psiconaut

we're full circle from the 40 meter band!

jokes aside, and perhaps romantizicing noisy channels, but the fact that communication was not guaranteed maybe made it more appealing (thinking 56k modems or long-wave radio).

This is interesting. I agree, to some extent, but there's nuance in what do you include in the objectification of the concept. The usual argument, as I perceive it, is that we can be objective if we just quantify protocol interference, or DPI, or bogus DNS resolution.

But still, not all blocks are born equal. That's a bit of beating around the bush to avoid going one level up in the abstraction of information controls. There's a thin line between content moderation at the platform level and mandatory hijacking of the DNS system via legal means.

If you squint, they are just a different configuration in the phase space of distributed technical systems, corporations operating in nation-states, and national laws.

Just a hypothesis: the fact that there's no need for an American firewall might be a consequence of the information controls being enacted at the level of platform moderation, or DNS resolution.

(I agree with you about authoritarianism in a political sense, but I'm trying to look at the informational "water" in which we're swimming in).

Without wanting to enter into ideological debate too much, it seems a contradiction to invoke such rules when precisely the country we're talking about has boosted their GDP by selling products that capitalized on the effective minimization of borders in the information age.

What I mean is: maybe it's not about protecting "their" humans (from what, exactly?), but protecting "their" corporations. Which is a very different goal.

You can always migrate.

The second iteration will be interactive books - like that forsaken episode of Black Mirror was exploring. Taking us one step closer to "Diamond Age". Human connection doesn't necessarily has to be in the plot - the human behind can be at any extra layer.

To be honest, I see a continuum between using spellchecker, grammarly, or anything that comes above. You seed the intention, and you get an improved result - by means of huge datasets.

In a way, the hollywood machinery has been doing A/B testing on the likelihood to get a human brain hooked on the way to tell a story - structurally, there are not so many different stories. This only removes the need to have monkeys at the typing machine.

And yes, I'm being slightly sarcastic. But only a tiny bit. That way you can be sure it's a human writing this.

I agree. It is ironic that, at the very least, a LLM will maybe _improve_ the quality of a particular segment of publications.

> Better math and even computation doesn't necessarily help in some cases

It is my impression that, at least on the topic of climate modelling, climate change denialism (which, frankly, is less and less common among educated population) was sustained by the rhetoric about models not being certain about linking anthropic change and its effects.

So at least here I see that better understanding (accuracy/reliability) about the climate system (which the azimuth group claims to have contributed to, if I remember correctly) might have a direct effect on, at least, social perception of the uncertainty surrounding science...