We're not "water bankrupt", we're massively over human populated!
Every natural resource is under strain. Every animal and plant not serving as a revenue center for some rich prick is be pushed into extinction.
But for some reason we need to grow the idiot herd, because elon needs more...
Maybe if we didn't have 1 person with more wealth than 1/2 of the US population, we wouldn't have a problem paying for old people to age in relative comfort...
Earth can sustain current population many times over, what it cannot however is human greed and stupidity. No worries, as George Carlin said: “Save the earth! Save the earth! The earth is fine, we are the ones who are screwed.”
Yea, the mineral globe of the earth might be fine, we probably won't change it's orbit around the sun, but every other life form on the planet WILL be in great peril.
Like so much else, this assertion that earth will be fine, is total bullshit...
We should create a committee to see if this actually has an effect. A minimum of 24 members should be sufficient. After we have a quorum, we can independently test your hypothesis and report back to the committee. Once we reach consensus, let's report back to this thread.
Ah! It's great that you've already set up the committee. Before we do any hypothesis testing, I would like us to discuss the resource consumption of
a) this committee's gatherings (especially when we have a quorum) resource allocations as related to miscellaneous consumables (e.g. paper and pencils) and
b) the overall energy usage of all our members (especially when using such tools as VPNs and dual monitors) when remote gathering and
c) the proper removal and safe disposal of the plastic water bottles (including but not limited to their caps) after an in person meeting
Barring these estimations and their precise tracing throughout the lifetime of one of our meetings, I'm afraid I'll insist on postponing any such meetings, until we'll have the possibility of performing such estimations, or a higher power decides to maybe wave some (if not all) of the above. In which case we should then proceed to propose alternative avenues towards the facilitation of such re-estimating, or re-analysis as needed.
That won't get you put on a watchlist. You have to a little more than access it. I bet that millions before this post was even created have accessed that document.
I'm more concerned with the wisdom of downloading a document in a format known to be exploitable hosted by an intelligence agency of a government known for a recent uptick in aggressive domestic policing?
Spy agencies are presumably pretty good at learning which signal is signal and which is noise.
Given how commonly this is referenced in corporate presentations to point out that the antipatterns from the sabotage manual are how many companies run nowadays, it's either going to be a meaninglessly big watchlist or no watchlist.
The CIA are probably for the most part reasonable people, or if they aren't, hopefully not that kind of crazy. They probably want people to look at their history stuff.
Think "look, our predecessor organizations helped defeat the Nazis/Imperial Japan and did reasonable stuff". I'm not sure whether this text is propaganda to get people to work more effectively or an actual sabotage manual, but whatever it is, that's still the signal, I think. At best keeping this on your website is like trying to say "Our stuff taught people to resist Nazis and similarly bad people", at worst it's like trying to say "look, here's a really entertaining way to trick people into being productive".
"The CIA are probably for the most part reasonable people"
What CIA are you talking about? Maybe we have diferent definitions of reasonable, but the CIA I know of are absolutely fucking wicked, morally bankrupt snakes.
Someone here probably works for Alex Karp and can give us the low down. I’d imagine it’s a virtual clone of some sort which can be put into simulated environments and observed.
I agree, HN is the only place I make comments on the WWW.
The only gripe I have is that a certain segment of the community feels compelled to flag comments on topics that don't align with their personal vision of what HN should be.
If there's a topic I'm not interested in, I just ignore it. I don't feel compelled to block other people from having a discussion they are interested in.
I feel the need to point out a phrase that was very popular among my dev peers:
The difference between theory and reality, is that in theory they're the same, but in reality they're not...
While any new feature, or bug fix, introduced by a dev should certainly be tested at that dev's desk to confirm to themselves that it's correct; it should also (of course) be tested by a product test group (call it QA if you must) to insure that all functional features of the product are still fully and correctly implemented.
I would aim a big fat finger at "agile", "scrum", "standup" culture for encouraging the violation of this, very obvious, testing requirement.
"What have you accomplished in the last 4 hours", type of management interface to development, fully and completely misses the primacy of confirming the functionality of updates before release.
This is really due to management, especially C-suite management of startups, living in a make believe world of deadlines and feature requirements pulled arbitrarily out of their ass, while refusing (or not having the capacity) to understand the technical issues involved.
Has mozilla ever hired a CEO on the premise of "Our top priority is resolving the long standing bugs in our web and email clients"?
I'm still bitching, years later, about thunderbird failing to update IMAP folder contents (i.e. sync with server) until I click on the folder.
While it may still reign as the "capital of the industry", there's a certain kind of technical brain damage that comes from being located in the bay area.
Let's just call it "proximity to venture capital"...
reply