Wait, which part is China and which is Europe? Solar didn't win in China because of social pressure, but also not because of market forces. It did win because the CCP made energy independence a political goal.
I mean, the author obviously was filthy rich if he gave the agent a wallet with $50k to fuck around with. The agent didn't lose him $450k, that was just after some Twitter hype made him a fortune that the agent gave away.
> Some botocalypse is going to happen at some point.
Yeah the bots can duke it out. As long as my time is saved.
For me the main concern is, before I have a stash of millions of dollars saved up, my medical expenses need to be paid for by the system, because I can't afford surprise bills. Hopefully the bots can fight more on my side in the near future.
Hopefully in the far future when the botocalypse happens I'll have saved up enough that insurance evading payment of $5500 won't be an issue for me, and/or I'll be of retirement age, don't need job opportunities anymore, and can go live in a country with better healthcare.
Call me selfish, but I don't control the insurance/medical system, I don't have space to think about more than protecting myself from it.
IoT, internet privacy, spyware, etc. have been repeatedly in the news ad nauseam since about 2000. If they don't know by now where have they been for the past quarter century?
The first and most obvious question an owner should ask "why does a vacuum cleaner need to talk with the internet?" It's hard to have sympathy for people who go out of their way to act dumb.
This is a failure of regulation, not personal responsibility. Consumers should not have to threat-model their vacuum cleaner. That should be on the manufacturer, and when they fail like this they should be punished severely.
You are correct that a sane government would protect their customers from being secretly surveilled by companies who will do whatever they want with their customer's most private data including selling it to others. Americans should also know that we don't have a government that protects consumers from products that harm them even when that harm is well known. It's unfortunate, but until that changes people do have to threat-model their internet connected devices, just like they have to threat-model their food, their children's toys, their cosmetics, their health supplements, their cookware, their clothing, and just about everything else we buy.
Despite my comments I cannot agree more. When it comes to IT, computers and the internet governments have failed abysmally to protect consumers from exploitation, both online and otherwise.
I've been in tech since the IBM-360 and the 4004 uP days and I am still staggered by what's happened—how governments have deserted their citizens and sided with Big Tech. To me, what has happened is the biggest failure of democracy in my lifetime.
It would take a book for me to expand that further. Suffice to say when governments abrogate their primary responsibility of protecting their citizens then it's everyone for themselves—there is no other practical option.
By now, the evidence is clear that people have to protect themselves as they're not going to be helped by governments.
The bitterness in my original post comes from the fact that it is now 49 years since the launch of the first truly consumer IT products such as Tandy's TRS-80 and Apple's Apple-II in 1977—that's one year shy of half century and there's still stuff-all regulation to protect consumers.
We perhaps can forgive the fact that regulation is a 'cuss' word—a profanity—in the US but when it comes to computer tech the 'regulations' deficit is worldwide. Up until 2000—nearly a quarter century after computers had become popular—govermnents could be forgiven for not regulating tech but by then it was already abundantly clear regulations were needed.
For instance, the three-year long US antitrust proceedings† against Microsoft which commenced in 1998 resulted in little more than a slap over the wrists with a feather for Microsoft. The world watched this case with interest and essentially nothing happened to protect consumers. Despite at the time it being patently obvious consumer protection was needed over a quarter century later they're still not forthcoming (except at the very margins).
That said, the rich and powerful had no trouble getting laws to protect themselves—witness the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That tells you who is in charge and actually running the country.
The Citizenry isn't doing itself any favors by sitting on its hands doing SFA. We need citizens in the streets demanding that governments enact laws to protect consumers' privacy, and from exploitation, etc.—laws that not only effectively penalize corporations and their shareholders but also target those within the corporations who set corporate policy (we will never get to the root of these problems whilst those responsible are able to hide behind corporate walls).
Those who are not old enough to remember the anti-Vietnam war rallies of the late 1960s ought to take note. When millions take to the streets legislators move very quickly to change things (check YouTube for videos from those times/1968-72).
The Microsoft antitrust case, DMCA, and other conversations in government and the media at the time (in particular the notion that video game violence was somehow poisoning the minds of the youths) made a strong impression on me as an 11-13yo interested in computers. And that impression was that people in government and the press have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to technology. And broadly speaking, with some exceptions, it's still the case now. I don't know what it will take for people to start demanding they educate themselves--whether it'll be a gradual tipping point or some abrupt catalyst--but something must give way because the way this is headed won't work.
In high school I was really interested in the antiwar and civil rights movements of the 1960s. Bush invaded Iraq during the spring semester of my freshman year. There were marches and protests, but it didn't really change anything. I remember being really interested in trying to understand why. In any case, none of that got anywhere near the intensity of '68 which is a shame. If it had it might have made a difference.
They should know though. It's a disgrace that school doesn't teach people basic things like the implications of giving a commercial device in your home internet access.
But let's suppose you are designing RoboVac vers. 1.0 OS, 1.0 OS does not use microphone, but one of our smart fellows wrote a document suggesting that we might want to have RoboVac be voice controlled! Maybe we can roll that out by 1.4, with some simple commands!! Let's put a Microphone in so we can add that feature later.
Later on you get fired, and smart fellow who wrote document gets fired, and OS 1.4 rolls out with spy tech to mark common product names and send them back to Amazon with your location data.
RoboVac 2.2 is out now, still no voice control, and you wonder why whenever you go to buy all your favorite products online there is 10% inflation on prices although news suggests inflation should actually be decreasing for the next half year.
There are a lot of stories about Jobs acting in completely unhinged and highly toxic ways. I agree that the particular situation you’re describing is a good though.
Pretty sure Steve Jobs was known for yelling at, belittling and bullying people, throwing tantrums and making threats/ultimatums.
Dude had anger/I'm the hero issues...his biography notably leaves this stuff out and Woz' only covers a few incidents (because he still considers friend) though I'm sure there were more. Like when Woz invented universal remote and sent a prototype to Jobs and Jobs smashed it against the wall in a fit of anger.
I will never claim Jobs was a good neighbor or a Mr. Rogers type. Or even a fun person to work for.
But I don’t look up to him for that. Same way I don’t look up to Tiger Woods for who he is as a husband, or Picasso for… well, also poor behavior with women.
I want to play for Michael Jordan to be with the best and to be challenged to be my best.
Sometimes the thing that makes people excellent in one facet of their life makes them impossible pricks in others.
Extreme excellence in one facet of life is what I admire people like that for.
I think you're setting up a false choice, but maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I absolutely, 100% will not be nor work with assholes to accomplish something. The tech world is FULL of genuine nice people who has acomplished remarkable things, and while I do respect people like jobs for what he accomplished, I do not let them skate for the mean or hurtful things they have done.
reply