction they'd like to go in the future. There's no telling at this point whether it'll all actually go that way; one has to imagine that there are differing worlds where it seems more/less plausible to upgrayyyed these Recommendatations into Mandatory.
guaranteeing cryptographic updates for the life cycle of the product (5.5-3)
Whereas this one, I think is fine, given their explanation:
For devices that cannot be updated, it is important that the intended lifetime of the device does not exceed the recommended usage lifetime of cryptographic algorithms used by the device (including key sizes).
How easy is that? You don't even have to update it at all. But if you do, then at least make sure your shit isn't trivially broken, at least so long as you're telling the customer that you're still supporting it.
ControlsFreak
2hr ago
Irrelevant. Obviously, people can choose to regulate something specific away. The question is whether there has been "any" innovation in "any" other industry (that is, the non-bits ones that have more regulation). Unless you're claiming that the US has no regulation on the oil/gas industry, the shale revolution, which literally has changed the world at a geopolitical scale, is a huge counterexample.
But there are many others. Space X. Ozempic. Etc. It's really hilarious to have all the huge techno-optimists, who think that AI and tech more broadly is going to revolutionize literally everything, and at the same time, they imagine that the tiniest amount of regulation on fucking light bulbs will grind literally everything to a halt.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
In an attempt to broaden access to the program, Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) have held trainings to help other faith groups improve their grant applications, including hosting a joint webinar with the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). JFNA and the Orthodox Union joined with the USCMO, the Sikh Council for Interfaith Relations, and several Christian denominations to call for increased funding to the program. The joint lobbying effort resulted in Congress appropriating twice the previous year's funding for 2021.[17]
This seems like an odd thing to do if the whole thing is a Jewish scam.
OliveTapenade
2hr ago
Synagogues in Australia do this - I believe the guards are mostly volunteers who are trained on the synagogue's own payroll.
In the past I found it a bit odd, since noticeably mosques and gurdwaras don't do this, despite Muslims and Sikhs also being religious groups that are widely hated, and which are actually more publicly identifiable than Jews due to their headscarves and turbans, but since October 7 I have re-evaluated a little and am more understanding of Jews feeling a need for special security.
I suspect socio-economic factors also play a role - Australian Jews are on average wealthier than Muslims or Sikhs, and thus more able to pay for security. It's also possible that the fact that Jews are indistinguishable in everyday life makes synagogues more vulnerable to random attacks, not less. If I want to attack a Muslim or Sikh, it's relatively easy to identify one on the street and then attack them when they're most vulnerable. (To be fair, most attacks on Sikhs are a result of people mistaking them for Muslims - actual anti-Sikh sentiment is quite rare.) However, if I want to attack a Jew, I need to go to a bit more effort to identify who's Jewish, and observing people going to synagogue is a good way to do that.
Harlequin5942
2hr ago
I'm illustrating the motte-and-bailey by analogy.
"I don't want CP in video games" is the motte. "This particular censorship is desirable, at a minimum" is the bailey.
plural
2hr ago
Yeah, and it shouldn't matter either way. If you think it's important to tease apart the minutiae of this example in defense of something that is clearly not pornography then I'll take this conversational detour as an agreement that people deciding that things need to be censored or banned based on a passing familiarity with the content should be ignored.
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
3hr ago
I mean ideally people should be aware of the issues around network security to the point of being able to make reasonable decisions on whether a given networking device is safe to use much like they do every day with other devices and vehicles and activities. No one looking at a lot full of cars doesn’t make sure the car has airbags and seatbelts and antilock brakes. That’s not a super deep understanding of automotive technology, it’s pretty basic. And in home network security I think you should know enough to look for the basic security features. I wouldn’t buy a networked baby monitor that didn’t have at minimum password protection and encryption. I’m not an expert but I know enough to know that unencrypted information can be viewed by anyone with the appropriate receiver and that a device not protected by a fairly strong password is open to hacking. I think people are treating PNP devices differently than they treat other similar devices. It’s not that they are incapable of due diligence, it’s that they see computer devices and the systems around them as too complex to understand. They aren’t.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3hr ago
In Australia we have 18C. Speech is free so long as you're not racist. Plus we have pretty aggressive anti-defamation laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_18C_of_the_Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975
Trump banned diversity training in the goverment in his first administration. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/
In contrast Biden administration was super woke. Trump and people like Rufo will work together anyhow. I wouldn't have too high expectations, but there is going to be considerable difference even from a mostly ineffective Trump who pushes right a bit, versus a Biden administration pushing quite far left.
There are those who want a neutered right, and frame the alternative with negative exaggerations and fearmongering. The reality is like Democrat administrations purged a lot of people in the goverment to put their own loyalists in charge, it isn't only fair for the right to do this to govern in a different manner than that, but also the only way to change things.
Wanting a neutered right, is not the agenda of genuine moderates but people who are on the same side as Biden.
How we got here was through Republicans like Romney called moderate but who supported BLM. And through liberals, framed as more moderate than they are, but who actually are quite far left culturally and implemented those changes. Only a political coalition that genuinely opposes the intersectional agenda can genuinely push it back.
The right is the only coalition push back these things. Can the center do this? Well, some of the people called far right, or considered part of the right if one tries to objectively judge how much they pander to different identity groups, ironically people like Trump are closer to the center than many other people (falsely) labeled moderate like Mitt Romney.
Those usually carrying the moderate or liberal labels, are insufficiently against the whole woke agenda, and too much for it. So they won't push back and can't put it away. What some of them seem to be doing is to sometimes try to pretend they are already doing this. So there isn't going to be a genuine attempt by liberals and people like Romeny to put the woke away, but there might be attempts to define wokeness narrowly, and still support the same agenda. The limited hangout maneuver.
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Yes, but that will solidify idpol and it will still be fashionable but not dominating the national conversation, until the focus passes and a new Floyd hysteria emerges. That something isn't as discussed as much as previously, does not stop it from being a problem. Moreover, it can coexist just as it continues to coexist with covid focus or the Israel conflict with Palestinians. Moreover, foreign policy presidencies tend to be presidencies engaging in idiotic destabilizing expensive wars that make the MIC richer, but are actually damaging towards their country and the world. Which isn't to say extreme isolationism is the solution.
Identity politics are always here to stay, the question is if we got a sane and fair arrangement, or one that gives valid reason for people to oppose and incentivizes political conflict. Which doesn't change unless the ideology of modern new left liberals and even those in the establishment conservative parties who aren't actually conservative who agree with them stops being influential. Because it is an agenda that does try to screw over, and increasingly at that, the progressive intersectional coalition outgroups, such as white Christian men. The way to have peace, and to relax culture war intensity is to enforce something better and more even handed. Which as is the case always with even handed policies, sharing elements with other groups, shares in a vein diagram ground with the genuine far right. Additionally, it is itself definitely seen by those with the new left liberal agenda as far right, and labeled at such. Although, that isn't actually accurate, and has to do with the strategy of the far left to label everyone other than them with pejoratives.
What is important to understand is that we are never going to get a fair arrangement that reduces culture war intensity, under the hysteric paranoia of the far right, that leads people to oppose reasonable positions because they associate them with the far right. In fact there are issues where even the most hardcore people on the far right have legitimate grievances about their favorite groups being mistreated. And it is in fact possible and preferable to the current situation to share grounds with anyone on issues they have a point, and refuse to share ground with them where they are wrong.
From liberal-ish space, what would aid to relax tensions, is an attitude of compromise and understanding that there has been a real problem of cultural/identitarian progressive overreach. That overreach and progressive extremism also relates to the neutering of the right.
2rafa
4hr ago
You mean the thing he did at the very end of his presidency which might well be struck down by his own Supreme Court anyway?
2rafa
4hr ago
Sure, but that isn’t no understanding of free expression, it’s just a different one. For most of the history of the US states had various laws banning various kinds of speech, so did the federal government during the wars. Absolute free speech is a 20th century interpretation of the first amendment.
Yes, that's the one.
I take your reply as meaning "Because the Schedule F reforms were done at the end of the term and, further, that they stand a reasonable chance of being undone by SCOTUS, one can't count that as striking back at the civil service."
That's a perfectly fine position to take. Let me ask, then, what is the rubric for a successful strike against the civil service? And how does a President get there in one fell swoop?
To me, this feels like goalpost shifting and unrealistically high expectations. As an aside, I"m saying all of this as a never-Trumper. I don't like advocating for DJT for really any reason. Still, I do see things like the Schedule F effort to me meaningful attempts to root out what is perhaps the most entrenched self-serving bureaucratic mechanism in American history.
More options
Context Copy link