As I suggested in 2011 in this video, theft may rise if people lose faith in the exchange economy. Other interwoven economies of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned could also alternatively take up the slack if they were improves -- instead of people becoming more inclined to crime.
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

My thanks to a Slashdot commentator many years ago who suggested I add a "theft" economy to the other four.

So, my hypothesis is that theft around SF could be substantially reduced if some mix of these were made to happen:
1. It was easier to do subsistence production (like using 3D printers, solar panels, and gardening robots etc.)
2. the SF gift economy (charity, sharing, freecycle, free 3D models, etc) was stronger.
3. the California exchange economy was working better for everyone (i.e. less wealth concentration through inflated property prices, limits on multiples of CEO pay vs lowest paid worker, a basic income, etc)
4. the California planned economy was working better (i.e. fairer taxation of property, public investments that create good jobs or reduce product prices or increase product quality, changing zoning restrictions to make affordable housing more feasible, more responsive democratic government, etc)

Sadly, because people tend to focus on only the exchange economy when talking about economic (and so ignore strengthening those other areas), we will likely see increasing theft as we go into a recession and as AI takes enough jobs to disrupt the exchange economy.

More ideas I've collected are here:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
        "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

The question was about sea level rise.

If the rising waters coincide with other climatic events, such as rainstorms and high tides, the phenomenon could swallow beaches, chew away bluffs and coastlines

There is a narrative that oh, a few cm of sea level rise is no problem, it's just a little higher water. It isn't.

However, the kinds of multi-million-dollar mansions that celebrities buy aren't the rickety perched-on-the-edge-of-a-crumbling bluff houses built in the 30s and 40s. They tend to be built-by-high-priced-architects homes that had civil engineers to advise about the stability of the foundation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entert...

If AI is ruled a serious risk that requires a government kill switch you won't be running any open weights models on hardware you control. I expect that's what the FSF is afraid of. That's why they refer to it as hypothetical technology as in "assuming such a kill switch was developed".

It might seem far fetched but consider that you are probably (based on the American readership of this site):

- not permitted to buy more than a few grams of effective cold medication per day and have to show ID, which goes in a tracking system, in order to do so.

- while you are allowed to purchase microcontrollers, if you install this on them they are illegal to possess

- possession or use of all manner of chemicals, combinations of chemicals and shaped metal considered dangerous will get you prosecuted with various degrees of zeal

The big AI companies, who already possess the most effective possible actual kill switches, seem oddly enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Not just downlink, but the inter-satellite bandwidth and latency is also likely to be a problem. I saw an analysis of what it would take to build a big datacentre, and there the cooling really does become a problem. Not the radiators so much as the plumbing to move the heat around. So everyone is talking about lots of little satellites, but that means you're restricted to a handful of cards locally. It's going to restrict the kinds of jobs you can do when the next rack over is a thousand kilometres away.

I know there is an XKCD about standards (and adding yet one more to create yet more confusion).
"Standards"
https://xkcd.com/927/

But that said, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all terrible standards in many ways because of their complexity (and major design flaws like JavaScript having vastly too many global variables). Asa an alternative, what if, say, we all just used something like Scheme (or Common Lisp) to encode web documents and web code as S-expressions in some semantically standardized formats? Scheme can be very compact in its implementation.

Or as the XKCD mentioned here says:
"Lessons learned from implementing minimal Scheme six times"
https://twolodzko.github.io/po...
https://xkcd.com/297/
"Lisp cycles XKCD #297: âoeThose are your fatherâ(TM)s parentheses. Elegant weapons for a more⦠civilized age.â"

Now, it doesn't have to be Lisp-like.I get the paren hate:
"What makes Lisp difficult to read?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/...

And there is a lot to be said for significant-indentation languages like Occam or Python. Smalltalk is another great language. Or even some variant of a safe C.

Even a Forth-derivative perhaps that could be literally less than ~2K in size at the core. Although I get that there is a fine line between flexible and flabby in readability in a language that can change its own fundamental syntax or that makes naming intermediate variables unlikely as a form of documentation. Same with any language that supports arbitrary macros like C or Scheme which can change the fundamental nature of the language. Although at least in, say, Racket Scheme you see the language level set at the start of some code to know what you are getting into.

The main point is just that yet another adhoc problematical language like JavaScript was not needed (even as TypeScript papers over the worst warts). And CSS conceptually is broken for big projects ("Atomic" CSS is one style to help with that). And adding end tags with names in HTML (like XML) is another broken concept as are other aspects of HTML. Yes, programmers can work around and manage the issue in these web fundamentals, but why should we have to?

While a simpler browser for HTML etc is a good thing if it really is well written, better standards for encoding and sharing information will ultimately get us further and be more energy efficient and be more reliable and be more programmer-friendly.

I've long been a fan of triples for doing some of that data encoding, but that is even further out.

Tangentially, here is a Libre Plane 2021 talk I put together on free standards for social media being more important than free implementations:
"Free/Libre Standards for Social Media and other Communications"
https://pdfernhout.net/librepl...

I know this all may sound pie in the sky (and it is, given current social dynamics), but consider if we used the usual buggy lot-of-library junky (and now AI slop) code only with an intent to translate web content encoded in problematical standards into content encoded in better simpler standards for other code to consume. Sort of like Amazon did at one point with a server-side engine to process HTML pages and transform them for low-end Kindle browsers -- but in this case converting HTML plus CSS plus JavaScript into something like, say, S-expressions for web content that was not yet written directly n the simpler standards. Maybe the junky translator code might not be perfect, but it might be good enough and runnable in distant containers so that the local code that processed the simpler standards could be more secure and reliable.

Also related: "Simple Made Easy"
https://www.infoq.com/presenta...
"Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicityâ(TM)s virtues over easinessâ(TM), showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path. ... We should aim for simplicity because simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability. Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. "Easy" means "to be at hand", "to be approachable". "Simple" is the opposite of "complex" which means "being intertwined", "being tied together". Simple != easy. ..."

Ideally a group like the US National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Library of Congress should fund this sort of work. And a group like Archive.org should have a lot of input to those standards on how to make the content simply versionable and simply archivable.

Anyway, just something I have been musing on and off again for many years...

That's how it already works.

It's not. Full disk access is sticky. When you grant it, the app has it until you go into settings and revoke it. It's not like sudo, it's like running that app as root, with no permission required after the first time. On Linux to get the same effect you have to edit a text file with root permissions and give the program passwordless sudo privileges, which should make any competent Linux users' hair stand on end.

And the next step will be "See, we can't allow full disk access." And then macOS will cease to be usable.

People have been "predicting" this slippery slope thing for ages and it hasn't happened.

These satellites would be in LEO

Sort of. They'd be in probably lowish sun synchronous dawn-dusk orbits, a narrow band following the terminator where the sun always shines.

and fall back to Earth after 5 years anyway.

Yeah. Thus "you generally need to rebuild your entire infrastructure... every five years or so."

The server hardware will be obsolete by then anyway.

The server hardware maybe. Not the power plant, (extensive) cooling hardware, infrastructure. These aren't GPUs floating in space, they're the entire computing, communications, cooling, power etc. infrastructure. The every five years thing would be like building a datacentre and everything supporting it in the middle of the desert and then nuking it every five years and starting over from absolute scratch.

If the cost to orbit is low enough, and there are no land taxes or electricity costs in space, and it solves the locality and latency issues for them, it starts to make more sense.

The cost to orbit, whatever it is, is pretty much money on top of whatever it would cost to build in a remote location on the surface. Taxes are minimal, zero or sometimes effectively negative for remote development on Earth. If you want to build a datacentre in the middle of the Sahara you can probably convince Morocco or someone to give you money. Solar panels are bit more efficient in space, and you get to use the 24 hours a day, but you also have to toss them every five years and buy (and launch) new ones. Along with everything else. And latency is going to be worse, not better. Your servers are whipping around the planet in polar orbits on the terminator. The minimum distance they are from any point on the surface is going to be about 300 km and that's going to occur for a few minutes a couple times a day. Most of the time they're going to be half the planet away.

I watched Scott Manley's video when it came out. He's right, the technical issues everyone seems to focus on aren't great, but they really aren't that bad. The economic and latency issues are the killers.

As far as I can tell nobody really has any consistent idea what "kill switch" is supposed to mean. Eg. https://www.scientificamerican...

OpenAI and Anthropic already have kill switches, from the power cord through to account bans. If they don't want anyone using their model they can do that. Likewise, if the US government is sufficiently motivated to order a service provider to stop providing that service, they can absolutely do that. I get the feeling the actual companies are hoping they can implement something that has lots of buzzwords and does sort of what their "guard rails" do, and everyone will stop bugging them about it.

Naturally the FSF imagines some hypothetical technology that allows the government to reach into your home to shut off the matrix multiplies running on your own computer.

Excellent pedantism sir!

Not everyone shares your personal passtimes.

Technology isn't really the problem. We've got most or all the technology to do what the GP suggested. What we lack are engineering experience, infrastructure and good economic reasons to do it.

Europe had all the technology required to build a casino in the Nevada desert in the 16th century, but it took four hundred years to get around to building the first one in Las Vegas.

There's lots of desert where nobody really cares what you do, and even more ocean. We don't like building in those places because they're far away from where we want to use the services, difficult and expensive to access, and have issues with cooling, power supply, etc.

But all those problems are worse in space, and you generally need to rebuild your entire infrastructure, from power plant to GPU, every five years or so.

There's also nothing about "AI agent" that says "fully autonomous" but that shouldn't get in the way of wild speculation and some good pedantism.

Yeah, "very". They're going to make it like sudo where when you give permission to a program to write protected files once it has it forever after.

No, wait, that isn't how it works, is it?

It will probably be what finally pushes me to a Linux laptop, though.

Yeah, because Linux totally doesn't have any files or folders that you have to give special permission for programs to alter.