Maybe, but the small groups that form out there in the real world will each be much smaller than the large group that stays and gets jerked around by the bots.
The large group will have to endure the manipulations that we've come to know and hate from the internet, but they'll also be better coordinated than the small ones. They'll vote together, buy the same sorts of things, have an outiszed influence on the global conversation... They'll define the de facto majority opinion whether or not they actually are a majority and whether or not it's authentically their opinion.
I don't think that's a good outcome. We need ways to get on the same page en-masse, if only to counteract the harms caused by whichever highest-bidder is currently using an AI horde to control the other group. Besides, we should save them from this abuse for their sake, if not for ours.
The internet is worth fighting for, if we abandon it entirely we'll be forever at a disadvantage against those who would use it to manipulate.
Well yes, but if you think you need docker-compose then you're looking for runtime control and not build time control, so you should use this nix flake: https://github.com/juspay/services-flake (which uses process-compose instead of docker-compose).
> Successful orgs are laser-focused on their core purpose.
If putting up a some kind of flag or another is gonna keep people who would otherwise interfere with my core purpose from showing up, that might be the most expedient option for getting shit done. It's like: I'm not religious, but I'll wear a cross if it keeps the vampires at bay.
> My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me.
That's not an elite education, that's a bad education.
Yeah... I went to an ivy league school and I've never felt remotely that way, nor did any of my friends.
Sure, some of my classmates were snobs, and there was probably a higher concentration of them (snobs are drawn to prestige-granting institutions, after all), but I wouldn't blame the education for that.
You find the same kind of attitude with any exclusive groups, from employees of fancy tech companies to country clubs to religious & political organizations.
They went full XKCD 927 (https://xkcd.com/927/) and what started as an attempt to introduce students to the diversity of all cultures ended up forcing them into a new culture antithetical to all other cultures.
That's just scarcity based economics doing its thing.
I don't think it's hilarious, I think it's rather sad to see people so easily trampled by the whims of an irrational market. Generally speaking, we benefit when people stick by their values, and yet we play this awful game where winning means abandoning our values in pursuit of "value" whatever that is.
We may see a day when the internet is not available, or when interacting with it represents an unacceptable risk. It's a good idea to know how to set up your own.
It's a different jamming scenario however. Starlink is comparatively centralised, and reliant on both terrestrial (ground stations) and satellite communication. While the terminals themselves are sparse and widely distributed, the backbone infrastructure is far less so. It's possible to target the satellites, ground stations and critical service dependencies (e.g. GPS) rather than needing to target the hundred of thousands/millions of terminals directly.
The mesh networks are dealing with, by definition, a sparse and widely distributed set of devices which are independently configured and controlled, and in their current widely available form are only dealing with terrestrial communication. Without that point of centralisation you would need to focus on targetted regional jamming, as from a practical standpoint you cannot perform wideband RF jamming over an entire country - signal jammers don't scale that well, and geographic features come into play. As an example you might effectively block mesh networks from operating reliably in a given city, but if people were to move outside of that area then the mesh would operate again.
Geography is both a strength and a weakness here: a mountain range will impede direct communication with someone on the other side, but it will also have the same effect on jammers which will vastly increase the cost to deploy them in a ubiquitous fashion.
I suspect jamming LoRa could be a lot easier than most radio though. LoRa signals are incredibly weak and long range. A jammer which jams at a massively higher power level could cover a massive area. You can also just flood the network with messages that nodes will happily relay further for you.
That's a DoS attack, not "jamming". RF jamming usually relies on flooding frequencies with garbage which doesn't get interpreted as valid protocol traffic but does "crowd out" legitimate use.
The protocol-aware class of attack you describe does require some knowledge of the radio parameters being used, since LoRa runs on very narrow bands and uses both time and frequency-hopping to avoid congestion on any one virtual channel. They even apply (very basic) encryption to messages to prevent unknown senders from flooding the channel.
Unfortunately, both systems come preconfigured out of the box to use a default configuration which most users never override. So like cheap FRS/GMRS walkie talkies, all it takes is a few jerks who don't care about common use to overwhelm everyone with bogus messages. If you fire up a new device running the default Meshtastic firmware in any kind of dense urban environment, odds are it will more or less immediately get inundated with spam: "ping", "test", "hello from <neighborhood>", etc.
And since MT + MC both flood the shared channels to push messages across intermediary nodes, they pretty much self-DDoS by doing...nothing.
That’s really the killer for survivalist mesh ideas. It’s trivially easy to jam, and if it’s open it’s also easy to DDOS.
Jamming is done in military scenarios too, but in that case it’s limited by the fact that a jammer is a big transmitter painting itself with a big sign that says “fire missile here.” Civilian mesh doesn’t have that fallback.
Neglect is a bigger killer than active denial. If the Internet goes down it will likely be because a few execs decided to replace competent network admins with AI, or because all the competent network admins decided to quiet-quit because they aren't being paid jack compared to the folks hawking AI vaporware.
Battlestar Galactica opened my eyes to this problem more than electronic warfare in games of the day did. It's freaky (read: terrifying) that we're getting to a point that people are starting to take "embedded information (and decision)" systems serious enough to deploy them into meat space.
Probably not short range connections. The application layer will have to change but we can still have an internet that operates when we pass each other on the street or share an elevator--the primary bandwidth carrier being devices being physically moved through space, and cross-device chatter being opportunistic.
Also, it might not be jamming. It might be that whoever is operating the satellites at the time denies access unless you enable inspection, and then sells that info to somebody who would hurt you--or whatever other can't-trust-the-middleman dystopia you care to imagine.
We might also consider letting the language semantics invade the editor. Hazel integrates its parser into the text editor, so rather than getting a red squiggly when you break a rule you're just unable to break the rules. It represents code you haven't yet written as a "typed hole" so instead of
1 +
The + would cause the following to appear
1 + <int>
where <int> is the typed hole, reminding you to put an expression there which is an integer. It's perhaps a smaller leap than using shapes and space, but it's one I'd like to feel out a bit sometime.
This is fun. I started with "all hail the glow cloud" and now I'm clicking to wander around Nightvale. It's not exactly suprrising that it knows all of the lore, but it paints a pretty cohesive picture...
Worldcoin was really a headscratcher. I will admit I did not fully follow how this would create universal basic income. The biometric verification seemed equivalent to trying to prevent unemployment fraud before unemployment pay exists.
That sort of chicken/egg situation is typical for bootstrapping a currency. Coinage in ancient Rome was a solution to a military logistics problem: How to feed distant soldiers... make the locals do it. How to do that? Intimidate them with your well-fed military. The innovation was to require that collected taxes weren't just valuable metal, but that they had Caesar's face on them. This proved that the payer had been supporting the soldiers that so recently attacked their community.
An effective solution to the how-to-distribute-UBI problem could itself be the thing that backs the new currency in a similar circular fashion. I mean, it's not like the bar is very high. Currently our money is backed by games of chicken over whether the Strait of Hormuz is open.
But biometrics are just the wrong way. They require too much trust to be placed in a sensor, and an authoritative source of truth about the data. Any time such a source of truth exceeds a certain importance threshold, it becomes corrupt.
I believe the solution is out there, but it's in a different part of the landscape dictated by the CAP theorem: CRDTs not blockchains.
The large group will have to endure the manipulations that we've come to know and hate from the internet, but they'll also be better coordinated than the small ones. They'll vote together, buy the same sorts of things, have an outiszed influence on the global conversation... They'll define the de facto majority opinion whether or not they actually are a majority and whether or not it's authentically their opinion.
I don't think that's a good outcome. We need ways to get on the same page en-masse, if only to counteract the harms caused by whichever highest-bidder is currently using an AI horde to control the other group. Besides, we should save them from this abuse for their sake, if not for ours.
The internet is worth fighting for, if we abandon it entirely we'll be forever at a disadvantage against those who would use it to manipulate.
reply