I can assure you that blockchain work is still very much happening in finance today and there is a lot of capital being spent and a lot of profit being made. The 24/7 tokenized stock market is sadly the future of investment. If you work in the industry, you know.

I keep telling my mortage company this, but they in their legacy minds just wont take bitcoin! Same with BMW financial and my local grocery store! It's a nightmare living amoung luddites like this.

I think you are framing your argument from the luxury of the modern era. Early adopters didn’t finish working out the serious problems with cars, machinery, or electricity before widespread adoption. Safety standards and regulation often developed in response to harms that were already happening. In fact, this is happening today with AI. Tech leaders are calling for better standards and even regulation to reduce the harms AI is causing.

Some of us here were lucky enough to live in a world without leaded fuel running our cars. Luckily those "early adopters" figured that out over a few decades and we phased it out 70 some years after the fact.

Like industrialization? I'm not saying it's for the best. It is impossible to know if technological progress is for the best. I'm saying it is no different than any other kind of technological progress and we have to make a choice. Protect jobs at the cost of progress or accept that this is the cost of progress.

Sure I'd love for there to be a generation of 20 something hand crafters carving the scroll work on my shotguns, but the market has decided that engraving machines are cheaper and good enough. So that job is pretty much a hobby. I'd love to still be a doing the IT work I was doing in 1999 as well, but those skills are worthless.

I don't celebrate anything or make excuses. I see the world for how it is and I decide what I'm going to do to help myself.

It is well known that you can only think about one issue at a time. This is the core reason why "what about X" is always the best and valid defense to anything you disgree with. If you are trying to reform police camera use then it's impossible to be actively trying to stop other things.

At least that is what the politicans and small minds tell us every time they say "But what about X?"

It is also creating jobs. No different than what a spreadsheet did to acocunting, what the car did to the buggy whip industry, what computers did to people who did that work by hand, what the internet did to printed research material, what smartphones did to dozens of tools it replaced, electric lighting did to lamps, the printing press did to hand copying, digital photography did to dark rooms, CAD did to drafting.

People lost their jobs at first, then new jobs using and leveraging that tech replaced them. There is a whole career out there right now in helping business secure the use of AI. It pays great and requires a lot of expeirence in how AI is used today. There is a lot of work out there for people who can intergrate AI into stacks, to find ways to create efficiency in the use of AI, to build skills, systems, tuning, and even models for dedicated workloads in a company.

Sure a lot of jobs will be destroyed. That is the thing that happens with all technology. It's why western union doesn't bring me money on a horse carriage.

Mental illness in this country is out of control. People come to a tech forum and see an article about AI and suddenly are talking about single moms and spanking children. It's not a healthy train of thought. Please touch some grass.

Why would the police car doing highway traffic stops need to be black with black or near black lettering and hidden lights? How does that protect the public good?

I know a few police officers, you however seem to conflate people with the state. You think just becuase someone joins for the right reason that that means the thing they joined exists for that reason? Lots of people join the military to protect our country and never thought they would be dying to secure oil. Policy and the will of the state is what matters here. If you don't follow that elected leadership and orders you are quite simply not going to be police.

Your argument is simply that becuase good people want to join the police for that the police exists to do good. That is like saying because good people had good intentions when joining philip morris that cigarettes harms should be overlooked and that the companies that made them are health companies.

Oh and one more! https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/1...

Sure they would, could you imagine if you were told the truth by people who get paid to do a think you may not agree with?

The state does not always act in the best interests of making it's citizens safe. As an example, why are not all police cars brightly colored and easy to see? If you want to reduce crime the visiblity of a enforcer will prevent crime. But putting nearly unmarked cars on a highway doesn't reduce crime, it increases the chance of making money on someone committing a unsafe act (speeding).

For a real example: In Ferguson, DOJ found that municipal revenue goals drove police practices, with pressure to issue citations independent of public-safety needs. It also concluded that those practices damaged trust and made policing less effective at promoting safety.

DOJ’s 2023 Minneapolis investigation found police threatened unjustified force against peaceful protesters because of their protected speech. It also documented officers beating, kicking, and shoving protesters after they were restrained. Why? Because ending the protests was in the interest of the state.

Asset forfeiture is another example. The state gives a force the ability to take and only those who can afford to fight can get their assests returned.

Outside of policing there are lots of examples of the states position being advasaral to public safety.

In Flint, MI under state-appointed emergency management, decisions about Flint’s water supply occurred within a framework focused on financial recovery. Residents were exposed to lead, and officials failed to respond adequately to warnings. Michigan’s own task force identified failures across government and problems with the emergency-management framework. The conflict was balancing government finances while failing to protect the people affected.

From 1932 to 1972, the Public Health Service studied Black men with syphilis without informed consent. Participants were not offered effective treatment even after penicillin became widely available. Continuing the research took precedence over the participants’ health.

In the 70s, FBI conducted covert operations to disrupt and discredit groups and individuals it considered threats to the social order. The Senate’s Church Committee investigated these abuses. This is a particularly direct example of government treating political opposition as something to neutralize rather than citizens exercising rights.

During World War II, the government forcibly removed and incarcerated people of Japanese ancestry. A subsequent federal commission concluded that the policy was not justified by military necessity and instead reflected racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and failed political leadership.

U.S. weapons development and testing exposed people to radiation, including residents downwind of test sites. Federal compensation programs later recognized associated serious diseases, including cancers. This illustrates how a government can pursue what it calls collective security while imposing severe health risks on particular communities.

What is in the interest of the state and what is in the best interest of the person feel like they should be aligned, but often are not.

The job of the police is not to protect, it is not to stop crime. They may from time to time do these things, but that is not their job. Their job is to enforce the will of the state on the citizentry. Nothing more. They are the tool to ensure the state gets what the state wants. If it is in the interest of the state to set a speed trap and use the police to fund the county, that's what the police do. If it is in the interest of the state to disenfranchise a populace, that's what the police do. If it is in the interest of the state to protect one area of town over another due to wealth, that's what the police do.

I bet if you ask grok it can do that for you.

I think one model to do a task is the proper way to reach AGI. Humans are not a single system that does all the work. We have dedicated processing centers for all sorts of things. A collection of models with a 'driver' model that uses the right part of the 'brain' to process the task to me is AGI. When a system can no longer be distiquished from a human does it matter if it's 10 models in a trench coat working in unison?

The advantage of not having children is that you have plenty of money.

I found a workable solution for me. I filter all unknown sendors so I simply never see SMS spam. I have all phone calls that are not in my contact list answered by AI which results in 99.9% of them never reaching me. Android phones and iPhones can do this natively, but I take it step further.

I use a service I conditionally forward calls to that handles this. In addition it allows me to generate a new phone number for every business contact I interact with. So if one sells my number I can simple delete my number. They also do this for texting and email. In additiion they scrub public data sources of my personal information. That last step has reduced the number of calls I received a noticable amount.

The downside is that if I want to actually be contacted by a business I need to add them to my contact list.