There wasn't even a single, popular vacuum robot with less then 7% one star ratings (complaints with valid utter failure).
How naïve must one be to expect decent robots for farming. And those very soon?
Do you believe in Santa? Or Tesla FSD?
A little difficult to parse your comment, but I think you're calling me naïve for asking the tech community on a message board for the incubator that has backed and does back the some of the most successful tech startups ever to think a little more deeply about how to solve these kinds of problems with technology. Wherein I posit that one of the reasons this tech community seemingly lacks interest - and surely the difficulty of the problem is also one of those reasons - is the availability of cheap labor, resulting in a weak argument for funding this kind of venture.
I'm not against automation. I'm against the interruption of the food supply chain.
I don't won't the US to see a lot of pitchfork in use -- and that wouldn't be for farming.
I agree that (slave like) misuse of cheap labor is a problem.
We have a similar issue here. (Bad cleaning, by badly payed, overworked cleaners).
I'm a bit angry because I looked into fixing it by (partially) automating it, but the supply chains are rather bad. The currently available mainstream robots (Dreame, Roborock) are not up to the task (no proper support in Europe).
The only interesting option seems to be cleanfix from Switzerland.
To make things short: that anger shouldn't have targeted you, because it boils down to my own current incompetence to fix a real problem.
Sorry!
I'm for the lottery model:
* people get choosen at random for a term
* decent, but not opulent compensation
* obviously their choice to take the responsibility or deny it
No bros, no parties. You have to bond with others and cope with the differences. (Or you don't get anything done.)
Id hold against this. Our world is getting more and more complex, we need expertise and far-sight, which is hard to come by with a lottery system.
But i also understand the positives about a "citizen council" to break up syndicates.
Maybe a mix of professional politicians, dedicating their life and getting compensated generously to bolster their indipendence and random rotating people with decent compensation and strong veto rights.
Oh, and strong punishment, maybe revokation of certain rights, for misconducting officials.
I'll counter that. The argument that complexity somehow itself
justifies anything is a retreat to the folly of philosopher kings that
Plato wrote an entire work against (you all have heard of "The
Republic" - which careful, thorough readers of political science
understand is a rejection of such simplicity. Indeed all philosopher
kings, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc... fail horribly and cause misery
and death)
Furthermore, incumbent conditions foster complexity. Complexity is a
symptom of political failure as much as a cause.
> professional politicians
We are surely seeing that these two words do not belong together in
21st century society. Most of our "politicians" are the antithesis of
"professional", being vain, shallow, corrupt and immoral.
It is surely clear that any randomly selected mature person could
fare better, with minimal training/induction.
With communication technology and "AI" as their new weapons, the
present cadre of egotist politicians are an ever more dangerous breed.
As the OP rightly says, that's because of a corrupt and captured
mainstream and social media landscape that they learn to play rather
than engage in listening, thinking and policy making.
We will have no fair politics or justice until the "lies machine" is
utterly destroyed along with those that ride on it. It's not that we
haven't had lies-machines all along, but part of ur political/civic
duty is to tear it down and counter it - something we have failed to
do in the Internet age.
Real experts, who are quiet civil servants and scientists are being
attacked and displaced precisely because they are ones able to manage
complexity and to communicate rationally. Almost all of these people,
who form the real government, are driven by duty, or pursuit of
truth, not base ambition.
You are confusing some things, but your central point is still correct imo.
Philosopher kings != democratic representants.
Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure.
Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.
That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)?
Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.
> Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Professional
politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field
of expertise well
Indeed. What we see though is a decline in the quality of
representatives who are forced to skew toward immodest grandiosity and
media theatrics instead of statecraft. They forced into a race to the
bottom to present a veneer of "expertise" in everything, and
pontificate confidently.
> Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and
not caused by political failure.
I'll hold my position here; Culture and politics are not separate. If
politics is the project to attain a "good life" (Aristotle), then
managing complexity is part of that. There is no "perfect" society
that is such a burden on its people it's unfit to live in
(Tocqueville).
> Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.
Your pragmatic slant maybe, but it is not a definition of public
office I recognise or respect. Integrity and professionalism are
bedfellows in my take.
> That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get
corrupted or misinformed?
This is a very good question. The question, indeed.
I don't think I've even thought about it, but simply started from the
clear perspective (one that I've arrived at reluctantly through
observing the world) that a random person could do no worse than
those who seek power today.
Maybe that's what the "anti-elite" populists wanted to achieve - a
devaluation of politics itself. Ready to offer up their "technical
solutions".
> civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right
now,
How do you think real professionals and experts, who are being
excluded from the decision making arena, can be effective in exile?
Working with these guys [0] recently I see the emerging idea of a
functional government in exile ready to "restore from backups" after
DOGE crash the system.
Sortition as a scheme fails to reckon with the nature of power and how individuals wield it. There is a reason you only ever see these kinds of citizen’s councils created when legislatures don’t want to deal with particular issues, and most of the time their final reports and recommendations are ignored.
For sortition to work the bodies need to be vested with real power. Are we ready to hand over levers of a complex society to a representative sample of our peers? Or to demand that they be handed over?
Not everyone has to be selected by lottery, we can have a percentage of the total representatives. But I think it is important to have it, so that we break the barrier that political careerism poses. The set of people who are willing to run for office is a very limited set, and in the process of finding them we are filtering out a lot of signal. You keep ignoring the signal for too long, and it becomes a tsunami.
With some caveats, particularly ensuring a baseline level of competence, in a way that is somehow not overly discriminatory, I agree. The challenge then is to train the representatives sufficiently, but I think it could be done. And naturally I think there are significant benefits to this scheme, particularly having fresh faces (and ideas!) and not making the reelection-popularity/wealth-contest constantly reoccur.
Yeah... this Ed Martin? -- rhetorical question!
"
Martin was a CNN contributor in 2017.[38] From 2016 to 2024, Martin appeared more than 150 times on RT America and Sputnik, both of which are Russian state-controlled news agencies.[39] None of these appearances was disclosed to the Senate on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire asking for a list of all media interviews.[39] Nine days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders and critized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.[40]
"
Rule by or as if by a despot; absolute power or authority. The actions of a despot; tyranny. A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute power. A state so ruled. The power, spirit, or principles of a despot; absolute control over others; tyrannical sway; tyranny.
Similar: tyranny A government which is directed by a despot; a despotic monarchy; absolutism; autocracy.
Similar: absolutism autocracy Government by a singular authority, either a single person or tight-knit group, which rules with absolute power. Dominance through threat of punishment and violence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Good. Will stop collègues from buying that crap.
Managing an aging fleet of those is a PITA.
Why bother with a crippled Linux, if a full-blown, real OS is available on better hardware anyway.
Full blown OS is a valid option, but installing and maintaining a full blown OS with the equivalent of their ecosystem apps is more complex and time consuming. Some will consider that a PITA and that audience likely isn't bothered by a crippled Linux.
It somehow became the bete noir of anti-vaxxers, tracing back to faked research in 1998. [0] In order for them to maximize the villainy of vaccines, they have to maximize the disablement of whatever group they claim are victims.
Why they act that way, why they need something to blame something on vaccines, and why autism happens to be the target... well, that's a much longer story that probably involves psychology papers.
Baffles me that people are still not straight out facing how despotism works.
The US isn't a democracy anymore.
There won't be any fair elections. The next candidate will be decided, like the outcome of research will be announced.
