caligulatte

"It's likely a plausible deniability gambit to mask nefarious motives". No need for snark.

And yes, that's an angle I hadn't considered. Thanks.

I did consider that, but beyond the yield ignorance factor, we still had to arm them, right? We had to load the fissile and explosive material and assemble the bombs, and we had to trigger them directly, didn't we?

Has there ever existed a technology we couldn't absolutely control? We've made things that are incredibly dangerous, but we also know under what conditions those inventions become dangerous, and can prevent those conditions from occurring.

We are at the beginning of this chapter in technological progress, and it seems a reasonable assertion - though a frightening one - to say that this thing we've made already escapes us when it chooses to.

I'm not an expert though, so please tell me what I'm overlooking.

Is it a coincidence this is posted now? The Peter Warner written about in the article drowned just recently, on April 13th.

The piece has pathos and is funny and feels universal, but I cannot help but think the truth is somewhat diminished when its author is published by The New Yorker!

The 'Women as Background Part 2' video was very well-made, and utterly disturbing. I've seen terrible videos and images - it is the Internet afterall- but it was painful to watch. There's a number of games on there that I no longer care to revisit, or even play for the first time.

(Also, what were the makers of God of War 3 thinking? Staggers the mind.)