aspenmayer

I think the sexuality of Kusanagi works on multiple levels. She is a full cyborg, and she could present however she wishes. She explicitly uses her appearance toward social engineering ends in the Stand Alone Complex series. I’m not very familiar with the manga, from what I do remember, Kusanagi is bisexual and is likely “fully functional” sexually, but her body as depicted isn’t really her own, as she relies upon regular maintenance provided Section 9.

I view the portrayal of Kusanagi as being steeped in aspects of the male gaze in a metatextual way. Japanese society has a high emphasis on traditional beauty standards, and the artists depicting her as a character use her beauty as a foil against the audience, by contrasting her beauty with her strength, and by subverting the desires of the audience by drawing our attention to her humanity by alienation through destroying her body at multiple points in the series. Her desire to protect her comrades at the cost of her body shows us how she is willing to sacrifice her femininity, being forced to regress to a childlike body.

The series have a lot of fan service, but I believe that it’s intentional so that the audience is forced to confront their own biases and stereotypes about women and about cyborgs/robots. The cyborg nature of her body as it is destroyed reads to me as a visual metaphor for the Madonna/whore double standard women are subject to society.

I guess I don’t disagree with your view, so much as I think that how she is depicted works on multiple levels in-universe and with respect to the viewer, and said depictions serve multiple functions in the text.

> What's your point with this line of argumentation? Are you disagreeing with my definition of "corporate war", or are you disagreeing that the Ukrainian war is not a corporate one by my definition?

It’s a discussion board. I’m discussing the topic and trying to get to know what you think and believe, and thanks to your prompting, I got to know what I think and believe a little better myself. I don’t have any desire to disagree with you, as I don’t think that either one of us are making statements that have an objective quality to them, as the context is too subjective and subject to interpretation.

I don’t know enough about your definition of “corporate war” in the context of this thread, since you said we’re using different definitions, so maybe you could share a little bit about what that term means to you? What would it take to make the Ukrainian war a corporate war, to you? What are qualities of corporate war, and how would you or I know it when we see it? Can you think of some examples that meet your definition of corporate war, either in fiction or in real life?

It’s more corporate than any past war, and for the reasons stated, it is hard to imagine how it could be more corporate if the belligerents tried. The direct involvement of startups in weapons dev combined with the points system creating a market for material driven by individuals and small groups rather than a traditional procurement process is hyper capitalist. The absence of direct conflict between corporations à la Shadowrun doesn’t meaningfully change the calculus for my determination that the Ukraine was is a corporate war.

Regarding your edit:

> I won't let you move the goalposts.

I don’t know what this statement is referring to, but I haven’t changed any of my positions regarding what I perceive as cyberpunk or whether or not I view the Ukraine war as corporate (and cyberpunk).

Perhaps you view the discussion as one where points are scored, but I don’t. I view the discussion as a collaborative enterprise where we both express ourselves and develop our own ideas in the context of a wider discussion.

If there’s something specific I said you would like me to address, please let me know, as I don’t know what you mean.

Considering how the former leader of Wagner countermanded orders from above and was recalled, as well as Wagner’s usage of press-ganged convicts straight out of gulags, the unit was fairly irregular compared to the Russian military proper. Wagner’s other activities such as natural resource diversion from their legitimate owner/lessor seems to firmly put the organization proper in cyberpunk territory.

Cyberpunk as a concept is fairly subjective and subject to interpretation. Perhaps your conception of cyberpunk is more exclusive and prescriptive than others’? I wouldn’t interpret a difference of opinion about the tropes or ethos of cyberpunk in a normative way.

Just because folks see cyberpunk aspects in society or literature that you do not is not a contradiction of your own perceptions. It might be a case of prescriptivism vs descriptivism.

Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art, or both (or neither)? You seem to be saying that cyberpunk is only a literary genre, which is somewhat limiting the discussion when so many cyberpunk works have been adapted to other media, which then inspires other works which were never in written form to begin with. To limit your own discussion to written works is your prerogative, but it seems a needlessly narrow scope for the discussion of others who don’t share your view.

To say that we’re wasting our own time is to discount the fact that others are participating in the discussion in good faith for their own reasons. HN writ large isn’t a means to an end, HN and the individuals of HN are ends unto themselves.

> I'm saying the thing you just declared "never under debate". The only one having a debate here is you.

The thing that isn’t under debate (that the flips are independent) is the thing which we both agree upon, and I believed no declaration was previously necessary because it is beside the point and obvious, and it also has no bearing on anything else you claimed. It doesn’t support your argument that the coin, the flipping mechanism, and output of the process as a whole can be assumed to be fair after 500 same flips.

The context of the original discussion is the question of bias in hiring, and whether AI introduces unknown or unpredictable bias. If we used a coin flip instead of AI in hiring decisions, and that coin had the property of resulting in 500 heads in a row, it would be fair to re-examine our test setup as well as the coin in the context of using it to make hiring decisions, because that result is not consistent with our prior belief that the coin is fair.

Due to disparate impact, the result of using such a coin in hiring decisions, even if said coin itself in isolation were measured to be fair, would still result in an unfair result as part of a larger decision-making process, which was the point I was getting at.

The purpose of a system is what it does. If a coin flipping system, or an AI, used for hiring or any other decision-making results in such an astronomically improbable result as 500 heads in a row would imply, it is not fit for purpose.

> I intentionally chose a really high number to make my point, it's not meant to be realistic it's meant to make a point.

Choosing a high number undercuts your argument or is tangential to the flip events being probabilistically independent, so that’s why I commented in the first place, in order to draw out your point, because what was meant by what you stated originally was unclear to me.

> I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, honestly I haven't even really bothered reading your comments because you're just off on your own little tirade and I have no interest in it.

Framing our discussion in such terms is strange to me. I thought your coin flip example was interesting as a metaphor in the context of a potentially unfair AI used for hiring decisions, and I genuinely thought you were earnestly discussing the topic, and I still do, though it’s hard to read your admission of not reading my comments as anything but an explicit admission of not arguing in good faith.

> Bro just assume there's been a billion flips right before my example indicating it's close to perfectly fair, the only point of my comment was to illustrate that previous flips don't influence future flips.

I agree: the events are independent in probability, which was never under debate, and is a separate matter to whether or not the coin is fair.

As for your edit:

> Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you feel better.

At this point, wouldn’t you say that’s a bridge too far? It’s uncharitable to ask of your interlocutor as that changes the entire context and implications of what you originally said upthread.

Asking me to just pretend that you made a different argument than you originally made, when the mathematical implications of your original argument are the context under question, is literally moving the goalposts.

If you had said it was 5 flips in a row instead of 500 flips, then I wouldn’t have said what I said, because there’s a difference so wide between the two statements in their degree of probability as to be different arguments entirely. You didn’t say that though, and so I don’t know what you’re trying to say now.

> I already said the coin is known to be fair.

The coin can be assumed to be fair before the flips, but after the flips we have no mathematical reason to believe that the coin is fair, as our results heavily suggest that it quite simply isn’t fair.

However, for the purposes of discussion, assuming an ideal coin, the probability of 500 same flips in a row is so statistically unlikely that fairness of the flipping process and/or flipper must then be called into question.

Even if the coin, flipping process, and flipper are all ideal (which wasn’t stated, but we will also assume for the sake of argument that we have ideal immovable goalposts), the likelihood of the 500-in-row event is so improbable as to be unreasonable to use as an example or even a metaphor, because it doesn’t have much predictive power in a conversation, as ideal coins don’t exist any more than ideal coin flippers.

Even a coin designed to be fair would be fairly deemed defective after so many same-side flips, and any reasonable gambler would demand that the coin be replaced with another; at that point an argument could reasonably be made to also change the coin flipper and/or the venue.

The scan at the time of purchase is just for tracking what the store owes to the state for the lottery system. The last ticket in each roll of tickets is scanned by the dedicated lottery terminal prior to being placed for sale in an admin mode activation function. The terminals themselves I am familiar with are Linux-based and seem to be thin clients which do everything remotely in real-time, because nothing works if the terminal is offline, from activation to redemption of tickets to win/loss checking. The terminal has its own dedicated wired Ethernet connection to a stand-alone Cradlepoint or other competitor brand cellular modem/router, which along with the terminal is all outsourced to a third party management company. (SGI is the only one I’m familiar with; there are likely others.) All of this is public info which could be gleaned from observing the terminals and their installation/operation, but I probably can’t say much more about them, but they are pretty neat and seem to work fairly reliably.

Now that you mention the auditing etc, a lottery system would probably be an easy way to get people to literally buy into an online ID scheme, not because it would necessarily be privacy-preserving, which would depend on implementation details, but because a not insignificant number of folks seem to like the chance to win money. Considering many states already have lottery systems, the ID code tickets could probably be provided alongside lottery tickets for free or nearly free, and employees already have the training to check/scan IDs. If there was an incentive such as the possibility to get discounts, win prizes, or tie-in purchases of some kind, I think it could work.

Many stores that sell lottery tickets also sell gift cards, so that technology could also be used instead or in addition to ID tokens at the point of sale. There are a lot of sponsorship opportunities available for cross-promotion.

“Please drink a verification can” was probably more prescient than was at first apparent. Mike Judge saw this whole thing coming from a mile away.

HN is part of YC, which are VC. What are VCs if not market activists?

I’ve worked in the industry, so just adding some extra info, as I agree with you that the ticket system is not really less tracked than other systems, just differently tracked:

Lottery tickets don’t “fall off of trucks” or get “lost in the mail” because they aren’t valid for redemption until they’re activated at the POS terminal of a licensed store, and the lottery company knows which store receives each ticket roll, because they are shipped to known locations with tracking numbers and delivery verification and/or delivered in person by lottery employees. Even the rolls of blank lottery ticket receipt paper have different serial numbers every few inches, and it’s forbidden by policy to swap receipt paper between stores. All of these things are audited both regularly and randomly by state lottery officials.