The News Thread

It's not all doom and gloom but i am struggling to see any way at all that this can be good for the consumer. It would be fine if we were still free to choose any ISP we want as we could circa 2001, but now being limited to 2 ISPs in a given area is likely going to cause some problems. Suppose both of those ISPs decide to slowdown or block some streaming or gaming site you like to use. You have no alternative but to put up with it now, in effect this is censoring things you can do with your free time. It could also possibly get out of hand and make some information unavailable to the public. The information you receive being in the decision of corporate hands and not yours is not a good thing.
 
People keep saying that this opens up the free market for internet providers or some such nonsense, but it's not going to do that at all. The big companies still have a strangehold on the market and it's highly unlikely that any efficient provider is going to come along and serve as a viable competitor, especially given that companies like Comcast and Verizon lobby local cities for sole coverage.

I'm not sure it's going to be the dystopian chaos that everyone thinks, but it certainly takes a step down that path. The trust that people have in "the market" to provide the most ease of access to a variety of products and services is really disheartening. In this particular case, I think the safer option would have been to keep neutrality laws in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vegard Pompey
It's not all doom and gloom but i am struggling to see any way at all that this can be good for the consumer. It would be fine if we were still free to choose any ISP we want as we could circa 2001, but now being limited to 2 ISPs in a given area is likely going to cause some problems. Suppose both of those ISPs decide to slowdown or block some streaming or gaming site you like to use. You have no alternative but to put up with it now, in effect this is censoring things you can do with your free time. It could also possibly get out of hand and make some information unavailable to the public. The information you receive being in the decision of corporate hands and not yours is not a good thing.

Who/what limits things to 2 ISPs in a given area? From what I can find, the majority of the country has 3 or more broadband providers.

https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

I do agree that ISPs are tricky and not comparable to most other forms of private business, since the overhead of starting a new one is high, and generally requires working with the local authorities and tearing up a lot of land to plant new cable. I don't think this will improve competition or the end-user's quality of internet access, I just don't think it will change that much, with the probable exception of the minority of very heavy data users who might get reamed.
 
Local governments have the stranglehold on service, not big ISPs. WIRED reported on this four years ago.

Most inefficiencies ultimately amount to government interference since government generally has the final say, but that Wired report is primarily based on a single report by a collective of rural telecomm companies about what they deem to be excessive costs. Without knowing the inherent inefficiencies of planting and connecting fiber in Bumfuck, South Dakota, it's kinda hard to say who's telling the truth.
 
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...03837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html


Haha.
 
Oh, I'm sorry, Wired published one report among a plethora that contradict that piece. They all must be wrong.

If there's no competition and no price controls, obviously the industry will be prone to such abuses, which is basically the point of all the TEOTWAWKI articles (whether or not the authors understand this). The problem is that zoning regulations, right-of-way access, etc. are "invisible" to the customer, while the charges on their bill are A. still partially a result of these things and B. actually visible.


I think the replacement phrase is slightly more accurate, but it does seem like a small thing to focus on with other more pressing problems everywhere.
 
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...03837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html


Haha.

Trump sounds like a SJW.
 
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

Bet nary a word from the major networks:

By the end of 2012, senior officials at the Justice Department’s National Security and Criminal divisions, and at the State Department and National Security Council, had shut down, derailed or delayed numerous other Hezbollah-related cases with little or no explanation, according to Asher, Kelly, Maltz and other current and former participating officials.

Agents discovered “an entire Quds force network” in the U.S., laundering money, moving drugs and illegally smuggling Bell helicopters, night-vision goggles and other items for Iran, Asher said.

“We crashed to indict” the elite Iranian unit, and while some operatives were eventually prosecuted, other critically important indictments “were rejected despite the fact that we had excellent evidence and testifying witnesses,” said Asher, who helped lead the investigation.

In Philadelphia, the FBI-led task force had spent two years bolstering its case claiming that Safieddine had overseen an effort to purchase 1,200 military-grade assault rifles bound for Lebanon, with the help of Kelly and the special narcoterrorism prosecutors in New York.

Now, they had two key eyewitnesses. One would identify Safieddine as the Hezbollah official sitting behind a smoked-glass barricade who approved the assault weapons deal. And an agent and prosecutor had flown to a remote Asian hotel and spent four days persuading another eyewitness to testify about Safieddine’s role in an even bigger weapons and drugs conspiracy, multiple former law enforcement officials confirmed to POLITICO.

Convinced they had a strong case, the New York prosecutors sent a formal prosecution request to senior Justice Department lawyers in Washington, as required in such high-profile cases. The Justice Department rejected it, and the FBI and DEA agents were never told why, those former officials said.
....
After Obama won reelection in November 2012, the administration’s pushback on Hezbollah drug cases became more overt, and now seemed to be emanating directly from the White House, according to task force members, some former U.S. officials and other observers.
............
The White House was driven by a broader set of concerns than the fate of the nuclear talks, the former White House official said, including the fear of reprisals by Hezbollah against the United States and Israel, and the need to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East.
............
And beginning in 2007, DEA agents watched as a commercial jetliner from Venezuela’s state-run Conviasa airline flew from Caracas to Tehran via Damascus, Syria, every week with a cargo-hold full of drugs and cash. They nicknamed it “Aeroterror,” they said, because the return flight often carried weapons and was packed with Hezbollah and Iranian operatives whom the Venezuelan government would provide with fake identities and travel documents on their arrival.

From there, the operatives spread throughout the subcontinent and set up shop in the many recently opened Iranian consulates, businesses and mosques, former Project Cassandra agents said.

But when the Obama administration had opportunities to secure the extradition of two of the biggest players in that conspiracy, it failed to press hard enough to get them extradited to the United States, where they would face charges, task force officials told POLITICO.

One was Syrian-born Venezuelan businessman Walid Makled, alias the “king of kingpins,” who was arrested in Colombia in 2010 on charges of shipping 10 tons of cocaine a month to the United States. While in custody, Makled claimed to have 40 Venezuelan generals on his payroll and evidence implicating dozens of top Venezuelan officials in drug trafficking and other crimes. He pleaded to be sent to New York as a protected, cooperating witness, but Colombia — a staunch U.S. ally — extradited him to Venezuela instead.
.....
They said senior Obama administration officials appeared to be alarmed by how far Project Cassandra’s investigations had reached into the leadership of Hezbollah and Iran, and wary of the possible political repercussions.

As a result, task force members claim, Project Cassandra was increasingly viewed as a threat to the administration’s efforts to secure a nuclear deal, and the top-secret prisoner swap that was about to be negotiated.
......
the briefings for top White House and Justice Department officials that had been requested by Holder never materialized, task force agents said. (Holder did not respond to requests for comment.) Also, a top intelligence official blocked the inclusion of Project Cassandra’s memo on the Hezbollah drug threat from being included in Obama’s daily threat briefing, they said. And Kelly, Asher and other agents said they stopped getting invitations to interagency meetings, including those of a top Obama transnational crime working group.

That may have been because Obama officials dropped Hezbollah from the formal list of groups targeted by a special White House initiative into transnational organized crime, which in turn effectively eliminated DEA’s broad authority to investigate it overseas, task force members said.
......
Ironically, many senior career intelligence officials now freely acknowledge that the task force was right all along about Hezbollah’s operational involvement in drug trafficking. “It dates back many years,” said one senior Directorate of National Intelligence official.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah — in league with Iran, Russia and the Assad regime — has all but overwhelmed the opposition groups in Syria, including those backed by the United States. Hezbollah continues to help train Shiite militants in other hotspots and to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq, according to U.S. officials. It also continues its expansion in Latin America and, DEA officials said, its role in trafficking cocaine and other drugs into the United States.

I heavily excerpted from that piece, but if that is still tl;dr: The Obama administration completely abdicated actual national security in favor of the optics of a token agreement from Iran as well as potentially fear that pressing Hezbollah would cause retaliatory attacks now (as opposed to more dangerous attack capabilities down the road when it wouldn't be "blamed" on the Obama administration).
 
was reading over this article about how the "decriminalization" of drugs shaped Portugal and I really think this line didn't draw enough attention:

Portugal introduced targeted messaging to particular groups — Ukrainians

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html?_r=0

:lol:

still curious to see how the cost discrepancies are so great, 10$, apparently, in Portugal vs. 1000$ here. I imagine that's because food nor housing is included or examined there?

After reading all of this, seeing a decrease in deaths and all that makes sense. But the dramatic drop seems like more external factors are in play than just offering some basic social services (as it sounds) to addicts

in contrast, Portugal may be winning the war on drugs — by ending it. Today, the Health Ministry estimates that only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
Article makes some good points, but also glosses over the fact that doctors prescribe opioids because the Clinton administration required doctors to treat pain rather than the cause of pain. Refuse to give opioids, get sued for not fulfilling your ethical duty to help a bunch of junkies. Give opioids, get sued when your junkies become full addicts.
 
I'd say that the framing is Chiang-ish, actually (and not inaccurate). I just taught two of his stories in my class this year.

I like these two paragraphs:

It’d be tempting to say that fearmongering about superintelligent AI is a deliberate ploy by tech behemoths like Google and Facebook to distract us from what they themselves are doing, which is selling their users’ data to advertisers. If you doubt that’s their goal, ask yourself, why doesn’t Facebook offer a paid version that’s ad free and collects no private information? Most of the apps on your smartphone are available in premium versions that remove the ads; if those developers can manage it, why can’t Facebook? Because Facebook doesn’t want to. Its goal as a company is not to connect you to your friends, it’s to show you ads while making you believe that it’s doing you a favor because the ads are targeted.

So it would make sense if Mark Zuckerberg were issuing the loudest warnings about AI, because pointing to a monster on the horizon would be an effective red herring. But he’s not; he’s actually pretty complacent about AI. The fears of superintelligent AI are probably genuine on the part of the doomsayers. That doesn’t mean they reflect a real threat; what they reflect is the inability of technologists to conceive of moderation as a virtue. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk assume that a superintelligent AI will stop at nothing to achieve its goals because that’s the attitude they adopted. (Of course, they saw nothing wrong with this strategy when they were the ones engaging in it; it’s only the possibility that someone else might be better at it than they were that gives them cause for concern.)
 
not sure i'm familiar with his work, but he seems to make a lot of leaps of character (unless he's done character pieces before on Gates and Musk in the quote you cited) which I would call unfair and detrimental to his overall theme