lmao that’s amazing

What’s actually being said is that the west is hypocritical, preaching one thing and doing another. Also, your whole argument is demonstrably nonsense because during the Cold War the west was secure enough to not block any Soviet media. It’s not like Russia has a more powerful propaganda machine than USSR did. What changed is that now there is domestic discontent in the west due to collapsing living standards which is what’s making people open to alternative views. Banning outside media is just an attempt to sweep underlying material problems under the carpet.

as shocked as you are by this development

yeah it’s pretty clever and I love the low tech approach

I think the example holds up fine actually. The difference is that in the second example the company decided that AI should be used here, and never consulted the worker about the process. That’s the key part in the whole thing, and this sort of thing has been happening long before AI I might add. Business people decide on some arbitrary timeline they pull out of their ass, and then it gets handed down to the workers who’ve never been consulted about the feasibility, then when the timeline can’t be met or the quality is shoddy, it is the workers who are blamed.

The AI itself is incidental to a more general problem that the worker is put in a situation where it’s basically impossible for them to do a good job with the time and resources available. What makes this case a reverse centaur is that AI is the driving force, and the human is expected to clean up after it, but without even having the proper resources to do so. The whole reason the human was in the loop in the first place was precisely because everybody knew you can’t trust AI, so there needed to be somebody to blame in the loop.

It’s low cost compared to trying to take out these satellites by conventional means.

That’s not the analogy he’s making. What he’s saying that if it is a human driving the tool and making decisions about when and how to use it, then it becomes a force multiplier for them. However, if you have the reverse situation where the tool is making executive decisions, and the human is subordinated to the tool, then it becomes a problem. What he is pointing out is that a lot of companies mandate using AI tools because it’s a hip thing to do, and then people are forced to use these tools in a way that doesn’t actually help them do their work. Like the example he provides where the person was given an unrealistic amount of work to do, and then AI hallucinated a bunch of shit that person had no hope of actually verifying in the time they had. So, the person just ended up being a scapegoat for a bad process.

lmao

perhaps you did?

today I learned that automation denigrates humanity

pretty good overview here https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/the-ukraine-wars-big-lie

totally not a bubble

In certain conditions that’s true.

I would imagine that hydro would actually have to deal with more friction leading to more energy loss.

Yeah for sure.

Energy density has nothing to do with this. It’s the cost of how much pollution refining the rare earths and making batteries produces vs the amount of pollution associated with construction of a building with pulleys that move weights up and down.

What I meant is that you need to build a unit of a certain size before it becomes efficient enough to be practical.

Fly wheels are pretty cool too, it could be that this is just easier to build and maintain though. I imagine the primary considerations are around how cheap it is to produce and whether it holds enough energy to make it worthwhile.

But you do that once, and the thing lasts 35 years, somehow I can’t imagine environmental impact would be worse than mining and refining rare earths for regular batteries here.

that would be my intuition as well