Yes, that’s the point. Their glass ball and Tarot layout say you’re guilty, so now you have to prove your innocence. And to prove your innocence you have to collect all the data on yourself.

BTW, this is far more subtle than it seems, collecting and giving to someone all the info on yourself all the time is nonsense, but collecting it and having just in case for such situations might seem normal for many honest people. Except in fact these are the same, you don’t have tools to collect it all without giving it to someone predictable. So this whole big tech and surveillance con abuses good faith participation in the society. And encourages everyone becoming a cheater.

The police and other such people know that these are bullshit machines, but use them to cheat with impunity. Sometimes to charge a clearly innocent person, because they have an excuse - the computer did it. And the rest of us are incentivized to cheat to get better ratings for loans and worse ratings for scammers, and better danger rating so that police wouldn’t just use as a scapegoat to close a case like this, instead choosing someone less dangerous.

Wait till witchcraft becomes a crime again. Nobody would believe in it, of course, but it’d be an easy win for everyone except the convict.

I don’t care if Soviet caricatures (“Neznaika on the Moon” specifically) were wrong back then, they are correct now. I mean, yeah, they are correct everywhere now, but still.

Oh, they should, but similarly to “AI” as a tool, with the whole responsibility for the tool being on the person using it.

Similar to screwdrivers, pencils and guns.

That’s intentional. Someone just makes shit up, using a magic machine, so that their responsibility were in doubt for other similar irresponsible people with ability to fuck up others’ lives.

There should be a responsible policeman for every such decision, going to jail for at least as much time as she would were she convicted, when the decision is wrong.

This was never about security. That’s just the excuse.

Every technical decision is an excuse to fulfill a social desire.

There was a time when I was 14 and happy and saw such things in everything around me, and all the fiction I was reading often touched that trait of the surrounding reality. Those books are not considered something for intellectuals or artists, and I have nothing to discuss with such people - that is, strictly speaking not true, but I never know why some things I know and mention are interesting or not, and why some my opinions meet hearty agreement and some are politely ignored. And I never find continuations for those agreements and interests. But I feel as if that planted something deep in my head that has endured all the degradation.

So. You should also look at things where it seems that technical decisions were made for technical reasons.

The desktop paradigms, the platform paradigms, the OS paradigms, the ergonomics, - of course. But also aesthetics and visibility, how separate or mixed with the offscreen reality everything is. Also why the Internet is built as it is, why multi-user operating systems and Java really exist, what really is Unix and what really is Windows. About software design and why what embedded developers make when allowed is considered bad design, while what web developers make is considered rather good design, yet the former is usually more stable, secure and maintainable than the latter.

Not just software, but why is our consumer hardware is what it is, what do we need such complex systems for.

Not just computers, but construction design - the world now is very different from the world where that brutalist idea of making apartment buildings having a terrace as a “street” to which you have another exit from your apartment was bad due to all the crime. And also there are plenty of covered passages and malls with the same idea, except the framework building is always privately owned, having a different juridical status than a street or a bridge. While Soviet-style microdistricts, and things similar to them, are similarly bad due to crime, yet honestly the “right and good” modern European urbanism moves in that direction.

All the choices around us are made by humans, driven by social stimuli - that’s the meaning of the word “social”, all the stimuli are there, and economics and technology act more like framework of the possible for the social.

Just treat whatever “advice” these things “give” as given by the person who made the decision to host them.

Should be simple.

Instead they are already being treated as some magic, not a tool inseparable from the owner, or as a living thing. It’s idiotic.

There’s an element of vibe contrarianism in any pronounced political ideology. Meaning that libertarians often hate what they perceive as anti-libertarian, communists often hate what they perceive as anti-communist, and so on.

In that regard yes, there are plenty of libertarians who just want to kill anything with leftist vibes with fire.

But the world of ideas is far richer than the existing conventions and established ideologies, and every person has their own trajectory in that.

Selling TVs and monitors is an established business with common interest, while optimizing people’s setups isn’t.

It’s a bit like opposite to building a house, a cubic meter or two of cut wood doesn’t cost very much, even combined with other necessary materials, but to get usable end result people still hire someone other than workers to do the physical labor parts.

There are those “computer help” people running around helping grannies clean Windows from viruses (I mean those who are not scammers), they probably need to incorporate. Except then such corporate entities will likely be sued without end by companies willing to sell new shit. Balance of power.

I was being sarcastic. An if you are layering it, you better use a different secret.

What are you talking about?

I’m saying that the parts of infrastructure needed to accept a message to the service from the client application, encrypted or not, associated to a user or not, are under same requirements for Signal and Telegram.

I don’t know if you understand that every big service is basically its own 90s’ Internet self-contained, and what accepts your messages is pretty similar to an SMTP server in their architecture.

For the purpose of “shoot a message, go offline and be certain it’s sent” it’s the same service.

It’s weird for Signal to not be able to do what Telegram does. Yes, for this particular purpose they are not different.

BDSM is a thing

Yes, they are, it’s very convenient to have the same thing boil the water and make tea for you, or do the laundry and dry it, or do the floor and the windows when you can be busy with something else, same with cooking. Especially remote-controlled when you are an hour away. And it’s not a slight convenience, it’s life-changing like remote work.

… Which is why we all should immediately switch to post-quantum encryption possibly much weaker against conventional cryptanalysis. Thank you, NIST, NSA and other such respectable official bodies. Of course I believe you.

In general the whole “everyone should use standard state-of-the-art cryptography” turned out to be a con. And somehow the more “standard state-of-the-art” things were broken, the more was the confidence that they are what should be used. In the 90s “standard state-of-the-art” things were being broken casually, and non-standardized ciphers were made and used far more often than now, and somehow that was fine.

I dunno, we’re all using AES with even hardware implementations of it, potentially backdoored, and with approved recommended S-boxes, without explanation how were these chosen (“by the criteria of peace on earth and goodwill toward men” is not an explanation, a mathematical paper consisting of actions you repeat and unambiguously get the same set would be that).

I think if you are afraid of your cryptography rotting, embracing some pluralism outside of cryptography is what you should do. Like maybe partitioning (by bits, not splitting into meaningful portions god forbid) the compressed data and encrypting partitions with different algorithms (one AES, one Kuznetchik, one something elliptic, one something Chinese).

It’s funny how these “smart” appliances are all addressing things radically important for households, but in a poisoned way from the beginning. As if those making them were just trying to get there first and win the bank.

There’s a problem of scale in industrial innovations, where bigger scale makes cost of production of something and cost for the consumer and network effect power better, meaning that there’s no market feedback to help those who came first get old and die to make space for those who come next.

I think this tendency is actually the solution - there is a feedback, it’s that lacking feedbacks on one level prohibits those undying monsters from being competitive on the next one. The niche of non-poisoned smart appliances won’t be filled by anything big, for example.

That’s also another funny moment - instead of dedicated appliances it makes it useful to have one universal one (basically a butler robot) that can be programmed. It’s an incentive in the direction of universal machines programmed by customers.

BTW, imagine a frame with various manipulators and sensors attached to an RPi via GPIO, where every manipulator/sensor can be whatever thing at all, just needs to have a manipulator/sensor description template. The OS of the RPi itself runs tasks of the “move those items of fragility categories such and such to such and such locations, remove dust and dirt from that surface, wash that window”, for which the existing set of manipulators/sensors and task sequence are optimized without user’s involvement (other than attaching them and providing the right description templates, though I suppose manipulator controllers can provide them too, and confirming the resulting jobs). That’s also where those LLMs etc are good enough, to interpret instructions and display the sequence of actions they are going to perform to get user’s confirmation. This way you won’t have to fear that you tell it something harmless and it starts a fire in the room.

Such a system needs a set of standard protocols for the sensors\manipulators, their description templates, and the representation of commands deciphered from human speech to a set of tasks, and the spaces and traits of objects. The programs visualizing the resulting offered set of tasks, deciphering the order, optimizing one set of tasks into a better one, and so on, should be pluggable. Suppose everything’s already made, just nobody really needs a thing that they can’t just buy and turn on.

OK, I like imagining, should work better instead and start my toy the weekends after the next ones (I suspect I won’t start it even by then, at least not in the initial ideologically good form ; nothing about robotics or home appliances). Spent these weekends on making a POV-Ray scene instead.

Why did I even write this.

You haven’t read the relevant things, like Stalin’s short history of RCP(b) where he explains what he thought (by the way, that’s the real starting point in literature of Maoist ideology, Castro regime and so on ; Marx and Engels those people didn’t like, and even Lenin was too wordy), and such.

It’s the other way around, Soviet ideology, Stalin included, till at least 70s was more thoroughly Marxist than anything else really implemented.

It’s just that most of the western leftist groups don’t like how it went, so they pretend USSR was something alien. With the notable exception of communists in France.

Also I don’t think fair pluralism is part of Marxism in any way. It’s similar to modern leftist perception of the USSR.

It seemed pretty communist and socialist for people living it. And it was derived from something that is pretty commonly considered communist and socialist.

Anyway, it doesn’t work in your favor to highlight that the biggest examples of, good or bad, practical application of your ideas are actually not that. Means that there are close to no examples.

The difference is it wouldn’t be at the expense of others

You live in USSR year 1934, you write an anonymous complaint that your neighbor is a Japanese spy recruited by the British while digging potatoes, your neighbor gets executed and their family sent to Siberia, you get his things (as a gratitude for cooperation with authorities or just cause nobody looks).

Politicians are systemically miserable scheming cowards, and what’s worse - they are usually far stupider than they appear. They don’t care about devastating effects.

Sometimes documentation is inconsistent.