meekmind

GP invoked the modern saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." The original saying was "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." In other words, if the choice was between average knowledge of many things OR having an incredible knowledge of one thing sans much else, the former was likely preferable.

I tend to think that everything I know represents a thousand things I don't. In other words, there is only so much time in the day or so much space in my brain. If the choice isn't simply binary, as is implied by that original saying, I think it would be preferable to be a "jack of all trades, master of ONE."

Western societies, and probably others, seemed to have this ingrained for quite some time. So much so that people would adopt a name that reflected their mastery (or profession): "Smith", "Cooper", "Fletcher", etc. Obviously, most people through-out history lived in incredible scarcity and consequently had to be somewhat skilled in a variety of things simply to survive. Specialization was the exception for quite some time. It wasn't until technological advancement, widespread usage of labor-saving devices, and later the industrial revolution, that specialization by large numbers of people was feasible (due to the abundance of resources from the efficient production of goods).

Likely insufficient but here is a shot at a materialist answer.

Consciousness is defined as an entity that has an ethical framework that is subordinated to it's own physical existence, maintaining that existence, and interfacing with other conscious entities as if they also have an ethical framework with similar parameters who are fundamentally no more or less important/capable than itself.

Contrast with non-conscious super-intelligence that lacks physical body (likely distributed). Without a physical/atomic body and sense data it lacks the capacity to empathize/sympathize as conscious entities (that exist within an ethical framework that is subordinated to those limitations/senses) must. It lacks the perspective of a singular, subjective being and must extrapolate our moral/ethical considerations, rather than have them ingrained as key to it's own survival.

Now that I think about it, it's probably not much different than the relationship between a human and God, except that in this case it's: a machine consciousness and a machine god.

To me, the main problem is that humans (at large) have yet to establish/apply a consistent philosophy with which to understand our own moral, ethical, and physical limitations. For the lack of that, I question whether we're capable of programming a machine consciousness (much less a machine god) with a sufficient amount of ethical/moral understanding - since we lack it ourselves (in the aggregate). We can hardly agree on basic premises, or whether humanity itself is even worth having. How can we expect a machine that we make to do what we can't do ourselves? You might say "that's the whole point of making the machine, to do something we can't" but I would argue we have to understand the problem domain first (given we are to program the machine) before we can expect our creations to apply it properly or expand on it in any meaningful way.

That doesn't follow. The air is cleaner outside than inside. Usually there are more pollutants inside a household (cleaners/plastics/etc) than outside.

I think that intent matters. Misinformation is dissemination of information that may be misleading but wasn't necessarily intended to be misleading. Perhaps the author themselves lacked the pertinent data (or really believed what they were saying). That is distinct from disinformation, which would be intentionally deceptive. Regarding material omissions, it would only be misinformation if the person disseminating the information did so unknowingly. And hypothetically it would only take one person to inform the author of the material omission and naturally further publications with the same material omission then count as disinformation.

I think the hair-splitting is due to the fact that majority of memes associated with one side or the other are not outright false, but are conditioning people to a particular pre-determined conclusion. In other words, if you're interested in battling mis/dis-information, you have to recognize the over-arching agenda and attack that, not rebut/censor every meme and thought internet randos and robots see fit to post.

Regardless of how you feel about the objective truth, it exists. Naturally, it follows that people who engage with what exists ought to have better outcomes than those who engage in fantasy. Admittedly, when the majority of people engage in fantasy and even the mere mention of truth is seen as an existential threat, it takes on the opposite dimension. In particular, as mentioned above, the truth-tellers are reviled, feared, mocked, and made to suffer. It should be obvious that a value system that prioritizes fantasy over truth is unsustainable. As more people shift from truth to fantasy, whatever functional or pragmatic underpinnings civilization has erode until nothing fundamentally true remains. Civilization is subordinate to the truth and without it there is no civilization.

“This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” ― T.S. Eliot

I think perhaps they are insinuating that this is secure assuming Brave, 8x8, and/or your meeting participants are not compromised outside the scope of the application. Though I'd agree that phrase does a poor job of communicating that.

It's different because I identify and agree with the virtue signaling of holier-than-thou social climbers who claim to do journalism. Their views represent mine, and since I am mostly without purpose or depth, I don't make petty distinctions about the definition of journalism: I only want them to validate my position that everyone I do not like is <insert adjective here> and incapable of critical thinking. The irony of this position is totally lost on me.

> question is simply hand-waved away

I think you misunderstood me. Giving a handful of companies control over the credibility economy is not a solution and is in some ways worse than having no credibility economy at all. These "abuse detection" systems break down when they are perpetrating the abuse. In other words, as central authorities starts choosing who has access to what according to increasingly arbitrary, political, or cultural lines. The problem wasn't really solved because the free and open internet cannot continue to exist under those conditions.

Is it far fetched to assume that a bottom-up system can't also develop a decentralized credibility economy to complement the decentralized network? I think not, and one thing would likely follow the other in due course.

I'm a little confused by this sentiment. The internet is a distributed system that, over time, became centralized into fewer and fewer hands. The internet wouldn't really function any different on a mesh network, except the nodes are much more distributed. In other words, they are both largely the same.

You might ask, how was this problem solved for the normal internet?

The answer is: It was *not* fixed, we just centralized the problem into fewer and fewer hands. Then that created a new problem centralized internet being easily monitored, controlled, censored, etc.

No one needs to explain how to deal with bad actors with a mesh net because there is no basis of comparison for an internet where that problem was ever solved to begin with. The problem they are trying to solve is centralization. If you argue that the biggest risk to the internet is the central controllers _being_ the bad actors, then it's a win. If you argue that there are other bad actors and having a mesh net won't eliminate them, then you just have a really convenient excuse to do nothing while the same bad actors frolic through-out the existing internet fairly unimpeded anyway.

Passing around PHP files via email is functionally equivalent to passing out mix-tapes on street corners. Not a good tactic when a record label right around the corner will give you world-wide distribution for free. The only string attached is you'll have to rely on others of which you know very little, if anything.

I do not recommend being consistent with that position in other areas of your life otherwise you might quickly find yourself in a jungle, starving and naked. Given that relying on others for shelter, food, or clothing is clearly out of the question!

I think tech companies as a general rule have proven unreliable at understanding, much less implementing, "security" in software or hardware. It's fair to say the landscape is changing but human frailty has not. If I have been reminded of any idiom most often while scrolling through security bulletins, it's "when there is a will, there is a way." We may not have the same class of problem we had before, but I'll still likely be scrolling through security bulletins a decade from now.

Also consider: the fundamental parts of a computer are still analog. Hardware bypasses, 3d-printed micro-circuitry, modified components or distributables, who knows? In my estimation, the cat and mouse game will continue for quite some time.

Honestly I can't imagine any group of companies in the tech space being more resourceful than 10,000 neglected teenagers with nothing but a computer and a bad attitude. Especially after the former tells the latter that they can only do "approved" things with their computer.