Ma secondo voi, se in Italia, domani mattina, spuntasse un nuovo leader politico che avesse come unico punto di programma la legalizzazione della caccia all'immigrato, non lo prenderebbe un 5%?
Sicuro al mille per cento.
Se non spunta è solo perché esiste (ancora) una fottuta Costituzione che glielo impedirebbe.
Senza vergogna la Matone così come tutti i caporioni leghisti, dal menestrello che ha lanciato wannacci che poi l'ha fregato, a zaia che fonderà una sua lega del cazzo o del tanko di san marco, a giorgietti, quello "bravo" che ha coperto le MAGAgne della matrigna bugiarda e fascista.
La Matone è la classica "terrona" verde, una zia Tom in salsa salviniana, senza vergogna ma col portafogli pieno, infatti non dice solo "se non servo vado a casa" ma è pronta a cambiare casacca per mantenere la grana.
Sono stati allevati così. Questa è una cosa da tener presente, ma come direbbe tajani, fino a un certo punto.
Fino al punto in cui perchè sono dei minchioni, si sono trasformati anche in egregi stronzi e non solo rovinano la vita a te ma anche a un sacco di altra gente che stronza non è.
Another banger column from Ryan Broderick at Garbage Day. Paywalled, but this excerpt is worth reading on its own:
Thousands of Starbucks locations in South Korea are closing next week so staff can attend “social sensitivity” training after the company decided to use an AI tool to craft their new “Tank Day” campaign. They named their new reusable tumbler the “tank” and decided to launch it on May 18th, which just so happened to be the anniversary of the Gwangju Uprising, a 1980 massacre where Korean soldiers killed hundreds of students who were protesting the country’s military dictatorship. Not totally clear why Starbucks baristas need the historical training. Seems like this was a big whoopsie localized entirely within the company’s leadership.
This is just one of the many big whoopsies playing out across the world right now as we continue to suffer from a global crisis of taste. Whether it’s institutions relying on AI to do their thinking for them, the algorithmic spread of lowest-common denominator gutter culture, or the more recent rise of “Chudtech,” the amorphous blob of gambling and streaming apps that gamify — and goonerfy — real life, the entire world has just suddenly decided they don’t care about anything anymore. I watched a shirtless guy ride a mechanical bull on the White House lawn this past weekend.
To their credit, Silicon Valley was early in realizing this was going to be a problem. In the same way, I imagine, a drug dealer realizes they need to buy test strips after fentanyl enters the supply chain. For the last year, different venture capitalists and developers have been repeating the same phrase over and over again: “Taste is the moat.” None of them seemingly aware that processing culture through the economic concept of a “moat” basically proves they’ve already lost the battle.
I’m on tour with my new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI. Catch me in LA TOMORROW (Jun 19) at Skylight Books, and on SUNDAY (Jun 21) at Kepler’s in Menlo Park. After that, it’s Toronto, NYC, Philly and Chicago.
Back at the height of the blockchain bubble, I made a hobby of pointing out that crypto weirdos were palming a card. I used this formulation:
if: problem + blockchain = problem – blockchain
then: blockchain = 0
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
You see, blockchain weirdos kept insisting that they could solve problems related to trust and institutional design with "smart contracts." Rather than having to trust a board of directors to steer an organization, you could just have a self-executing institution, the "distributed autonomous organization" or DAO.
So for example, if you want to buy a copy of the US Constitution at a Sotheby's auction, you could set up a DAO to raise and pool the funds, eliminating the need to find trustworthy people to receive, hold and deploy these funds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConstitutionDAO
However – and here's where the palmed card comes in – the DAO can't go to Sotheby's and place a bid on the Constitution. Instead, the members of the DAO have to elect a guy to receive all that cash, walk into Sotheby's, get one of those little ping-pong paddles last seen at the State of the Union in Chuck Schumer's withered claw (emblazoned with the brave slogan "You're hurting my fee-fees") and raise the paddle during the bidding.
That guy doesn't have to go to Sotheby's. That guy can simply walk away with all the money. Members of the DAO are trusting this guy with their entire collective treasury. Indeed, since the DAO has no corresponding legal entity, it might even be that members of the DAO can't sue this guy if he steals all their money – and even worse, without a limited liability structure, it might mean that everyone in the DAO can be sued for anything bad this guy does with the money.
Which raises the question: what's the point of building this insanely complex hairball of blockchain-based smart contracts to raise and hold the money if you're just going to hand it to this guy and trust him without limit? Why not just have that guy set up a Zelle account and a Whatsapp group? In other words: the problem that the DAO is trying to solve is the difficulty of trusting people with the keys to the kingdom, but no matter how much blockchain you sprinkle on this DAO, it ends with this one guy walking around with all your money, which he can steal with impunity if he so chooses.
Or, put more succinctly:
if: problem + blockchain = problem – blockchain
then: blockchain = 0
This turns out to be a really good way of assessing policy prescriptions for their soundness and foundation in reality, because – as the blockchain swindle shows us – it's possible to come up with entirely fictitious solutions to entirely real problems. The problem of designing a trustworthy institution that can't be betrayed by its leaders and whose operations don't consume all its resources is a real problem – it's quite possibly the real problem – but adding a DAO does nothing to solve the core problems of institutional design, and actually makes some of those problems worse.
There's another real problem with a fictitious solution that is – surprise! – tied to another tech bubble: digital sovereignty.
It's a genuine problem that everyone in the world (outside of China's sphere of influence) is glued to America's tech platforms. These platforms steal everyone's money and data, and every country has signed a trade deal with the USA promising not to let its own technologists and entrepreneurs go into business making add-ons and complementary goods that remediate the defects in America's tech exports:
What's more, Trump's response to finding himself in this poker game that's rigged entirely in his favor is to flip over the table because he resents having to pretend to play at all (as November Kelly so aptly put it). His incontinent belligerence on the world stage sees him making bids to steal whole countries and he's recruited American tech giants to help him in this chaotic program of lunatic imperialism. When other countries' public officials make decisions that Trump dislikes, he gets companies like Microsoft to disconnect whole institutions from the internet, deleting their files, email archives, calendars and address books, and depriving them of the ability to connect to any service tied to their Outlook accounts:
Which means that if Trump wants to steal Greenland, he doesn't have to roll tanks into Nuuk – he can just brick the country of Denmark. He can shut down all their ministries, every large firm, every household. He can shut down their iPhones and Android devices. He can kill their smart-speakers. He can hormuz the world's supply of Ozempic, Lego and ferociously strong licorice:
This is the digital sovereignty risk. It's also the digital sovereignty opportunity. If countries repeal the laws that the US bullied them into accepting, laws that protect US tech giants from local competitors who block their plunder of data and money, they can turn America's tech trillions into their own tech billions. As Jeff Bezos likes to say, "your margin is my opportunity":
Meanwhile, repealing these US-protecting laws would enable countries to extract their data from US platforms so they can move it into domestic alternatives, and bypass the software locks that block them from updating phones, cars, tractors and ventilators to protect them from remote killswitches:
The digital sovereignty risk is having your country's government, businesses and industries terminated by Trump. The digital sovereignty opportunity is making billions of dollars by producing and exporting products that defend people from Big Tech plunder and Trumpian killswitches. That is the real world.
But many "digital sovereignty" advocates are living in an imaginary world, in which the digital sovereignty risk is that Trump will shut off their country's access to AI.
This is where the "if problem + blockchain" formulation comes in handy. If Trump shut off Canada's access to Chatgpt, Claude and Grok tomorrow, nothing would happen. No significant business, no federal or provincial ministry, no municipal government depends on these products for anything essential. And if Canada were to build their own local AI to sub in for Chatgpt, Claude and Grok, it would lose tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. Worst of all, a national AI strategy does nothing – not one solitary thing – to protect Canada from Trump shutting down our ministries, our companies, or our tractors.
In other words:
If: digital sovereignty + AI = digital sovereignty – AI
Then: AI = 0
If you think AI tools are nifty and want Canada to invest in AI, then first, please stop pretending that this has anything to do with "digital sovereignty." Not only is this a transparent bit of nonsense, it's a dangerous one, because digital sovereignty is a real problem, and AI does nothing to solve it.
If you want a good "national AI strategy," try this: save your money until the bubble bursts, and then buy your GPUs and hire your talent at 10 cents on the dollar and put them to work refining open source models:
Buying AI at the top of the market is nuts. That would be like shopping for Aeron chairs and foosball tables in March 2000. If you just sit tight for a couple months, you'll be able to find bankrupt dotcom entrepreneurs selling these at knock-down prices out front of their formerly overpriced office space in the Mission, in the time-honored tradition of former Wall Street millionaires selling apples out of their Rolls Royces:
https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/323794
(Literally: I bought a "dining room set" of six $1500 Steelcase Leap chairs in the summer of 2000 from a failed dotcom CEO on Van Ness for $25 a piece – still in the original plastic!)
And in the meantime, please let's stop pretending that digital sovereignty has anything to do with "national AI." If Trump takes away your AI, everything is fine. If Trump takes away your iPhones, Office 365 and tractors, your country grinds to a halt. This is just not that complicated:
If: digital sovereignty + AI = digital sovereignty – AI
Then: AI = 0
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Affrontare l’economia premiando gli evasori, affrontare la caccia premiando i bracconieri, affrontare la cultura premiando gli ignoranti. Parlare di merito dopo aver sistemato i parenti incompetenti, parlare di pacificazione odiando metà della nazione.
E per il resto dare sempre la colpa agli altri. Due puttanate sull’identità nazionale e tanta, tanta fuffa.
Fare i nazionalisti è una vera pacchia.
---------------------------------------------
NdDR: È una doppia pacchia per il nazionalista patriota che comanda, potendo contare su un branco di elettori/tifosi che li sosterranno sempre, anche di fronte all'evidenza.
jbbartram-illu
snowghoul
tangentwithtanner
andulkaphoto
kianamaiart
izzy806
