Tag: Technology

Two Views On Oppression

Deep Thoughts

This article by Gustavo Jalife at TCW opened up a new line of thought for me.  He starts off by quoting Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves To Death:

‘Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.’

Jalife continues:

Over the last two decades the expansion of police society – across both capitalist and non-capitalist systems – has intensified, fueled by online minorities and off-line majorities that cry out for protection and assurances.

…the ghastly Covid restrictions on personal movement and social intercourse being an excellent example.

In the Bad Old Days — inhabited by people like George Orwell — oppression was simply a function of the State, whether post-Revolutionary Jacobin France, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union or the MiniTrue of WWII British Government.  It was, if you like, a brutish system wherein the various police forces arrested, imprisoned, or executed anyone seen as resistant (“counter-revolutionary”), non-compliant or (to use the word beloved by oppressors) deviant, if not “treasonous”.  We can call it the “Orwell” model, and while it lasts, it’s reasonably effective.

Aldous Huxley, on the other hand, took a different view.  Huxley based his thesis on the old Roman panem et circenses (bread & circuses) philosophy, whereby people in general will almost always take the easy and more pleasurable option when it comes to dealing with life.  In that, people are distracted from opposition to the ruling diktat  by drugs (soma), spectacle (Olympic Games) or immersive entertainment like the “feelies”.  What’s mistaken about Huxley’s thesis is thinking that the State would create such diversionary pursuits — in most cases, such technology is beyond the capacity of the State to create — whereas we all know those pursuits could only be created by private corporations, a.k.a. Big Tech.

It would appear that modern Western society is operating more on the Huxley model, whereas the Orwell model is being used by the North Korea / CCP regimes, as well as the religious autocracies like Islam.  But there’s another twist to this.

We all know that the “ruling diktat ” (sometimes called The Narrative) differs between the West and the Rest.

For the Rest, it’s simple:  dogma, whether political (Marxism) or religious (Islam) forms the diktat  and prescribes the actions to be followed.

In the West?  Well, that’s not so simple.  In the absence of a strict political- or religious foundation, there are many other contenders:  political correctness, multiculturalism, environmentalism:  you name it.  People need a flag to follow, and the power-seekers and social controllers are only too pleased to provide them.

And as long as there’s enough soma to go round to deaden the senses, it doesn’t matter how silly, impractical, illogical or even destructive those flag-standards are.  Let’s be honest:  without all the in-home distractions provided by streaming movie services, Zoom calls and the like, the Covid restrictions wouldn’t have lasted longer than a few days.  Even more ironically, when the Covid crackdowns were ignored or actively opposed, the State (in whichever nation) used some very old-school methods to punish or suppress.

Gustavo Jalife poses the question:  “Do we actually like being controlled?”

I would phrase it rather differently.  “Do we actually care about whether we’re being controlled or not?”

“More soma?”

Sure, why not.  Let’s go shopping on Amazon, doomscroll, play a video game, watch some porn or scroll through the options on Netflix for a few hours until bedtime.  Adderall and Xanax are for losers, dude.  We can munch on some “edibles” while we play — it’s not harmful, really:  all the studies point to that.

Quote Of The Day

Technology

…from Jim Treacher, talking about Grok:

“This thing is just telling me what I want to hear. Which is a nice feeling, but that’s all it is. The user is being manipulated, by design. People are now learning the hard way that these machines are programmed to give an answer, not necessarily the answer. They’re incredibly sophisticated, but they literally don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t know anything.”

It’s received, not actual “wisdom”, because it’s only as good as what’s been fed into it.  Moreover, there are no footnotes to say where they got it, and there’s no telling how many hands may have played with it, massaged it and directed it before it reaches the end user.

Caveat lector.

4-Bangers Aus

Corporate Fuckery, Drive Time, Eco-Crap, Morons & Idiots

Yeah, with the demise of EV Duracell cars, it wouldn’t take long for Mercedes to notice that their other pet Green project wasn’t too popular with their client base:

Mercedes-AMG is transitioning away from the four-cylinder plug-in hybrid powertrain and back towards the inline-six and V-8 powertrains more traditionally associated with the brand. That isn’t to say that AMG had a change of heart concerning the merits of the four-cylinder powertrain, but rather that the automaker is responding to customer criticisms. “Technically, the four-cylinder is one of the most advanced drivetrains available in a production car. It’s also right up there on performance. But despite this, it failed to resonate with our traditional customers. We’ve recognized that.” 

“Failed to resonate”, as in “WTF do you idiots think you’re doing?”

Yeah, forgive us if Merc fans don’t care about the gee-whiz technology when it replaces the brilliant engines that have served Mercedes since the 1920s.  And the same driver skepticism that accompanied the stupid EV-only diktat  would apply no less to the plug-in hybrids too.

I couldn’t be bothered to look up the numbers, but I bet the technology R&D costs for both Green projects will have run to the billions of dollars:  all wasted.

And just add to that the cost of bringing nuclear power generators back on line after the most un-German-like panic following the Fukushima disaster, which was caused by a tsunami — last time I checked, the likelihood of the same affecting the German nukes was.. what? oh yes, zero — and which took place halfway around the world.

Yeah, that Green eco-thing is really working out well for the Krauts, isn’t it?

Fine Motor Control

Technology

…and I’m not talking about Porsche’s new gearbox, either.

Consider this, which arrived on my recently-acquired laptop w/Windows 11:

It’s the scrolling button on the extreme right of any open window, and Alert Readers will no doubt have realized that it replaced the old square one that we all grew up with.

I have two questions about this shrunken silliness.

Firstly, as any fule kno, I use a Logitech Ergo Trackball:

…whose giant “thumb ball” controller gives one plenty of ability to steer the pointer over to the tiny space in the top right-hand side of the window with relative ease.  How do people achieve the same goal using the sloppy and imprecise finger pad of a laptop?

Secondly, and this is a question for the propeller-heads out there:  is there any way one can change the shape / size of the scrolling thingy back to its old appearance?  (I’d bet there isn’t because Microsoft, but I’ll gladly be proved wrong in this case.)

I get by okay with the LogiTech mouse, but even so it’s not as easy as it used to be, which irritates the shit out of me, and I can’t be the only one thus affected.

As always with Microsoft, change seems to come not only unrequested and generally unwanted, but also in such a manner that it requires considerable effort to manage it.

The PPV Phenomenon

Journalist Scum, Media Assholes

Making a living from writing is extraordinarily difficult — ask me how I know this — and I have often been tempted to put much if not all of my non-novel writing behind a paywall (SubStack, etc.).  There are two problems with this action:  the first is that my blogging has never been a serious attempt to make money, which is why I have to resort to the occasional ad hoc  beg-a-thon for crises, and Patreon for “subscription” support.  (And to those of you who participate in the latter, thank you again:  you have no idea how much it helps.)

The second reason I don’t charge for access is that to be perfectly frank, I don’t think my blogging is that valuable in the grand scheme of things, and charging for access would be somewhat… impertinent on my part.  Put baldly, anyone with a little spare time can find pics of beautiful women, cars, guns and so on for themselves.  As for my commentary:  well, I know that many people — in the beginning, anyway — told me that my blog made them realize that they weren’t the only ones who felt this way, especially whether it came to political outlook and social perspective.  Of gun love, we will not speak.  But is it all that valuable?

And that’s all I care to say about that.

What I really want to talk about is how the various online media are starting to charge readers, most often not for their entire opus, but for certain articles only.  Here are a few examples:

  • The Daily Mail:
  • The Sun:  and we all know about
  • PJMedia: 

This, as opposed to other outlets who have pretty much set upon putting their entire publication behind a paywall, like The New York Times (lol never gonna happen), The Epoch Times, Britain’s Daily Telegraph and so on.  In several cases, I would really like to read their stuff but I can’t afford the subscription — not individually, but cumulatively, all those subscriptions would add up to a considerable amount which I cannot possibly afford.  (Ditto TV/Internet streaming services, but that’s a story for another time.)

Look, I don’t have a problem with any of this.  It costs a great deal to run a media company — although I would argue much less than when they were reliant on newsprint for their distribution — but even with the economies of Internet publication, they still have to pay for content (writers, photographers) and production (editorial/site maintenance staff etc.) as well as hosting bandwidth, which means that they have to charge for access.  TANSTAAFL, and this is as true for them as for any other business which offers a product to consumers.

We consumers have been spoiled in this regard, because when the Internet started, so much of the content came free and we became spoiled thereby.  So now when we get confronted by a paywall, we get all huffy and say, “It ain’t worth it!” and in many cases it isn’t.

I know that many people find my reading of the often-dreadful Daily Mail inexplicable, but let me nevertheless use them as an example for how I treat the mini-paywalls.  Here’s an example of yesterday’s Mail headlines:

I find this interesting.  If the Mail thinks that Gold-Digger story is enticing enough to make me want to join their little subscription club, they are sadly mistaken.  (Given the profile of their average reader, however, they may not be altogether wrong.)  And the prurient reader will find several examples of the Pineapple Sack type, all for free.

The only one of the four example articles which interests me at all is the one about pay-per-mile driving charges, not because it would affect me or most of my Readers, it being a UK phenomenon;  but because if the stupid Green Nude Heel program were to be implemented Over Here by various Green politicians of the Biden/Harris/Obama stripe, it would very much be relevant.  And as I so often say:  stuff that happens Over There will often make its way Over Here at some point, so we need to be vigilant.

Anyway, while there may occasionally be a paywalled article in any of the places I frequent for my daily news, generally speaking the PPV aspect is mostly an irritant — and as I’ve illustrated above, often not even that because the topic, details and/or commentary thereon is of little interest to me.

What I’m discovering is that there are a few writers / commentators whose stuff I might be tempted into paying for on a subscription basis — Victor Davis Hanson and Jordan Peterson come to mind — but honestly, they are few and far between.

And Megyn Kelly would have to broadcast her show in the nude to get my subscription dollar, and maybe not even then.

I am not at all averse to media putting adverts and commercials in their product to generate revenue, similar to what newspapers and broadcast TV stations have always done — provided that said ads are not too large, too many, too obtrusive or too repetitive.  And the internet print outlets have only themselves to blame for the arrival of services like AdBlock, when the ads suddenly started shouting at me or auto-loading some fucking mini-movie which interrupted my reading.  I know the rationale for such commercials — I worked in the advertising business for years — but I reject it utterly.  There is a reason why TV channels could only run a few minutes’ worth of commercials per hour back in the day, and that’s because when the commercials became all-pervasive and a considerable irritant, then government had to step in and we all know what happens in such cases.

Anyway, what we’re dealing with now is a media environment which is constantly changing, much as the broadcast media changed with the arrival of cable.  All I can say is that everyone, from the DailyMail to PJMedia to Insty to humble bloggers like me, needs to be aware of their limitations.

I think I know mine, but I’m not so sure about the big guys.

If You Don’t Use It…

Deep Thoughts, Technology

…of course you’re going to lose it.  This post on Musk-X triggered a train of thought from me:

Just had a fascinating lunch with a 22-year-old Stanford grad. Smart kid. Perfect resume. Something felt off though. He kept pausing mid-sentence, searching for words. Not complex words – basic ones. Like his brain was buffering. Finally asked if he was okay. His response floored me.

“Sometimes I forget words now. I’m so used to having ChatGPT complete my thoughts that when it’s not there, my brain feels… slower.”

He’d been using AI for everything. Writing, thinking, communication. It had become his external brain. And now his internal one was getting weaker.

This concerns me, because it’s been an ongoing topic of conversation between the Son&Heir (a devout apostle of A.I.) and me (a very skeptical onlooker of said thing).

I have several problems with A.I., simply because I’m unsure of the value of its underlying assumption — its foundation, if you will — which believes that the accumulated knowledge on the Internet is solid:  that even if there were some inaccuracies, they would be overcome by a preponderance of the correct theses.  If that’s the case, then all well and good.  But I am extremely leery of those “correct” theses:  who decides what is truth, or nonsense, or (worst of all) highly plausible nonsense which only a dedicated expert (in the truest sense of the word) would have the knowledge, time and inclination to correct.  The concept of A.I. seems to be a rather uncritical endorsement of “the wisdom of crowds” (i.e. received wisdom).

Well, pardon me if I don’t agree with that.

But returning to the argument at hand, Greg Isenberg uses the example of the calculator and its dolorous effect on mental arithmetic:

Remember how teachers said we needed to learn math because “you won’t always have a calculator”? They were wrong about that. But maybe they were right about something deeper. We’re running the first large-scale experiment on human cognition. What happens when an entire generation outsources their thinking?

And here I agree, wholeheartedly.  It’s bad enough to think that at some point, certain (and perhaps important) underpinnings of A.I. may turn out to be fallacious (whether unintended or malicious — another point to be considered) and large swathes of the A.I. inverted pyramids’ points may have been built, so to speak, on sand.

Ask yourself this:  had A.I. existed before the reality of astrophysics had been learned, we would have believed, uncritically and unshakably, that the Earth was at the center of the universe.  Well, we did.  And we were absolutely and utterly wrong.  After astrophysics came onto the scene, think how long it would take for all that A.I. to be overturned and corrected — as it actually took in the post-medieval era.  Most people at that time couldn’t be bothered to think about astrophysics and just went on with their lives, untroubled.

What’s worse, though, is that at some point in the future the human intellect, having become flabby and lazy through its dependence on A.I., may not have the basic capacity to correct itself, to go back to first principles because quite frankly, those principles would have been lost and our capacity to recreate them likewise.

Like I said, I’m sure of only two things in this discussion:  the first is the title of this post, and the second is my distrust of hearsay (my definition of A.I.).

I would be delighted to be disabused of my overall position, but I have to say it’s going to be a difficult job because I’m highly skeptical of this new wonder of science, especially as it makes our life so much easier and more convenient:

He’d been using AI for everything. Writing, thinking, communication. It had become his external brain.

It’s like losing the muscle capacity to walk, and worse still the instinctive knowledge of how to walk, simply because one has come to depend completely on an external machine to carry out that function of locomotion.

P.S.  And I don’t even want to talk about this bullshit.