domain:dynomight.net
jkf
3m ago
Whatever man -- that's the reason, and she's not wrong. "Turn up the heat" is an interesting approach to dealing with evaporative cooling -- if there were a (metaphorical) retort somewhere capturing all of the quality people who've had enough around here, it's getting to the point where that would be a better place to hang out.
ControlsFreak
6m ago
If you're going to just ignore everything I wrote, then we're probably not going to make any progress. Perhaps we could leave this tangent where it is, and you can actually specify your claim, so that we can determine whether this tangent is even meaningful to your actual claim. Or if, ya know, you're just whining about the world.
Or, of course, you could read what I wrote and actually respond to it. You could show your expertise in flight navigation and control, particularly with regards to automation technology. You could make an argument that actually competes with mine, in order to show that I have mistaken some points of fact or something. What is non-responsive is just pure imagination about hypothetical alternative realities, completely disconnected from any facts about the world.
hydroacetylene
7m ago
Desantis and Abbott are conservative a-listers, though.
Jiro
7m ago
Writing "X is an ugly pig" on the blackboard is writing it where X is likely to see it. The list was private and only exposed to the public by the authorities.
hydroacetylene
8m ago
Sure, but the country does need things from the red tribe- like being willing to join the army during a general shortage of blue collar male labor- that the red tribe can just withhold if they feel like they aren’t getting a fair shake.
hydroacetylene
10m ago
I’d have expected that prestige media shuts up because diversity statements make them mildly uncomfortable and conservative media crows because diversity statements are obviously dumb, and that a few lefty rags publish an angry op Ed every now and then but otherwise don’t focus on it because they’re distracted by Palestine protests.
That sounds like basically what happened.
ControlsFreak
11m ago
the user isn't reading the 100-page manual that probably already warns about this.
I don't believe any user manuals actually warn about any of these things. The manufacturers simply do not care about security, because they don't have to, be it built-in, in manuals, or in advertisements.
it's not as easy as "just make the device idiot-proof, like toasters!"
Totally and completely agreed. I started off saying that one way we could fix this is to do something extremely simple, like banning default passwords. No manufacturer is going to put on their box whether they have a default password or not, so many consumers aren't going to know.
There has been some efforts in the US to create a Cyber Trust mark, where that is an indication that they have been built to some sort of standards (that aren't that far off from these regulations). This is a plausible approach, though we likely won't see whether it would have been effective (are consumers going to be paying close attention for this mark on a box full of ten other certification marks?), because they're probably just all going to bring their devices up to the UK standard. Could have been an approach, though.
Jiro
12m ago
When I think back 10-20-30 years nobody would give a shit about this at all. Sailor Moon would be re-edited for American audiences now with more modest clothing
You are unfamiliar with Sailor Moon censorship. And they actually did edit the art during the transformation sequences.
ControlsFreak
16m ago
Drone regulation went from zero to some. We could debate the merits of specifics there, as well, but does anyone seriously hold that, after having gone from zero to some drone regulation, all innovation in drones is crushed to zero, that everything is doomed and that nothing can be saved?
In any event, drones have different concerns than manned aircraft. I wholly expect that a detailed discussion about the similarities/differences would be rich and fruitful, but what is not rich and fruitful is observing that drone regulation has gone from zero to some and concluding that it must be impossible that the FAA is opening up to alternative navigation and control systems for manned aircraft, especially since the conclusion is factually false.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
17m ago
If the FAA hadn't foreclosed it all at the start by freezing the technology in place with regulations we might indeed live in a different world already. If the NHTSA existed back when the model T was current, we might need checklists for driving cars and have regulations based on needing to turn a crank to start.
ControlsFreak
20m ago
Understood and agreed. We'd then have to shift to a discussion about the theory of slippery slopes and regulation dynamics. I don't think @The_Nybbler is open to that discussion yet. He thinks that "there's no point" in discussing anything like that; once we've crossed epsilon, all is doomed, and nothing can be saved. If he'd like to walk back that claim and actually have a detailed and reasonable discussion about what happens after we cross epsilon, I am here and waiting, but he has to agree to those terms rather than constantly immediately shifting back to claiming that once you cross epsilon, all is doomed and nothing can be saved.
Jiro
21m ago
The good news is that the FAA has opened up to these sorts of "alternative navigation and control schemes".
Why has drone regulation gone in the opposite direction from opening up, then?
confidentcrescent
22m ago
Most IoT devices are billed as, "You just plug it in, and it just works!" No one anywhere is standing at a store, looking at the baby monitors, seeing that one of the options lets them listen to it from their phone, and thinking, "Ya know, I really better not think about buying this and plugging it in unless I become an expert in network security."
Let's say you were in charge of fixing this from the advertising side of things. What warnings would you add to this device so that even tech-illiterate users understand the risks of e.g. connecting this baby monitor up to the internet? Simple stuff you can fit on a pop-up or side of the box, because the user isn't reading the 100-page manual that probably already warns about this.
A big part of why you can just hand a toaster to someone with no further explanation is that people actually do know a lot about electricity and household appliances and can avoid the biggest problems. Nobody's dumping a live toaster into the sink to clean it.
Manufacturers should probably take this lower level of knowledge into account, but it's not as easy as "just make the device idiot-proof, like toasters!"
gattsuru
23m ago
Although it seems baked into the post is the unsaid premise that the problem is the laws were crafted poorly/maliciously.
Oh, my apologies; I don't really mean to take a position on that. It's quite possible that even the most consequential and hidden stuff, like the coverage for gender identity stuff in the ACA, was totally well-intended to the most circumscribed bounds (though I'm not optimistic). It's possible that Obama genuine did at the time not want to fund health insurance for DACA, and there are almost certainly cases where the law was far more explicit and clearly written and reversed anyway. Halbrook's examples of ATF adventurism probably fall there, and I'm a long fan of pointing to problems like whether FOPA means you can stop to piss in Albany, or where a certain high-profile someone revised multiple statutory requirements to destroy records and not record or transfer them at a government facility to instead permit keeping them.
Similarly, one can readily imagine a world where every law was written in the most backhanded way by some evil grand vizier, yet it wouldn't matter because they were enforced by some even-handed personification of justice. We're just not in that world.
But, IMHO, the problem is all the enforcement agencies have been captured by neoliberals. And so there simply is no law that they won't interpret in the manner that most suits their objectives.
Yeah, there's definitely that.
But while that's definitely a bigger problem, and maybe even a coup-complete one, I think it's worth noting the separate issue and incentive where enacting a law or portion of a law to prevent something instead turned into ammunition to enact the desired change. And even if that's a rare matter, even if biased enforcement agencies are replaced or abolished, it's going to be something that will remain as a failure mode.
Jiro
24m ago
Ok, so California required default passwords four years ago. Your nightmare world has already arrived. We've already crossed over the epsilon threshold.
I don't think you know what "epsilon" means. "epsilon" means a small amount, often in a context where a bigger amount is possible. Making one regulation isn't going to cross over the epsilon threshhold, but it can be one step towards having lots of regulations which do.
SlowBoy
26m ago
Men like discussing who is hot. There is no expectation that everything you say in a private or semi-private space becomes public. Your argument becomes close to saying that ranking any human attribute is in bad taste, because someone ends up at the bottom, which is bullying.
If the victim
People discussing whether you're hot (or ugly) does not make you a victim.
ControlsFreak
27m ago
Those were pretty much real-world constraints until automation developed enough to be a reasonable approach. This is very very very much directly in my domain of expertise. The good news is that the FAA has opened up to these sorts of "alternative navigation and control schemes". As an expert in the field, this reads to me very much as you just wishing that we lived in a different world, where this sort of technology was feasible a few decades ago, when it definitely definitely wasn't, regardless of what regulations existed/didn't exist.
Jiro
29m ago
I also suspect that even someone who intentionally chose a car based on it having airbags and seatbelts would be incompetent at deciding which cars had better airbags and seatbelts and which cars had worse airbags and seatbelts.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
32m ago
It's not true at all.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
33m ago
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.
Of course they're "obscenely whack". The only people foolish enough to propose them are those who know nothing about the industry and thus the fact that the regulatory barriers are insurmountable.
If you want to fly you have to learn a bevy of arcane radio procedures, log every trip you take, follow various checklists every time you fly, get your aircraft maintained only by FAA-certified mechanics, have regular medical examinations, and more. And you still only can fly in good weather, which makes every trip a risk of being stranded. There's no market for a flying car, even if technical barriers were overcome, given those requirements.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
40m ago
So that implies... that challenging the constitutionality of the state law can still happen, but needs to be pushed through the court hierarchy to the federal courts before that can happen?
Gosh. What a system...
Do you have a current complaint about the current regulation, or are you just complaining retroactively about California's regulation?
EDIT: It doesn't sound like you have a current complaint about the current regulation, because you say:
There's no point in talking about the specific merits of the specific regulations
But I want to make sure I'm not strawmanning you. Thus, I'm just trying to confirm that the appropriate understanding of your argument is that everything was doomed (at least) four years ago, and that you have nothing more to add. I think it could have saved us lots of digital ink if you had just spoken plainly about this being your position in the beginning.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
51m ago
This is an interesting question. On one hand, were I tyrannical dictator of the universe I would ban all spectator sports, so I don’t think the playoff game is important. On the other hand, what is very important is that a man fulfill his responsibilities to his friends and supporters. So while the game itself is insignificant, the social relations on top of it are maximally significant. So the player would be in the wrong if these social relations are more important than being at the birth of your child. And now the final layer of complexity: is it actually important for a man to be in the hospital room while his wife gives birth, and is this contingent upon the significance of one’s social obligations? To the first question, history says men usually were not present during the birth of their child, except for elite families. To the second, I think yes — when more people are relying on your husband, this means a lessened or eliminated obligation to be present during childbirth. Lastly, there’s the unique situation here where the NBA player’s entire livelihood relies on playing the game, and this livelihood allows the wife and child to live amazing lives, so I think it would be wrong for the wife to complain.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
52m ago
There's no point in talking about the specific merits of the specific regulations, since doing so is like the old joke about the prostitute -- "we've established that, now we're just arguing over the price".
Once you've accepted that the government should be regulating this sort of thing your road to hell is paved and greased. The end state might look like aircraft where nothing actually new can be built because the regulatory barriers are too high, it might look like buildings which all have to be basically the same because the rules constrain the solutions overmuch, it might look like dishwashers and laundry where new things are forced to be less and less effective due to regulators' efficiency obsessions. It won't look like innovation. It's not that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero; it's that having the regulatory framework in the first place makes satisfying the regulations Job One, and that job tends to expand until it fills the space. Over time, not instantly. And it tends to drive out the kind of people who would do the innovation, because they hate all the box-checking, on top of hating all the constraints themselves.
IIRC the actual plan was to send FBI agents to infiltrate tradcath communities and hope they would squeal on other far right wingers, not something based on the idea that tradcaths were going to start a race war themselves. It’s hard not to notice that FBI agents would likely stand out quite a bit less among broadly middle class and socially conservative suburbanite tradcaths than among, say, prison Nazis or deep rural militia types.
My community’s source in the DHS tells us that this plan failed because the agents just kept going native.
More options
Context Copy link