On some podcast (Malicious Life?) I heard an interesting take on this. Short version: cyber war is not yet real war because attribution is too difficult to justify irl bombs.
So, if the barrier to entry in drone attacks is sufficiently low, could not a nation outsource some tactical operations to controllable private entities in order to obfuscate the origin of the attack? This, I would think, is plausible if the goal is to cause damage, rather than to demonstrate national prowess.
In this scenario, nukes would not be a sure deterrent.
The article itself barely touches upon the titular "stake." NPR inserts "election interference" and Smith is quoted in reference to personal data acquisition as a potentially dangerous wealth transfer/concentration.
Since election interference is widely reported and understood to have been an intel operation aimed at polarizing U.S. public opinion with legitimate and illegitimate information, I dont see how treebeard is irrelevant.
Sidenote: It's still unclear, to me anyway, just how effective the influence was. In these crazy times, I should clarify that I'm not denying it occured.
Even beyond how effective the election manipulation was or wasn't, no one is asking whether the vague 'regulations' (by the US gov?) will do anything useful at all.
I suspect not but this all sounds reactionary "something must be done" where the utility of the something is always downplayed.
Agreed, of course. And, thanks for bringing my sidenote back onto topic (:
The subject of the article is not too well-defined, which reflects our inability to come to terms with the associated Big Issues. So, yeah, it's difficult for me to imagine forward thinking regulation coming out of the current conversation--such as it is, in main editorial media and government.
In my personal life, having a productive conversation about the current and future impacts of data (non)privacy is next to impossible due to the inherent complexity of integrating the subject with pre-existing ideological frameworks. I do not think I'm brighter than them, just happen to have a long-standing interest. Based on observation, politicians seem no better equipped.
Having worked in a few fields (never in development), my experience is that while it varies in quality, it is almost omnipresent.
In my 40s, now, and for a few reasons, looking at having to self-reinvent, again. Opportunity cost is very high and desired outcome uncertain from all preferred choices. While I try to remain positive and productive, I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that I am scared that I will never again work in a mentally-engaged, fulfilling profession.
This is close to what I was looking for in this thread. Don't want to clutter with anecdotal chat, but:
I worked in Australia some years ago (2015) and I was amazed by the taste of vegetables (and meat, as well, just less so). The experience sounds banal I suppose, but I really felt that my quality of life had improved. In the U.S. I feel totally unexcited by vegetable shopping, and I sometimes feel that I am simulating cooking. In Australia two vegetables and a small piece of lamb or beef completely satisfied me.
This article led me to the same thought found in your conclusion, but I'm hoping someone on HN has expertise in Aussie/Kiwi farming and can offer some perspective.
Agreed on all points. I've lurked HN forever and consider it one of my very few feel-good places online. This post, and (already) some of the comments are not appropriate to my understanding of the site.
Edit: to be clear, by "feel-good" I do not mean "positive," emotionally, just not subject to the same level of useless vitriol common elsewhere--which is where this thread is going.
Agreed, of course. Bringing up agency is on point, as well. I should have included that in my own comment, in short: the US has trouble being socially effective due to wonky "will power"/moral accountability bias--it cannot politically see bounded agencies, and therefore generates fails that strain the lower systems.
Interesting to bump into this article as a young friend recently quit his just-obtained ambulance EMT job for, in essence, the exact issues described.
His take was less sympathetic (paraphrasing): "i thought i would be helping society, not endlessly cleaning up after its recurring mess-making."
I know a few people in first response fields (eg, fire, emergency med, police) and this is a common view, albeit not often leading them to quit their jobs.
Since there is seemingly no political will to prevent and mitigate drug epidemics, the issue rolls downhill to emergency workers.
I worked for a year as an EMT, and saw a lot of folks who were extremely jaded and unsympathetic after years of dealing with this. There were a few angels who did really feel that they were doing the good work, but it is really hard to keep that attitude up for long in the face of this.
Recently retired EMT here. You hit the nail on the head. For me, dealing with the patients was the easy part. I had one simple rule: just be nice and show that you care. Sometimes, that was the most important thing, especially with the chronic "frequent fliers" we were picking up nearly every day.
Coworkers were the hardest part, not just that they were jaded, but they actively viewed coworkers that did not ascribe to their jaded worldview as the enemy.
Similar experience w.r.t. patients (my coworkers were great though). It's really not about saving lives. It's about confidently telling somebody it's going to be okay when they are having the worst day of their life. That means the world to people.
