▲
4
0
▼

How countries go backwards


 invite response                
2018 Sep 14, 7:53am   10,120 views  54 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (59)   💰tip   ignore  

https://www.edge.org/conversation/how-to-get-rich

To understand these losses in extreme isolation, the easiest case to understand is Japan, because the loss of firearms in Japan was witnessed and described. It took place in a literate society. Guns arrived in Japan around 1543 with two Portuguese adventurers who stepped ashore, pulled out a gun, and shot a duck on the wings. A Japanese nobleman happened to be there, was very impressed, bought these two guns for $10,000, and had his sword-maker imitate them. Within a decade, Japan had more guns per capita than any other country in the world, and by the year 1600 Japan had the best guns of any country in the world. And then, over the course of the next century, Japan gradually abandoned guns.

What happened was that the Samurai, the warrior class in Japan, had been used to fighting by standing up in front of their armies and making a graceful speech, the other opposing Samurai made an answering graceful speech, and then they had one-on-one combat. The Samurai discovered that the peasants with their guns would shoot the Samurai while the Samurai were making their graceful speeches. So the Samurai realized that guns were a danger because they were such an equalizer. The Samurai first restricted the licensing of gun factories to a hundred factories, and then they licensed fewer factories, and then they said that only three factories could repair guns, and then they said that those three factories could make only a hundred guns a year, then ten guns a year, then three guns a year, until by the 1840s when Commodore Perry came to Japan, Japan no longer had any guns. That represents the loss of a very powerful technology.


And without guns, they were pretty much fucked when Commodore Perry showed up.

« First        Comments 42 - 54 of 54        Search these comments

42   Patrick   2018 Sep 15, 4:17pm  

You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.
43   Shaman   2018 Sep 15, 4:22pm  

NuttBoxer says
Like characterizing someone as either Right or Left, and using that characterization to summarily dismiss everything they say?


Nobody moderate is quoted or their words remembered even and especially on Patnet. Only the most ridiculous positions are noticed in this hyper information sphere.
44   LeonDurham   2018 Sep 16, 8:01am  

Patrick says
You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.


Good. The moderation, while a noble idea, has utterly failed in the implementation.
46   RWSGFY   2018 Sep 16, 12:07pm  

LeonDurham says
Patrick says
You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.


Good. The moderation, while a noble idea, has utterly failed in the implementation.


Take up Patrick on his offer yo set up a personal forum for you, keep it unmoderated and I promise I'll come and play there. Will bring friends too.
47   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Sep 16, 12:52pm  

bob2356 says
Comparing a grocery store to restaurants is even more absurd.


Not at all. The comparison is excellent.

Major Social Media and Search Engines are most non-porn internet traffic: The top three are Google, Youtube, and Facebook.

The point is to keep non-Establishment opinions locked in bespoke Echo Chambers and out of the main Public Marketplace of Ideas. Most people won't seek out an Infowars, or DailyKos, or MotherJones, or Breitbart - especially if they either can't be linked to or posts linking to them are "downgraded" from Timelines - and that's the point. The point is to prevent anti-establishment voices from having influence at the General Town Meeting. "But you can meet in the Pub across the street with your little group of friends, you're just banned from the big meeting with everybody talking about everything from LOLcats to Hurricanes. But CNN, MSNBC, Vox, and Buzzfeed are scheduled 5 minutes at the beginning of every Town Meeting"

You can develop an App like Infowars did, but if your opinion is too outside the narrow Overton Window for Google and Apple, it ain't gonna reach 90% of potential users. And given the search rigging, won't even know you exist before they find out your app is unavailable on 90%+ of mobile devices.

When two companies control 90%+ of all mobile devices, they're monopolies.
48   bob2356   2018 Sep 16, 1:04pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The point is to keep non-Establishment opinions locked in bespoke Echo Chambers and out of the main Public Marketplace of Ideas. Most people won't seek out an Infowars, or DailyKos, or MotherJones, or Breitbart - especially if they either can't be linked to or posts linking to them are "downgraded" from Timelines - and that's the point. The point is to prevent anti-establishment voices from having influence at the General Town Meeting. "But you can meet in the Pub across the street with your little group of friends, you're just banned from the big meeting with everybody talking about everything from LOLcats to Hurricanes. But CNN, MSNBC, Vox, and Buzzfeed are scheduled 5 minutes at the beginning of every Town Meeting"


Nice circular argument. Keep trying though.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
bob2356 says
Comparing a grocery store to restaurants is even more absurd.


Not at all. The comparison is excellent.


It's true because I believe it should be true. Got it.
49   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Sep 16, 1:07pm  

bob2356 says
Nice circular argument. Keep trying though.


You saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Most people are using mobile devices today, and most people go to places recommended on Social Media by associates.

Banning sites from being on Social Media (and then deliberately concealing posts that link them when users post them) is the equivalent of being de-listed from the old Yellow Pages.

AAA Auto Parts won't get many phone calls if the Phone Book won't list it.

The solution is clear: One is either a neutral platform that only bans illegal or Adult content according to clear rules, or one is a publisher. Publishers, however, are responsible for the content, legally.
50   LeonDurham   2018 Sep 16, 2:02pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The solution is clear: One is either a neutral platform that only bans illegal or Adult content according to clear rules, or one is a publisher. Publishers, however, are responsible for the content, legally.


Or make a site that people want to go to...
51   CBOEtrader   2018 Sep 16, 2:09pm  

Internet bill of rights is coming. Guaranteed.
52   FortWayne   2018 Sep 16, 2:52pm  

Would be nice

CBOEtrader says
Internet bill of rights is coming. Guaranteed.
53   bob2356   2018 Sep 16, 4:26pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The solution is clear: One is either a neutral platform that only bans illegal or Adult content according to clear rules


Clear to people who live on conspiracy and russian propaganda which is what is being cleaned up. Who defines what is illegal? That means the government would the censor. That has always worked so well in so many places throughout history. Let me count the ways. Maybe jones could just stop making shit up and get back on social media. No, say it ain't so joe.
54   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Sep 16, 5:22pm  

bob2356 says

Clear to people who live on conspiracy and russian propaganda which is what is being cleaned up.


« First        Comments 42 - 54 of 54        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste