I have found that North American divisions of Japenese companies will be setup the same way. The managers sit at the front facing into the room. All of their subordinates will be facing towards them.
Toyota sticks out in my mind, only because of the scale of the room. There were hundreds of desks in one large open space, and if you looked up from your desk you could see every last one of them. But I’ve seen it in other smaller Japenese companies as well.
Having worked in the custom manufacturing machinery business a long time I would guess that they ironically cheaped out but purchasing all their equipment overseas.
There are extremely knowledgeable machine builders in the USA and Canada (think rust belt) that have been building equipment like this since the 1950s (think automotive sway bars, coil springs, etc), but over the last decade you see a lot companies trying to purchase their equipment from former eastern block countries or China to save money.
Nothing against Belarus, but I guarantee there are USA machine builders that could have got this up and running (for more money of course).
Search for any popular title on Amazon and down the list you will always find "imposter books", with similar titles, author names and cover designs. Sometimes they blatantly use the authors copyrights, but usually they are just different enough to avoid being taken down. With Amazon not publishing the book until a copy is ordered, there is really no cost of the sellers part ... and if you can get 100 customers to buy the wrong book by mistake ...
My point is that is kind of work is already all over Amazon. The only thing that is changing is there is new production method. But when you can pay someone is a low cost county $10 to make the work, the cost is negligible.
I don't think authors have anything to worry about yet.
Great…
Except Steel, Concrete, Plastics, and Ammonia production all require fossil fuels and we do not have any alternative.
We also do not have a viable alternative for air travel, or large scale shipping.
While I think it is a worthwhile goal to pursue clean energy technologies, we are a very long way (with no known alternative) from getting rid of fossil fuels.
We aren't getting rid of fossil fuels though, so this concern is a distraction from the real work that needs to be done.
Yes of course we will still need fossil fuels even after we finish transitioning to renewables, for some of the cases you mention, and for edge cases.
It's a valid point for you to raise since they made the mistake of making their article about renewable energy, not about the larger encompassing solution of which renewables are only a part, namely sustainable energy. But raising this point doesn't begin to dismiss the fact that a huge component of transitioning to sustainable will be transitioning much of our energy sourcing to renewables.
Of course the official response is what you would expect:
“CBP officials declined, however, to answer questions about how many Americans’ phone records are in the database, how many searches have been run or how long the practice has gone on, saying it has made no additional statistics available “due to law enforcement sensitivities and national security implications.””
To fight these people you have to be some combination of powerful, morally spotless and willing to make great personal sacrifices - like Chelsea Manning.
A government that doesn't keep good enough control if it's people will soon be overthrown.
When you give the people more freedom to protest, organise, mass communicate easily etc, you also have to add equal amounts of monitoring and restrictions to make sure that next movement to overthrow the government can't pick up speed without you catching it.
Yeah, but that defeats the purpose of creating the state in the first place.
The entire point is being able to tell people what to do for your own profit.
It's a lot easier if you pretend you are doing it for the subject's benefit as it reduces the resistance to rule immensely. But you don't want to let that go too far or they start getting a big head and start thinking that paying you billions of dollars is optional.
We wouldn’t want those pesky commies, ahh sorry, that was the 50s and 60s, those darn uppity negroes, ahh sorry again, my bad, that was civil rights era, those blasted … err, commies again? They made a comeback in the 80s it seems. Ahh there it is. We don’t want those crazy islamist terrorists harming our people. We need to protect your freedom … by curtailing it, of course.
Sorry, sorry, I’ve just been informed, the boogieman is no longer islamic terrorists. Now, it’s called radical white supremacist qanon Jan 6 anti vax conspiracy incel nationalist. My bad. I apologise.
But the curtailing of freedom will continue and the surveillance will increase. In order to safeguard our freedom and privacy, of course.
If you cannot see the difference between civil rights movements attempting to change governing to be more even-handed vs expansionist authoritarian governments or movements attempting to destroy democratic governments altogether, you need serious help (and should at least stop broadcasting your ignorance).
It's less about the difference between these groups and more about the response to these groups. It is your politics showing in your response rather than the person you are replying to... do you think they don't believe that Islamic terrorists exist (which they mentioned)? At no point in the history of the government national security apparatus has the target and its veracity made any difference in the trend line of the government doing more surveillance and curtailing more freedoms. Don't believe me? Do some research on COINTELPRO.
Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information on anyone.
There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing".
Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often.
The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations.
This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them.
Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds).
I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
> If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
Bruv …
Honestly I can’t tell if you’re for real or no. You already did that! California. People robbing stores in broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I need to say anything about that third world enclave? Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over!
What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!
It has already been tried, both the ages before govt, every time govt fell down, and in the case of San Francisco, just got way too lax.
The idea that we can somehow get away without governance (or intelligence ops, or policing) is born completely of very high privilege — it completely assumes that all the things that the govt does just happen automatically.
It is just like the idiot new manager who arrives and sees that the halls and offices are clean so fires the janitorial staff as excess cost or because they are inconvenient.
Of course there are overreaches and abuses of intelligence, and the very concept of policing and everything about it's training, practice, accountability, and results needs to be burnt to the ground and overhauled.
But that does NOT mean that we can get away without it. Because, as you noted, even a little time without it becomes a disaster.
The key is not to abandon intelligence. The key is to strengthen democracy, make sure that the institutions of democracy, lawmaking, executive, judicial, press, academia, industry, ngos, and individual people all have their own separate power base and independence.
In autocracies, all of these are bent to the service of the leader/oligarch.
In democracies, there are all kinds of visible flaws, but they tend to be self-correcting, because there is oversight and balance of power. That alone does not prevent overreach or abuses, but it does lead to them being eventually corrected.
As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."
Believing government acts on your behalf reeks of 'very high privilege.' If you think shop-keeps won't protect their stores once the chains of SF/Cali government come off, I have a bridge to sell you.
Edit: thank you for spelling correction. Wreaks changed to reeks
Of course the shop-keeps will attmpt to protect their stores. That is completely beside the point.
The point is that without a democratic government that is at least attempting to self-govern, the alternative is either a new autocracy comes in (see Russia, CCP, Venezuela, Myanmar, etc.), or it starts with anarchy, and quickly falls to the first crimelord/warlord.
Every one of those options is far worse than a flawed democracy.
Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great)
And no, believing government acts on your behalf does not "wreaks of 'very high privilege.'". Aside from the fact that the word you want is "reeks" (as in smells bad, not inflicting punishment of vengeance), thinking that an attempt at democratic govt is less bad than being ruled by a crimelord, warlord, or fascist autocrat is not high privilege, it is simply a fact. Being able to live in such a democratic govt is, sadly, a bit of a privilege, as many are not so fortunate.
What is your test to determine whether a nation has reached the level of "flawed democracy?"
Is the US one?
I mean even anarchism could be considered 'flawed democracy.' The power is theoretically at the individual level, with the population of each government split down to a democracy of size '1' and the individual voting how to dictate his/her own life, although of course even that is flawed.
Then again, if you frame it as "flawed democracy" vs "everything worse than that" then almost by definition flawed democracy is going to win...
First of course is that the people elect their leaders and not the leaders selecting their "voters".
How independent are the various pillars of a functioning democracy? The Legislative, Judiciary, Executive, Press, Academia, Industry, Religions, NGOs, etc.? Are these institutions free to pursue their own course, or have they all been co-opted to serve the ends of an autocrat or oligarchy?
This all exists on a spectrum that can be measured. Hungary is, although nominally a democracy, tipping strongly to autocracy and is in danger of being expelled from the EU. OTOH, Iceland kicked out the bankers & politicians that caused the crisis a decade ago... Both nominally democracies, one strong, one weak. The US nearly fell to Hungary's fate, and still may, but things are trending better and a majority recognize that parts of one party are no longer a valid political party but are attempting to threaten democracy itself.
So, no it is not a self-defining tautology, but a characteristic that can be measured.
The US has not yet fallen, but is definitely under attack from within on two major fronts, one is masquerading as a political party, and the second was previously the greatest threat, which was corporate regulatory & legislative capture. Progress is being made against both.
I'd suggest reading a bit more about it with the Renew Democracy Initiative [0].
There is a split here between law and practicality for many people I guess. As a matter of law for US Citizens it doesn't matter whether there is an "exemption" or not: a US Citizen may not be denied entry at a land port of entry, period. Their property can potentially be taken but only with legal process and it can't be kept indefinitely without violation of law. If they're wanted for a crime they can of course be arrested from which the normal legal process within the US plays out, but all the normal requirements are there too. They can be asked additional questions and put through more inspection, but with citizenship established that's it. So if someone simply refuses to answer any questions or unlock their phone and there is no further reasonable cause there is nothing the CBP can legally do to keep them out.
But as a practical matter most people don't want to spend an extra hour or hours or even extra minutes going through a more detailed search for contraband or whatever else. Most don't want to, aren't ready for and/or can't afford having electronic devices held for days/weeks before getting them back. A lot of people simply don't know their rights. So without an explicit exemption a lot of Americans undoubtedly would submit "voluntarily".
So the ACLU isn't wrong (and their actual page is appropriately more nuanced [0]): Americans aren't "subject" in the legal sense to this, or to any other questions beyond what's needed to establish citizenship. Having done so they may politely insist on entry and refuse anything else, demand to see a supervisor if an agent persists in unconstitutional questioning, submit any property required while in response demanding receipts and pursuing complaints or legal action afterwards (or both), and at the end of the day the CBP must put up or shut up: let them through or arrest them, and for the latter will have to meet the legal standard and it'll all play out domestically. But at the same time the financial and other burdens this imposes are very real and serious.
Best practice would be to go as "clean" through the border as possible, preferably with a dedicated phone that only has minimum necessary travel and navigation data on it and nothing else, no logging into any personal accounts of any kind, no bookmarks or the like, and cheap enough to not care about losing it. Then one can just let border agents look through whatever as much as they'd like, or let them take it and just write it off. Not everyone can or knows to even consider that possibility though. And of course the vast majority never have a problem, so it's insurance against a "black swan event" for the average person (those who suspect they'll be subject to heightened scrutiny legally or not may already do this). It's valuable to note both the exact state of the law and when the practical effect is different.
----
0: ACLU: "If you are a U.S. citizen, you need only answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship, although refusing to answer routine questions about the nature and purpose of your travel could result in delay and/or further inspection." Or later "U.S. citizens have the right to enter the United States, so if you are a U.S. citizen and the officers’ questions become intrusive, you can decline to answer those questions, but you should be aware that doing so may result in delay and/or further inspection".
So the ACLU does acknowledge a practical cost to insisting on your rights, they aren't merely blindly saying "not subject".
And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights (something Americans often seem to forget - ‘I can’t believe they used a dronestrike on a US citizen’, etc)
But take the example of a person who has been issued a visa, looking to enter the US with the intent to immigrate legally, doing everything by the book. On their phone they likely have all the privileged communications with their immigration attorney - all the conversations about which visa strategy to pursue, etc. now they’re at the border, they can be pressured by an agent into handing that data over ‘voluntarily’. What protections does that person have as to how that information is used in respect of their future immigration application? Are they entitled to due process protections? Have they waived attorney client privilege? Once they later become a citizen, is that data still on file and searchable by DHS?
Or a green-card holding US resident, returning home from a business trip, with corporate data on their phone - can they refuse to hand it over, and risk being refused entry and heap or fixing their US residency? If they can’t, does that mean some employers might refuse to hire green card holders to mitigate such risks?
This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens.
Sorry, 5 comments in a few hours triggered HN's rate limiting, "sorry you are posting too fast", so I couldn't reply earlier. Not sure if you'll still see this but since I wrote it anyway:
>And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights
Certainly, but this sub-thread is specifically about Americans, so that's what I was sticking to. That said yes, non-citizens do not have any right of entry. However, that is the norm worldwide not the exception. There is no universal "human right" to enter any country except as a refugee or someone seeking asylum per ratified treaties or domestic law. The basic idea of a "sovereign nation" is somewhat bound up with the capability of border control and distinguishing the nation from the world. There are lots and lots of very reasonable disagreements on what said controls should be, what exceptions, and so on. But "completely open borders" is a fairly niche position. This at least isn't merely a US thing, I would exercise some level of caution for international travel anywhere on the planet when it comes to personal property and devices, or even just my own liberty. Different countries can have radically different legal regimes. If any of us are traveling somewhere we don't have any inherent legal right to be, then naturally there is some leverage there in terms of what conditions might be set for our entry.
>This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens.
I do agree (and I think it's generally agreed upon in civil liberties circles) that the global increase in data collection, storage, and processing capabilities is not merely "worrisome" but prone to abuse and in fact actively abused. It's a bad thing. I'd personally go farther in that I lean towards the idea that a lot of modern electronic devices should be considered almost as "exo cortexes", extensions of our minds that should have the same kind of protection as the contents of our minds (and that protection should be total). This is another area where tech has raced ahead of societal reckoning.
As far as individual reactions though I'd say the same thing as for business secrets or whatever else: the best thing to do is to just not have it on you, have no ability to get it either, have other humans who know your travel plans and can check on you, know what rights you do have, where to make complaints, and most of all have fallbacks if things don't work out. That alone is very empowering. If some data is vitally important and private to the level you describe, perhaps stick it onto an encrypted image on a USB stick and mail it separately or something along those lines. Or via private online transfer of which there are many, but something completely out of band from your own physical person.
100% agreed. Stipulated, countries can do anything they like to people who ask to enter. Basic respect for the property, civil liberties, dignity and universal human rights of people petitioning to enter the country, though, is not tantamount to 'completely open borders'. I think we can all agree that even if there are not legal constraints on the indignities and rights violations which a border entry officer can subject an applicant to, there should be some ethical ones.
The danger at the border is that a person might be admitted who is not who they say they are, that they might bring with them some goods that shouldn't be brought in to the country, or that they might be planning to do something that exceeds the terms of their entry visa, or is otherwise undesirable. That last case is the tricky one, because it amounts to trying to detect a thoughtcrime.
Of course if you're trying to prevent thoughtcrimes, it would be useful to see into all of a person's relationships, private communications, and online activities. But we have to draw a line somewhere for what information it is acceptable for border agents to acquire to render their judgements. And even if we allow that accessing electronic devices at the border helps with that determination of 'intent' at the moment of entry, keeping all that data (not just the subset that was evaluated as relevant to the judgement) for years beyond that determination seems completely unnecessary.
And it's not necessary, because we all know that if you allow a border agent to search someone's phone, they can find a reason to prevent entry. But that's unnecessary, because a border agent can already deny entry for essentially any reason they like. There's no need to have access to a phone to generate pretext. But the difference between 'Access denied' with a note on the file to the effect that they thought the answers you gave to their questions were inadequate, versus 'access denied' with a complete copy of your digital identity attached to the file and a flag pointing at a set of facebook messages you exchanged a few years ago.... is pretty vast.
