I disagree with the simplistic model you are presenting, as if "patriots" would themselves deal with the matter of (global) governance in our age in a non coercive, "just" or "fair" manner, and not tyranny, whereas the historic record is that all such revolutionary attempts to removal of (perceived) tyranny prove themselves to be even greater tyrants.
Issue is systemic to the human species and our current state of development. Symbolically, we have achieved an excess of technical prowess while our mental and psychological (and here we can fold in spiritualism if you wish) remains underdeveloped. And there is also the (unpleasant but real) fact that various 'noble' human characteristics are not uniformly distributed among our species, regardless of gender, culture, or ethnicity. Humanity is very 'lumpy'. And the fact that some among us are lagging in certain aspects is unplatable but factual.
Many of these control systems being devised by the guvners are in fact addressing this reality. These things are not emerging from a dark pit where malignant humans are plotting against the rest of humanity. Contrary. Many are mind products of some of the best educated and well meaning who are trying to address the realities of our common coexistence on this planet.
In an ideal worlds, there would be no locks, no cops, no jails, no hunger, no oppession.
We do not live in that world.
Beyond our human condition (but certainly driven by it) is technology, which also has its own inherent developmental tendencies.
In my personal view, a mature and balanced approach here would be the insistence that the humans who are entrusted with the operation of these emerging systems of social control and management are the best of us.
Right now, given the pure profit incentive that selects a specific subtype of 'smart and capable' to leading positions, we are facing a hazard. (See Zuck as posterboy of the problem).
Why do you think this is only going to be in Europe? This will be the global norm modulo some astroid hitting earth or civilizational crash.
The trajectory is crystal clear: access to information (AI), control over personal finance (CBDC), privacy of personal communications (handful of big tech MITM in everything), metered social interactions (today China, tomorrow the world over).
Your alfalfa is a red herring. Agriculture encompasses more than a specific crop that we can always legislate against production for export. The data centers will not go away and the utility of the "AI" they are to enable is as of today dubious.
> This is bullshit to be charitable.
What is bullshit is sockpuppets shilling for the very few who have bet the 'farm' on this and want return on their investment, the wellbeing of society be damned.
I am guessing (not asserting) that there is a sort of cap on water used for agriculture. It's possible we've already reached it. (?)
So, on the matter of scale: there likely isn't a cap on water use of these datacenters. Both the heat emission and usage levels for these systems will likely go up unless there is a fundamental technical breakthrough.
On the matter of utility: As a sibling of GP mentioned, the utility of food is clear.
On the matter of polution: I am not remotely read on waste water and contamination due to industrial agriculture. Is this also something where the judgmental scale is tipped in favor of food production vs cooling systems?
Because it normalizes a practice that, while acceptable in context of a well known project with numerous dedicated eyeballs such as Rust language, is not a generally acceptable method of installing software.
> Yes, it's probably not gonna help humans, unless some of your friends are gelatinous blobs with no circulatory or nervous system and with a lifespan measured in months.
Who knows, maybe we'll have organic suites for people or sealing membranes for mechanisms.
Rather tenacious and unrelenting than brave. Many of them wear war paint, employ chemical warfare, and dress up in scary getups to scare away potential enemies/predators. Effective for sure, but "brave"?
I didn't say that is how the I Ching works. Participation in the process is most certainly an important aspect of binding the psyche of the questioner to the results, which supports the view that the stalk method is indeed the way to consult the book, as that requires contemplating the question while going through the process.
That's what they want you to think. See the gent sitting down next to your elected VP? That is a "prince", a scion of an Arab FAMILY. The grifter twit standing over them? Another "prince", this time of a Jewish FAMILY.
They have goals; they have policy preferences, I assure you. Trillions of dollars are involved.
Let's just call a spade a spade: this is the emergence of Oligarchy International, sold to us as "a time of confusion because of media chaos".
Speaking of Jared Kushner, what has happened to our nation that this grifter twit is fronting one of the most strategically consequential negotiations on behalf of this nation? Is there any precedent in our history for what is going on these days?
If the morning commute is the only issue, then it is likely that in the relatively near future (all things being equal) work life may revert back to its pre-automobile mode where your work was either at home or fairly close to your home. That may end DST.
> The concept that knowledge should be witheld from people until they're ready is so anthical to our current beliefs.
It is not knowledge that is witheld. It is text. I also propose to you to consider the thought that true knowledge is only obtained by experience. The fundamental issue with psychologically potent text and images is that it can induce convictions based on misreading and misunderstanding.
IFF you can exercise the necessary self control to avoid premature utility of the I Ching, the entire work is of course a profound metaphysical model of human reality through the lens of Taoist sages based on a simple and elegant axiomatic framework that uses the concept of state-transitions & numbers 2 (forces) and 3 (places) to develop a comprehensive metaphysical system to consider "all things under the heaven".
It's a weak counter point in that it does not consider the long term effects.
Using I Ching to make decisions is like using an LLM to think. At some point, you will atrophy the faculty of independent decision making.
You are also neglecting that I Ching outcomes come with text and commentary that are by definition designed to affect your mindset -- "the image" -- (for the good of course but see below for that). This is precisly what Dr. Jung was saying about trifling with the occult. It affects you at an sub/un-conscious level - this is not some random book. It is the I Ching, and like all world scripture it has a textual potency that affects its readers.
If you are stuck at a 50/50 position, just throw a single coin. Average 3 if you must. Spare yourself the commentaries.
Correct and effective use of the I Ching requires a degree of maturity and self development (think Carl Jung) that is surely lacking in most of us when we are first introduced to this occult artefact in 20th and 21st centuries. That is because in this age of facile information we get our hands on matter that in previous eras were obtained after spending years at the feet of some guru or master!
Carl Jung also warned that the occult are not to be trifled with and that I ching was not for amusement. It's funny I was just going through some notebooks from 4 decades ago when I was a young thing and saw page after page of questioning "should I do this?" "should I do that?" The misuse of the I Ching is an excellent way to lose your own independent judgment. Beware. (I made some poor choices based on misusing this book.)
Wilhelm's translation is indeed wonderful and for the thoughtful reader of the book, I strongly suggest spending time with 'Book Two' of his translation that focuses on Confucius' metaphysical commentary - it is profound.
Also recommended for the serious reader of the Ching is Richard Wilhem's Lectures On The I Ching - Constancy and Change, also published under the Bollingen.
I disagree with the simplistic model you are presenting, as if "patriots" would themselves deal with the matter of (global) governance in our age in a non coercive, "just" or "fair" manner, and not tyranny, whereas the historic record is that all such revolutionary attempts to removal of (perceived) tyranny prove themselves to be even greater tyrants.
Issue is systemic to the human species and our current state of development. Symbolically, we have achieved an excess of technical prowess while our mental and psychological (and here we can fold in spiritualism if you wish) remains underdeveloped. And there is also the (unpleasant but real) fact that various 'noble' human characteristics are not uniformly distributed among our species, regardless of gender, culture, or ethnicity. Humanity is very 'lumpy'. And the fact that some among us are lagging in certain aspects is unplatable but factual.
Many of these control systems being devised by the guvners are in fact addressing this reality. These things are not emerging from a dark pit where malignant humans are plotting against the rest of humanity. Contrary. Many are mind products of some of the best educated and well meaning who are trying to address the realities of our common coexistence on this planet.
In an ideal worlds, there would be no locks, no cops, no jails, no hunger, no oppession.
We do not live in that world.
Beyond our human condition (but certainly driven by it) is technology, which also has its own inherent developmental tendencies.
In my personal view, a mature and balanced approach here would be the insistence that the humans who are entrusted with the operation of these emerging systems of social control and management are the best of us.
Right now, given the pure profit incentive that selects a specific subtype of 'smart and capable' to leading positions, we are facing a hazard. (See Zuck as posterboy of the problem).