16J is pretty high, around air rifle levels of power so you could probably kill someone depending on how those discs damage people and how close you were.
I suppose you’re safe if your attackers are watermelons. But a watermelon is not a good substitute to understand what it’d do to a person. It only give an indication of damage.
If I am in the rare scenario where I have to shoot I will use the lethal option. Even if the chance is only 1% where the non-lethal does not kill. Because if I have to shoot than my life is in imminent danger.
No. If my life is on the line, I'm not going to use anything that gives my attacker a fair chance. The e-shotgun looks stupid fun, though, and I'll probably get one for shits and giggles.
Emotions are a useful learning signal, that abstracts a range of sense experiences into a coherent or gestalt impression, so this is not surprising. But it's nice to see people care about insects, or at least provide a basis for doing so.
This synthesis, the emotional synthesis of experience, then aids decisions. And is a key component probably of the biological OODA learning loop.
Emotions may be necessary for AGI. Or at least help us get there.
First thing I thought: They look like modern student dorm rooms / living arrangements, but without windows, like that new Munger hall that is being built.
On the other hand, extremely limited artificial light, so this would have been penumbral the entire day, with the possible exception of the moments where the sun really faced the window.
According to the plan at the bottom, the window would have been east-north-east and thus really only useful early morning, if at all.
Let's not be ridiculous. This room has no artificial light and almost no natural light, minimal ventilation, no water, no electricity, which is the norm nowadays even for cheap apartments.
Two criminal cases. One was dismissed after 5 years in a windowless room. On the way out of the jail I was arrested with a fake warrant made by the prosecutor and spent another 3 years in a room with a window. I am out now.
Wow - apparently asking questions is a bad thing on HN?
The fact that a "slave's" room from 1,942 years ag, resembles the room of a presumably well-educated, skilled and/or technically-focused contributor (as I perceive nearly all contributors to HN), seems rather odd.
So, my question still stands... Is the comment meant to be sarcastic?
Can the the comment be interpreted as:
1. "They didn't have it as bad as we might think"?
2. "My life is little different from a slave of ~2000 years ago"?
3. "I feel a connection with the people/person who lived in that room"?
4. Something else?
So if it is true that this is economics not security, what was offered or threatened to coordinate action across all the countries sending Huawei away?
Mass population is moved by fear, but is that how concordance is manufactured across the executives of a set of countries: a few terrifying top-secret presentations, and IC has successfully reputation-assassinated a foreign company? Why would these countries agree if there was no breach and a cheaper price? What offer or threat besides a more expensive but more secure infra? I suppose if you view telcoinfra as defense assets then it's a no-brainer, but was this the calculus? Blackmail/Mafioso-tactics would be a good one, maybe: You have to buy from us, or we will reveal/do such-and-such horrible thing.
But if it's true this is economic, not security, and also that Huawei has superior value for money, then is it not just these countries accelerating their already decaying infrastructure, for the sake of pride?
"The phones are down." "Yeah, whaddayagonnado? At least we're not paying the Chinese to make them work."
Replace phones with other critical things China makes better for a better price, and the future of these countries may look like the past of the former-Soviet ones: a whole bunch of weird anachronistic tech resulting from an (in this case self-imposed) embargo. But at least it will be 100% built by subjects of approved countries. I suppose that is one strategy to fight back against the dominance of Chinese industry: just outlaw it.
The hilarious thing is, probably all these "approved suppliers" will have to purchase significant inventory from what is essentially Huawei's supply chain anyway. Seems much more like the tail wagging the dog, with corporate dishonesty dictating so-called natsec policy. Could it really be so twisted?
> coordinate action across all the countries sending Huawei away?
It should be noted that up until early 2020, US campaign against Huawei had spanned 10+ years long, and only secured a few committments to ban Huawei, not even all of FVEYS. It was a spectacular failure. It wasn't until successive US sanctions against Huawei access to semiconductors that countries relented, not due to security concerns but Huawei's ability to supply hardware long term due to sanctions.
> Mass population is moved by fear, but is that how concordance is manufactured across the executives of a set of countries: a few terrifying top-secret presentations, and IC has successfully reputation-assassinated a foreign company? Why would these countries agree if there was no breach and a cheaper price? What offer or threat besides a more expensive but more secure infra? I suppose if you view telcoinfra as defense assets then it's a no-brainer, but was this the calculus? Blackmail/Mafioso-tactics would be a good one, maybe: You have to buy from us, or we will reveal/do such-and-such horrible thing.
Governments don't operate exclusively through sticks. The US has plenty of carrots to give out.
Limited hangout disinformation whistleblower from FB counterintelligence would be a great way to weaponize the current "FB hatred" of the mass public to control the narrative to fit FB agenda. Would such a tactic be beyond their capacity or morality to achieve?
Just a sign that the Compliance people own too much of the org. It's just the overinflated self-important (just a factual description, easy mods, here be no flames, this flaw is peculiar to the profession, almost occupational requirement) compliance person ego, they love to lock everything down and scream if they don't get their way, they feel they need to falsely portray themselves as the last bastion between order and chaos/success and jail/life and death. They love secrecy, the illusion of immutable process, and opaque irrevocable decisions.
The "support" failure is actually just a symptom of a "compliance cancer". Almost a cost of doing business in the financial sector since 9/11.
Lots of money? If you can short cut mining, it's cleaner black money than dealing drugs or people, probably. And if you can steal from someone else's address, maybe that's even better... You can seize funds with no red tape. Or mete out that capability to allies etc. Why wouldn't the NSA want to support a parallel financial system that criminals flock to? Just like why wouldn't the NSA want to covertly support encrypted messaging apps or the FBI do that...
> many failures which have then backfired on the US
Sure they have mistakes, like the failures in this article and many others, but to claim they are in general harmful to US interests...I think it probably just appears that way.
Because I think they probably serve the capitalist and mercantilist interests of the US, which probably differ in appearance from the more symbolic or mythological appearances of what the US is. So on the outside, the idea of patriotism is quite sentimental, perhaps on the inside it's all about capital and mercantile power.
So things which seem to violate the more sentimental and mythological idea of the US and patriotism, perhaps are actually wins from a mercantile or capitalist perspective....or maybe they are just failing on that mission as well I don't know.
I think overall they generally are harmful to US interests. What is the CIA most known for? Overthrowing countries and supporting dictators because of their past anti communist paranoia. What have been their major successes? I would say the regular intelligence work they do, collecting intelligence from various agents around the world and in general HUMINT. It's their clandestine and paramilitary work that's caused the biggest problems in my view, and not just in a strategic sense, but in a ideological way too, you can excuse regular spying in a free country because it's obviously necessary to maintain accurate information on any potential adversary, but coups in countries that go against US interests is a lot harder to justify in an ideological sense, especially if you want to say that one of the core American ideals is "freedom". This is something in my view that the US shouldn't do at all, and hence the need to purge the CIA of bureaucrats and others would push for this kind of action because it's what the CIA is historically known to do.
What if EcoHealth (originally Wildlife Preservation Trust International) was infiltrated by eco-terrorists who did the reasearch anyway then released a depopulation virus to punish humans and 'restore balance' to the ecosystem, in a sicko 'Army of the 12 Monkeys'-style act of terrorism? But either they weren't that successful (only 5 million deaths is not depopulation) or their goal was lockdowns and reduced air travel to give the environment a breather.
One of the reasons i despise the Silicon Valley tone of conversation is how naive (read removed from the brutality that exists in the world outside the US' protected borders) the line is.
Like, are you kidding me?
- Research Lab near outbreak
- Connected to person that proposed a similar GoF research for a grant in the US and was turned down
- History of loose ethical standards and evidence of published works connecting the CCP to military usage of viruses
- Absolutely no evidence of natural origin circumstantial or otherwise in spite of over 18 months of looking
And we have people here closing their eyes, fingers in their ears going "la la la" with moronic arguments like : "Can you show me the evidence?"
I mean, can you constructively participate in the discussion with an attempt to push it forward and call out the clear risks of weaponizing infectious vectors instead of saying "Nothing to see here, show me more" in the face of all we've seen.
All that does is gives a pass to the people doing this in the dark. Accident or not, that work is ongoing and if a literal global mass casualty event doesn't help regulate it, what will ?
