@lonelyowl@SunMcNukes It's not so much ludditism; you can get a feel for most of it by reading the first page or two of his paper. The idea is that the rush to the cities due to industrialization has forced excessive socialization (which has deformed politics) and that people are happiest when doing work related to fundamental needs. It is 34 pages but the introduction is half a page.
@p@SunMcNukes@ins0mniak i hate the fucker that draws this manga. he cant write for shit bestia was dogshit manga he needs to be paired with an competent writer or he ruins the art he makes with bad writing.
@lonelyowl@p his observations are fine but his conclusions are already obsolete. Ironically, a full throttle accelerationism can give us the same results with neat AI images and the public's approval.
same thing ted talked about in his manifesto. industrialisation forced centralisation (with the added negative of massive internal migration) and reduced the common mans working rights
No, every technology that matters (i.e., is not a toy) makes something that was difficult (crossing the ocean safely, producing textiles) into something easy, or creates a capability that didn't exist (flight). This always shifts society.
@lonelyowl@tiskaan@p from that perspective it really sounds like the hammer and sickle zealots which the same Ted rejects as collectivists in nature. I think the sanest conclusion would be to consider tech as a mere tool and focus on the bad actors who abuse it for their vile purposes.
Sometimes society is changing by itself, without some external engineering, and sometimes it changes in rather bad way. And it's normal to be upset of it.
But to perform a violent actions to RESTORE JUSTICE, well, that's garbage. I don't think i have a right to blow up a google datacenter, for example. I don't want to fight google, i will just try to avoid it.
> But to perform a violent actions to RESTORE JUSTICE, well, that's garbage.
Sometimes a motherfucker needs to get got. Not to say it's right or wrong to get them by mailing a letterbomb or that he picked the right motherfuckers, but there do exist motherfuckers that need to get got.
> I don't think i have a right to blow up a google datacenter, for example. I don't want to fight google, i will just try to avoid it.
I agree with this approach, but if they start sending drones to my house, I might change my mind about whether or not their datacenter should explode. tradeoffer--mail.png
not really because technology we use does influence us just as much influence it. certain technology favours certain societal structures and when we depend on them we will use them.
i dont agree with him fully but i also dont agree with this either.
non violent intervention (protests, voting and direct action) is obviously preferable and violence is a last resort.
otherwise your gonna be ending up earning scrips in a company town and your kids gonna lose an arm and lung working in meat packing plant for an absolute pittance and wont add any benefit to his long term aspirations.
a real more better example is how the average college student is probably on some type of amphetamine and would probably not hesitate to implant a brainchip if it made studying the sheer amount of bullshit they have to learn in order to survive in the job market.
> But if some freak will get into my house and break my gpu because they think that my local SD or falcon-llm causes their poor performance on a labor market - excuse me, i’ll kill them.
This is fine.
Read the intro in that PDF, it'll make much more sense. It's not "blow up technology" per se.
I personally rather will stay neutral if you will perform a violent actions on shitty and autocratic technology. Go blow up some government servers hosting a surveillance spyware, this is rather deontologically bad but i don’t like governments anyway.
But if some freak will get into my house and break my gpu because they think that my local SD or falcon-llm causes their poor performance on a labor market - excuse me, i’ll kill them. Or, at least, will try.
@tiskaan@SunMcNukes@lonelyowl Unfortunately, you do not get to choose what has been invented or its effect on you. You can choose what you work on, you can choose what you use, but you can't un-invent factories, for example.
@lonelyowl@SunMcNukes@p act in your best interests dont stay neutral. im not advocating for terrorism either im just saying their is plenty of non violent politically useful action you can before attempt to take your autonomy away, violence should always be a last resort and defensive.
> I agree with this approach, but if they start sending drones to my house, I might change my mind about whether or not their datacenter should explode.
Build a (free and open source) automatic anti-aircraft gun! This is both more fun and ethical, and probably more easy also 🙂
> Build a (free and open source) automatic anti-aircraft gun! > This is both more fun and ethical, and probably more easy also 🙂
Actually illegal if you mean it's autonomous. The legal reasoning is based on some case where a guy rigged a shotgun trap inside his barn, someone that lived near him had been going into his barn to take antique glassware, the judge's ruling was that a human can distinguish acceptable targets from unacceptable ones or de-escalate and maybe not pull the trigger, but a lethal trap cannot.
At any rate, I'd usually rather solve my problems by making things, but I can't rule out the possibility of blowing up a datacenter on general principle.
No ITAR restrictions on just motion tracking without an automated trigger puller AFAIK, however, once you add in thermal it becomes a big no-no (which is why consumer grade FLIRs are framerate limited to something stupid like 14fps)
Well, sure, but connecting it to a trigger makes it illegal for non-ITAR reasons.
> AFAIK, however, once you add in thermal it becomes a big no-no (which is why consumer grade FLIRs are framerate limited to something stupid like 14fps)