I have proposed elsewhere that for companies like Flock doing surveillance of the public, it should be legally required for every company executive and board member to have their cameras, ALPR systems, audio surveillance, drone systems, etc - installed outside their homes and along their routes to work and along their routes to their children's schools and their spouses workplaces - and all of that data be publicly accessible. And I'd suggest the same goes for senior management at decision makers at every town and police department and private company that signs a contract with them.
"For their own safety", as they'd have us believe.
If I was being stalked I'd rather have public surveillance data that I could compile (or pay somebody else to compile) versus relying on law enforcement, who has no duty to protect me.
Making surveillance public levels the playing field for everybody.
...people can just follow you in public. there's nothing illegal about that.
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared.
the issue is when public feeds get recorded and are allowed to be viewed at a later date. the data retention is the issue, not the privacy.
If nothing is recorded that helps but it's still a much bigger problem than someone following you because you can see someone that's following you and they also can't be in 50 places at once.
Ridiculous. Next you're going to treat going to point A to B in a car the same way as walking. Why do you need a license to drive? You don't need a license to walk!
In fact, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces before there were cameras everywhere.
> there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting, nor should there be. anyone arguing there should be is giving up basic rights because they're scared
I personally value my fundamental right to privacy.
Yes! Curiosity is the way to open these doors. The first step is to keep a log of your thoughts. Anything that pops up, write it in your ideas book. Having ideas isn't an all or nothing. It's a practice. Get into the practice of writing down your small ideas and you will develop the ideas muscle.
I had a family member who had sudden onset of massive seizures. He could not remember any of his passwords or hints at all. It was a real challenge getting into any of his accounts to figure out what needed doing.
A lot of LLM/AI writing these days can feel lost in the weeds – the specifics of very detailed techniques are interesting undoubtedly, but writing that steps back and looks at the big picture, informed by those details, could be very useful for people who want to think about where this all may be going.
Thanks, and i gonne think about going for a writeup. As i mentioned in another comment, reading my previous comment back from yesterday i dont even know why i mentioned it - probably because i think so much about the topic but than i think "well your just a guy in a shed" type of thing and decide that prolly noone would care about what i would write. At all - if its just something i can look back onto im some years, prolly worth it.
This is a good check on how good your help request is. Hopefully the problem statement includes a brief summary of the approaches already tried and why those were dismissed.
Or maybe people could simply answer the question as asked instead of answering other questions that the person didn't ask or demanding to know why the person is asking. The expectation that a person needs to tell you their life story to get an answer to a question is absolutely bonkers.
> person needs to tell you their life story to get an answer to a question is absolutely bonkers.
The problem is that the answer, for a given question, in any reasonably complex solution space, is entirely dependent on the very local problem space that you're forcing them to guess where it is in a much larger problem space area. If you're asking someone that's familiar with the broader view of each, they're probably asking because their guess of where you are is close to some "trivial" type solution. Or, they have a bunch of answers that depends on what you're doing, and you're forcing them to guess.
The goal is very clear in your head. The way to achieve that might be a web of possibilities. You asking suggests they can see the web and you can't.
I think Alzheimer's is a particularly difficult case. Before diagnosis, many of us imagine that we wouldn't want to exist in a highly deteriorated state with no ability to care for ourselves. But as you start to decline, you still feel like yourself, just a very forgetful version of yourself. On which day do you decide that what remains of your mind isn't enough to make your available future days better than no future days?
The instinct for self preservation is strong. Knowing what will come requires foresight and clarity. You may lose the capacity for informed decision making before the point where it's clear that there's not much to live for.
Many of us lack the insight that Kahneman perhaps had that in order to take control of the end you may need to leave some good days on the table.
Mid X here. The name doesn't bother me. If it works that'd be fine. OTOH this doesn't solve a problem I have. I rigorously unsubscribe all promotional emails, and that seems to work fine.
To unpack that a little, he looks to the writings of the early developers of object oriented programming and identifies the ways this assumption became established. People like Bjarne Stroustrup (developer of C++) took on and promulgated the view that the inheritance hierarchy of classes in an object oriented system can be or should be a literal instantiation of the types of objects from the domain model (e.g. different types of shapes in a drawing program).
This is a mistake is because it puts the broad-scale modularization boundaries of a system in the wrong places and makes the system brittle and inflexible. A better approach is one where large scale system boundaries fall along computational capability lines, as exemplified by modern Entity Component Systems. Class hierarchies that rigidly encode domain categorizations don't make for flexible systems.
Some of the earliest writers on object encapsulation, e.g. Tony Hoare, Doug Ross, understood this, but later language creators and promoters missed some of the subtleties of their writings and left us with a poor version of object-oriented programming as the accepted default.
Only as a brief aside (don't have the timestamp right now) to talking about Smalltalk, which he mostly discusses to argue that Smalltalk was not different from C++ in seeking (most of the time) to model programs in terms of static hierarchies (according to the primary source documentation from the time of Smalltalk's design):
> And another thing is if you look at the other branch,
> the branch that I'm not really covering very much
> in this talk, because again,
> we don't program in small talk these days, right?
> The closest thing you would get
> is maybe something like Objective-C.
> If there's some people out there using Objective-C,
> you know, like Apple was using that for a little while,
> so Objective-C kind of came
> from a small talk background as well.
Objective-C is basically Smalltalk retrofitted onto C, even more than C++ was Simula retrofitted onto C (before C++ gained template metaprogramming and more modern paradigms), so it makes sense that Muratori doesn't go much into it, given that he doesn't discuss Smalltalk much.
reply