Load of rubbish. If a crowd forms at the entry to an escalator typically people start standing on both sides. 30 percent of efectivity (percentage points fly around a lot in this video) are not worth the loss of personal freedom. Some people insist on forcing their social engineering on everyone for small apparent economic advantages for who? Escalator makers? Their own personal ego warming? Look ma, my escalator is 30 percent more efficient than Bobs! Yes but half of your escalated people are unhappy because they cant walk and the other half dont care either way! So lets all be nice to each other if possible and let walkers walk and standers stand, OK? Which is BTW the result of the mentioned experiments.

Motorola used Linux company-wide for firmware development in 1992? That's not impossible, but seems pretty unlikely. Of course, "Linux" might just be laymen for "a Unix."

I don't disbelieve the story, since his primary thing was social engineering, but I don't know if I buy the "I was going to hack the firmware on my phone to fool the feds" angle. He would need their tool chain to build it and then a way to get the modified firmware on the phone. Back then a commercially available handset was probably not field programmable. I don't know that he's been connected to any particular technical hacking achievements.

I think his stories need to be taken with a grain of salt. Plenty of truth, but also exaggeration and self-promotion.

As I pointed out before.
There is no need for them to go on stage.
They promote the democrats every day on TV.
You are making way too much of these 2 morons appearing on stage.
You have obviously never tried to seriously watch the good reporters I mentioned as it would shatter your illusions which you hold dear.
Like I said I don't need someone to bend the facts in order to digest my news like the BBC and CNN do.
Social engineering.
I still think it can be a good thing as long as it isn't taken too far which I fear is starting to happen.

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/keep-it-simple-and-take-credit/

"Implementing these kinds of policies are also no road to electoral success. Peoples’ lives are hard enough without tax credits and savings accounts and eligibility forms and government phone calls that determine whether one’s household income puts one in the bracket for this or that plan or benefit or subsidy and on and on. No voter is thanking anyone who puts them on this road, even if there’s a small pot of money at the end of it.

And forget the annoyance—the amount of immense mental energy and social capital required to keep track of, comprehend the eligibility requirements of, and then successfully apply for these benefits is a de facto regressive tax on people whose lives are too materially difficult to deal with arcane bureaucratic bullshit. That is, those people that need the help the most.

So what to do? No more savings accounts, no more cleverly hidden help that people won’t even notice, no more tax-preferenced, means-tested, government-monitored, website-reliant, bronze/gold/platinum-benefits-so-long-as-you-apply-during-open-enrollment. Just give people the stuff they need.

This shouldn’t even be a liberal-socialist divide, although it seems to have become one in recent years. When society decided citizens should be able to read, we didn’t provide tax credits for books, we created public libraries. When we decided peoples’ houses shouldn’t burn down, we didn’t provide savings accounts for private fire insurance, we hired firefighters and built fire stations. If the broad left takes power again, enough with too-clever-by-half social engineering. Help people and take credit."

As Lambert Strether of Corrente says: universal, concrete, material benefits.

That's a fair point, Eric. I can't say that I know enough about minority group racism to judge.

So yeah, I'm happy to amend my statement that to "not all republicans are racist, but pretty much all white supremacists/nazis are republican".

Huh, still doesn't read great, does it?

Oh, and @worm, I agree. There is a perception of "anti-white social engineering by the left". Of course, it's complete fucking nonsense, but hey, no reason to let facts get in the way, right?

"David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress."

If you're going to post bullshit, you might want to post something that isn't trivially disprovable by 5 seconds googling. He was never a congressman, instead having failed several attempts at both Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. He did become a state representative for Louisiana, but that was as a Republican (he also lost a governship battle, again as a Republican).

I'm not seeking to demonise Republicans here. I don't agree with them most of the time, but at a point, they were a relatively sane political party, before becoming the international laughing stock they are today.

The problem is that they are now beholden to Trump and almost all of them are spineless fucks with a few notable exceptions.

Ugh - how to I start this:

First, not many Republicans are "right wing" any more. Many vote against free markets and Capitalism and vote for social engineering, wealth redistribution, and growing the size of the Government.

There are a few true right wingers left, but the establishment Republicans are not right wing at all if you test their voting habits against what it means to be on the right side of the political spectrum.

Also, I patently reject that notion that all racists are Republican. If you think racism only happens in the white community I suggest you open Youtube and simply search the term "kill whites".

Not too long ago, David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress.

My point is the only reason these people are voting Republican right now is because the social engineering of the left is seen as anti-white, which I am certain makes it untenable for a white racist to vote for that candidate/party.

Total BS answer.

WHAT shared beliefs? There is no color requirements or religious prerequisites to being on the right hand side of the political spectrum. I know the media and lefty fanbois try to paint it that way, but that is complete drivel.

Goals? What 'goals' do these white idiot racists have that black idiot racists or hispanic idiot racists don't ALSO have ? What makes one group's racism leftist and therefor tolerable/understandable/justifiable in the media and the other group's racism "right wing" and abhorrent? And yes, there ARE black and hispanic racist groups...

Nothing but political bullsh*t. Racism is racism and it ALL should be abhorrent.

At it's core today, the right-wing political ideal maintains that free markets and capitalism is the best economic system for a free people because it promotes the MOST interchange between classes of people (poor, rich, powerful, etc). As such, a true right wing government would be small and not so powerful in an individual's everyday life.

At it's core, the left-wing political ideal is that capitalism is not "fair" and that the Government should step in to make everyone "equal", trading away freedom to social engineer equality and redistribute wealth. Of course, this means the more power that can be consolidated into the government, the better and more "equal" we can all be. (Don't even get me started on how this path leads to the shores of Venezuela or every other failed socialist country before it)

Back on my point though, racism doesn't rely on free markets or capitalism. Racism CAN and I would argue DOES benefit from leftist ideas of social engineered equality though.

So if these white racists voted as a majority for Republicans this election cycle, I would suggest that they did NOT do it because the are "right wing" at all. I suggest they did it because the other side of the ticket represents nothing but more and more "social engineering" that would NOT benefit their preferred race. Further, I would suggest that had the "social engineering" over the time period of the last Presidency been skewed towards pro-white, that these same white racists would have voted Democrat.

There just doesnt seem to be enough to be gained either by leaving or by staying in at this stage. A lose-lose situation.

Britain has avoided adopting Schengen rules and the Euro, so there is little it can complain about regarding the EU, really.

There is also little to cheer for, the Euro and Schengen area are not working as intended, rules are bent and broken at will, the "democratic" political process is at best incomprehensible, but apparently skewed toward unelected clerks applying social engineering solutions to imaginary problems.

Really leaving (not bindingly decided in this referendum) would lead to short term chaos and economic loss for both the EU and Britain. With what long term gains, exactly?

Democracy should be used to pick representatives who make responsible decisions, not to vote about what mood people are in on a given day.

If you can trick someone to install something on their PC, i'd call that social engineering. You'll be able to do what you like, if you're clever you'll get anything you want, but it takes little technical knowledge to do. I'm sure this guy knows his stuff, perhaps it would be irresponsible to show something a bit more technical and hacker-esque?

Or is hacking like magic and once you learn how it works, it all seems like cheating?

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

You're wearing me out, newtboy, having to explain everything to you.

Democrats lead the way in social engineering. Didn't I say that already?

So how many people did cops shoot in Chicago last year? I'm really curious to compare those numbers to black people shooting black people in Chicago.

I didn't say Republicans had nothing to do with it. Republicans are also responsible because they go along with social-engineering Democrats, but you must realize that Democrats lead the way.

Crime is down? Crime is down from the 1940s? Prove it.

2400 people shot in Chicago last year. You really think that 'crime is down'?

Also, that wasn't cops shooting people in Chicago.

Maybe when you stop laughing, or looking up words in the dictionary, you can practice a little critical thinking.

This is nothing new especially. There's a lot of literature about social engineering. That if you spend a little money on things like childcare for your employees they'll work harder for you. Same with making the workplace just more enjoyable. They'll work harder and have an investment in their workplace so it makes sense to treat them nicer. Make them feel like they belong with significant things rather than just propaganda about how we're all a corporate family bullshit. People don't fall for that, unless they're already really indoctrinated.

In many cases though corporations won't do something like that even though it'll make them more money. Why? Because there would be giving up some control. It's not all about money, it's also about controlling your workforces.

There already are reasonable restrictions.

(I can't really ask to be exempt from laws that don't even exist. But I can ask for those new laws to not be written.)

Consider this.
Maybe /you/ are not special.
Maybe /you/ are not in this world to do with other people's lives how /you/ see fit.
Maybe /you/ should take the very advice you would give to violent offenders, and just leave people in peace.


Yes, this country has clusterfuckish problems.
But guns are not the cause.

We have a very high percentage of uneducated people. For example, my high school, in one of the nicest areas of the entire country, with the super easy U.S. curriculum, with the super relaxed and curved U.S. grading policy, 30% of kids that entered never graduated. And that's one of the better examples in the country.

The problem isn't even the education system. It's cultural. Kids show up to socialize, and smart kids get made fun of. Often they have no parental pressure to perform either. No amount of money can fix that kind of schooling, because it's not a schooling problem.

They don't just miss out on an education that helps them obtain gainful employment. The concepts of empathy and solidarity are essentially omitted.

There is a proverbial horde out there, many under strong financial pressures. Having the same consumer impulses that most people here have, they resort to augmenting their incomes with questionable activities.

The median *individual* income in the U.S. is around 26k / year. Half the population makes less than that... The cheapest unassisted rent in my area is ~800/month. Go to new york, and you could be paying 1600/month each with 3 other people for a rat hole. After water, electricity, food, fuel, you'd be wiped out. Any emergency (broken down car, medical expenses, whatever), and you are in the hole.

The nice areas you see on TV are a minority. Most of the country is a po-dunk shit hole, full of people that get desperate the moment things go bad. Which leads to restricted activities, and that tends to lead to violent encounters.

We have a very high percentage of arrested/jailed people.
When you're arrested, even if not convicted, you're not acceptable by a large proportion of jobs. The police even call your employer right away to let them know you've been arrested. You are essentially marked.

Like I said, 1 in 18 men are in the system. That's a LOT of people. Other than those on parole, they aren't working. Those that are working aren't making much money (on account of the undereducation and arrest record), and will likely be back in the system.

BTW, more than half of them are in jail for an activity that never even involved another person.
Most are there for harmless stuff.

Once these people do get out of jail, if they weren't already under financial pressure, they likely now are, and will stand a good chance at reinforcing the problem population.

(eg. Person with their life more or less in order goes to jail for having a bag of drugs, then they get out, can't get a job, and they need to resort to sketchy crap to make ends meet. Maybe get into violence, but often just return to jail.)

But, it's not by accident. Our jails are for-profit, with people in government making money from the jailing industry. Either by campaign contributions, lobbying, or by having financial stake in the companies.

The most self-serving thing the government can do, is keep the problem going, and tell people that they should rely on the government to fix it by getting tough. Then the govies make money on the jailing side, and they reinforce their public mandate.

The jailing companies themselves put inmates to work making cheap goods (ever bought a t-shirt that was made in the U.S.? It was probably inmate labor.), and then 'charge the inmates rent', effectively paying them a penny a day. Modern slavery.

All along the way, the taxpayers are paying the bills, and it's just a giant trough to feed from.

I hope you can imagine why I'm averse to making more ways to jail people that aren't being a problem.

It's also why I'm inclined to make drugs legal (pretty much try Portugal's approach). So as to bring that trade into the light, and end the gangster turf wars (which are a high proportion of the gun violence).

A lot of this could be fixed long-term by social engineering, using media to elevate the prestige of education and productivity. But we know that that is not going to happen when there is no money to be made on it.

-scheherazade

Addressed what seems the heart of the confusion to me as to how to respond, in that same thread that radx referenced; Basically and firstly, we can't know everything so how to expect reasonable conclusions drawn? WE ARE NEED TO KNOW as regular peeps, and we don't know shit about the real who-whats-whys-wheres-and-hows, considering how completely skewed the social-engineering-and-indoctrination media machine functions.

Otherwise a sane response seems to be to round-up all the human RoundUp™, kill whomever gave the launch-go for the shit, then find out who manufactured and sold the shit to them that have, and eliminate those people. Evryone complicit should pay with the rest or with all of their life(s) and never be allowed to sit at the big people table again...or eat without a tube.