Changing consumer habits require modern solutions
RT: https://poa.st/objects/ff659604-92ae-491e-a61f-0a42f0d5779d
RT: https://poa.st/objects/ff659604-92ae-491e-a61f-0a42f0d5779d
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
2
An honor box without the honor, it's still kinda neat. At least you don't have the risk of your bag of chips getting stuck in the machine and you can't get it out.
They'll just wait until someone opens it and then mob them.
Replies
7The proliferation of surveillance tech makes any kind of dishonest behavior an objectively bad strategy. 25 years ago, petty thievery was freeloading, now you pay a MUCH HIGHER COST because it gets attached to your name / family / ethnicity forever.
@cjd @Humpleupagus that would be fair only if we had real accountability against antisocial behaviour, which we obviously don't have.
WE pay a higher cost indeed, but that doesn't include them, since all benefits of (((wealth redistribution))) go to them.
You also need to take into perspective that dishonour and lack of trust labels run off them like water off a raincoat.
They don't care because they don't comprehend why we act like we do.
WE pay a higher cost indeed, but that doesn't include them, since all benefits of (((wealth redistribution))) go to them.
You also need to take into perspective that dishonour and lack of trust labels run off them like water off a raincoat.
They don't care because they don't comprehend why we act like we do.
What you're basically asking here is "if this is where we're heading, why aren't we there yet?" and the answer is because things take time.
In the year 2000, all data was fed through a centralized machine which filtered out anything that could be used to infer race / criminality correlation. Furthermore, we were given fake data (Hollywood) that suggested there was no correlation, and that inference is itself an anti-social act.
Now almost all data bypasses that machine, so now we have access to raw data and we can store it forever. However, the programming is strong, and a lot of people still consider inference to be anti-social and so people, corporations, and governments are refusing to acknowledge what anybody who wants to know can know.
But, reputation is a cruel mistress. And what's happening is that just as the reputational damage spreads from the low-trust individual to his ethnic group, it likewise spreads to those people, corporations, and governments who insist on discarding that reputational information.
So for example, when New York City chooses to treat everyone who rides their subway as equal, this results in a certain amount of crime and violence occurring that would not occur in, e.g. Zurich or Tokio. Many of these violent acts are recorded on video, and SOME of them are so sensational as to go viral. The effect is that if you disregard a stereotype, you become a stereotype.
And at this point, nobody really considers New York City to be a place to be, it's more a place to leave. It takes a really long time for this stuff to work itself out, people don't clue in for a long long time. BUT, the eventual outcome is clear.
In the year 2000, all data was fed through a centralized machine which filtered out anything that could be used to infer race / criminality correlation. Furthermore, we were given fake data (Hollywood) that suggested there was no correlation, and that inference is itself an anti-social act.
Now almost all data bypasses that machine, so now we have access to raw data and we can store it forever. However, the programming is strong, and a lot of people still consider inference to be anti-social and so people, corporations, and governments are refusing to acknowledge what anybody who wants to know can know.
But, reputation is a cruel mistress. And what's happening is that just as the reputational damage spreads from the low-trust individual to his ethnic group, it likewise spreads to those people, corporations, and governments who insist on discarding that reputational information.
So for example, when New York City chooses to treat everyone who rides their subway as equal, this results in a certain amount of crime and violence occurring that would not occur in, e.g. Zurich or Tokio. Many of these violent acts are recorded on video, and SOME of them are so sensational as to go viral. The effect is that if you disregard a stereotype, you become a stereotype.
And at this point, nobody really considers New York City to be a place to be, it's more a place to leave. It takes a really long time for this stuff to work itself out, people don't clue in for a long long time. BUT, the eventual outcome is clear.
The problem is that the powers that be seem to be on a mad rush to make it so there's nowhere to leave to.
Well no doubt, but it's one of those things it's just impossible to really prevent. What happens is everyone wants to prevent their city from becoming the next NYC, but they also don't want to draw too much attention on themselves, so they do all of the stuff in secret. And then the World Police have to run around trying to make sure nobody's doing it, while everyone is secretly trying to do it. And then when the World Police gets their foot stuck in Iranian Quicksand, then the whole thing starts to accelerate massively...
The CCTV that blankets most places now is never in that fashion. It's always selective. Only small private operators like these vending machines see anything resembling what you described. Government operated surveillance is always
>oh oops we won't release the footage because it will fuel racism!
And the crimes continue too so they're not even using it to arrest and prosecute the "youths"
>oh oops we won't release the footage because it will fuel racism!
And the crimes continue too so they're not even using it to arrest and prosecute the "youths"
Yea, it's never govt CCTV, it's always phones.