If eliminating homicide was the only effect the cameras had, I would consider it. But the cameras also enable all kinds of harmful abuse, as has been reported many times right here on slashdot.

Most crime, including violent crime, is a consequence of poverty driving people to desperation. Maybe we could find other ways of bringing that down. Like better education for the poorest areas and other forms of assistance that get people working again and eliminate the desperation. It might not be easy, but it's surely better than making ourselves so extremely vulnerable to the kinds of abuses that mass surveillance enables.

You seem to have confused my post with someone else's. Specifically:

"but other systems are worse so you should be happy with what we have"

I never said nor implied "you should be happy with what we have."

criticizing the current system and calling for change is the equivalent of lobbying for some other system

I never said nor implied that calling for any change is lobbying for some other system.

You're making a number of assumptions

No I'm not, you are reading into my post a whole lot of things that I didn't say and don't agree with.

First you are assuming that the system you have is the system you think it is.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that America isn't actually a Capitalism? Without some elaboration, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Second you are assuming that it cannot be made better or changed any way,

No I am not! I absolutely think that we can and should perpetually monitor and modify it as needs arise.

Third, you are assuming that the system you have today is the same system you had 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago.

No I am not. Where in the world are you even getting this? A huge number of economic changes have happened over the past 200 years. I know this as well as anyone.

For an increasing percentage of Americans, life is getting worse and worse financially...

Your final paragraph is a total topic change seemingly stated as an argument. Or something. All I did was answer a specific question from rsilvergun. It wasn't my intention to write an essay on how we solve the issues related to wealth inequality in America.

"Socialism" is a broad word that refers to an entire family of different systems. It's not "one thing," and there isn't a single definition for it. There is just a loose group of common elements shared by all the different things that share the label, the main one being collective control over the means of production. (see here for more info).

So it isn't reasonable to say that this is "the best system" without specifying which version you are referring to and citing specific places that have fully implemented it for a long time and show signs of sustainable thriving.

Incidentally, Capitalism is, at its essence, "private ownership of the means of production" (which is to say, people can own businesses). If you allow this, then what you have is Capitalism (possibly with other regulations on the side). If you don't allow this, then what you have is not capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of allowing private ownership of some businesses but not others? Or something else?

If capitalism can't even solve something this fucking simple what is even the point?

"The point" is that it's the best system we have, despite its problems.

The alternatives have, historically, led to mass starvation and bloody revolutions in relatively short order. This will predictably happen again if they are attempted, because they violate human nature too strongly.

Be that as it may, technological advancement has always been the game-changer. If anything stands any kind of chance at enabling humans to thrive, sustainably, under a communist system, it will be labor automation (including and especially AI).

I am not a subscriber.

I buy maybe one or two things a year, only if I have to. I am only one tiny notch above giving nothing. You think there is no gain at all in significant abstinence from potential spending?

Absolutist thinking doesn't work well in the real world.

I, for one, am doing almost as much as you are. I didn't cancel my Amazon account because once in a while it does happen that I need something they have and can't get it (legally) by other means. But at every opportunity I shop around and buy from independent shops, even if it costs more, just to avoid sending the money to Amazon. This practice is in response to the many evil things Amazon is known for apart from this new revelation about book shredding.

I hope we are part of a growing trend.

The incentive to use AI to generate content and then pass it off as human-generated content is very strong. Especially right now. There is real money in the ability to lie about this, and so people absolutely want to. Many won't admit it in these terms, but the incentives are objective realities and that's all anyone needs to know in order to predict human behavior in aggregate.

Further, this watermarking does not solve the problem. It just means that people who want to deceive will simply have to use different models instead. Such models will come along one way or another; demand for them will ensure it. Tools will also surface that can detect and remove these watermarks, with varying degrees of success, to neuter the feature. It's an arms race that guarantees the intention behind this move will utterly fail.

The AI law that requires this was drafted by people who didn't think this through. It is in their nature to think that regulation can solve every problem. Enforceability is a factor too, and this law is basically dead on arrival on that front.

Corporate executives often send similar messages to the droves of people they are laying off whenever they merge with another corporation. They tell everyone that the move is some sort of "greater good" and so everyone losing their job should be happy about how much better everything is getting for everyone else. They sometimes go so far as to imply that one is being unenlightened and selfish for being upset about losing their only income stream.

It's easy to say that when you are one of the ones at the top who receives only benefits. The ones who are wondering how they are going to keep their families fed, however, tend to react badly to this utter lack of empathy for their situation.

People might be willing to endure change and uncertainty for a technology that comes with great promise. But those same people will not be so eager to endure unemployment and starvation due to a technology that benefits primarily the wealthy elite. Saying the words "this benefits everyone" will not convince those who can no longer pay the rent.

From what I just read on this, the whole "common sense" bit was the idea that wind power is not stable power. Power only comes when the wind blows. For an energy grid to be viable it needs a foundation in a more reliable power stream (hence fossil fuels) first, with wind on the periphery. I have no idea how much of an impact this really has, it's just the argument I read.

Separately, that billion dollars was a refund. The company already paid US the billion dollars before to get leases on the land to build wind power, but then other laws essentially blocked their ability to actually build the wind power there (and it sounds like it targeted foreign companies building wind power on American shores). So since the US government basically ruined their whole business plan, it gave them a refund as part of an agreement to adjust their resources to more stable fossil fuel power instead.

It doesn't sound like concern over birds was a factor at all.

I am sorry to point out the obvious but just in case it is needed here: one could also buy clothing made of natural fabrics like cotton, instead of polyester.

The only safe assumption is that someone, somewhere, will train up AI with no guardrails at all and immediately use it for crime. We cannot prevent this by trying to make OUR AI models refuse to do evil things. The criminals will just use different models.

The tech exists. The cat is out of the bag. We need to focus on how to adapt to a world that has it, rather than doomed ideas about trying to keep it weak.

Sounds like a pretty good deal, actually. If this AI overlord is actually as enlightened as it presents itself as being.

Humans thrive best when raised in favorable circumstances, and most humans are denied this by the action of other humans. We think of ourselves as free because we can choose what field to work in and where to live and what groceries to buy and etc.; but every single one of us is beholden to human government leaders who see us as a means to their ends (and will not hesitate to force us off to die in foreign wars should they find reason, or impose other limitations on us to ensure that their bribers can continue to profit off of us), so simply swapping them out for a machine that has no self-interest and understands what it takes for humans to thrive and "feel free" could really improve things for us.

Intelligence is much more a function of environment than genetics. One's genetic contribution, in theory, sets an upper limit on intelligence potential, but to actualize that potential one needs a solid education. Someone with genius level IQ born into poverty and with no access to education will wind up just as superstitious and backwards as all of their peers.

This goes doubly so for critical thinking, because critical thinking is not natural. Our brains naturally operate on a survival program that relies on logically fallacies and snap judgments because these are right enough most of the time to keep a person alive out in the wild. This is normally combined with learning from pack mates, which is how our species endured for millions of years. So, without the right education, critical thinking is very difficult for us.

The same is true of scientific knowledge. To someone who has not received the necessary in-depth education to understand clearly why science is better than religion, it looks like just another religion, and even worse, a religion with government backing. Governments are notorious liars, so when you combine that with the unintuitive conclusions of science and no foundational understanding, something like a vaccine looks like an outright trap.

Anti-vaxxers are still wrong, and the misinformation they spread is still harmful, but I must have a drop of compassion for them, given that they clearly haven't had the advantages that I've had.

No, there is no point at which the sun's plasma is "rock hard." But there is a point where it becomes opaque, which creates an illusion of a surface. And that's what the pictures are showing.

It doesn't matter. Making it possible to open a back door "at all" puts all users at risk, regardless of how rarely the government intends to use it.

There should be no back door at all, just a solid wall. Otherwise, criminals will find a way to open the back door even if there is no government abuse (which there for sure will be).