There is also a sense in which no one is in control. Technologies and actions
always have the possibility of unintended effects, unexpected consequences and
so on. It is also likely that hard attempts at control will eventually be
undermined by the disorders that the attempts generate.
Even
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andre Rebentisch wrote:
> and the conservative technologist (=us) then says: Who needs X, there is Y.
I guess I don't qualify. Slack, Mattermost and Matrix bring a lot
to the table that IRC doesn't provide.
> The real issue of the last decade is that
There is a symbiotic relationship the affects both sides. Where the
boundary is becomes irrelevant. The point is that the majority will be
excluded from the symbiosis.
There is one rare talk about thinking machines that makes sense, from
the guy who defined the field: 1951 "Alan Turing's lost
On 2018-01-13 21:22, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> It's important to understand the mechanics of how machine-fed deluge of
> stimuli affects victims. When driving car very fast, one focuses on the
> road in the front, because it's essential for the survival - not on the
> horizon, not on the scenery on
On 2018-01-17 03:22, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> The future of humanity is the struggle between humans that control
> machines and machines that control humans.
Machines are never in control. Even if you believe that the liberal CEO
FB has somewhat lost control of his creation, it still does what
On 2018-01-16 20:38, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Or maybe it's time to put down our phones, pick up shovels and start
laying fibre.
I don't know.
This, of course, is the only solution. If all other arguments fail,
consider that this gets you to the jail fastest. QED.
---
Europe was mentioned
Agreed Roel, thanks for your nice list.
I would like to add one more project: Duniter.
As said here:
http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=SymetrieEtNeutralite2Engl
"If you want a symmetrical network, it is necessary to design it in such a way
that it generate itself a new form of
