Politics, AI and Quantum Computing

[John Clark]

People have been predicting that deep fakes will have an impact on the election and now, thanks to Elon Musk, it looks like that prediction is coming true: 

Kamala Harris with a gun, Barack Obama stabbing Joe Biden

And after 8 years of study the National Institute of Standards has finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards, they involve Lattice Cryptography:

NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lbc

[PGC]

Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I couldn't help but notice a focus on performance over substance. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have both firmly backed Biden, and now Harris is being presented as the best possible candidate. While I understand that legal issues related to transferring fundraising to another campaign play a role, it seems that the priority is on projecting an image of unity and joy rather than engaging in a democratic process that legitimizes the candidate through substantive debate.

In all the speeches I've reviewed, no one has addressed the most pressing question: Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, without any public debate or transparent selection process—especially when this candidate was, until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?

Campaigns often rely on a degree of self-persuasion—believing in victory is crucial to convincing voters. However, this can make them feel artificial, even disingenuous. That said, it seems to be working; Harris has shifted the dynamics in the swing states. But let's not forget that just a few months ago, she was known for shaky interviews, a lack of experience on the international stage, and difficulties in retaining loyal staff. Now, in Chicago, she is being presented as the most talented and irreplaceable politician. Remember how late Obama’s endorsement came? At least his speech included a touch of sobriety. If I recall correctly, he cautioned against confusing the euphoria in the Chicago arena with the sentiment of the entire nation.

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/24/2024 12:14 PM, PGC wrote:
>
> Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from
> my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I
> couldn't help but notice a focus on performance over substance. Bernie
> Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have both firmly backed Biden,
> and now Harris is being presented as the best possible candidate.
> While I understand that legal issues related to transferring
> fundraising to another campaign play a role, it seems that the
> priority is on projecting an image of unity and joy rather than
> engaging in a democratic process that legitimizes the candidate
> through substantive debate.
>
> In all the speeches I've reviewed, no one has addressed the most
> pressing question: Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden,
> without any public debate or transparent selection process—especially
> when this candidate was, until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?
>

You don't ask, "Is X wise." unless you compare it the possible
alternatives...if you're wise.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 3:14 PM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding politics, some reflections on the Democratic Convention from my perspective: Watching the proceedings I had time to watch, I couldn't help but notice a focus on performance over substance.

Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she put more emphasis on substance than performance, she thought she could win with position papers and PowerPoint slides. She was wrong. When Donald Trump speaks there is often no substance at all and he just rambles on about sharks getting electrocuted and low flush toilets and lightbulbs and crowd size and "the late great Hannibal Lecter", but Trump always puts on a good show; or at least that's what everybody tells me, they tell me the man has charisma. Personally I don't see it but there's no disputing matters of taste. Some people find cockroaches to be cute.

On occasion Trump does actually say something of substance but when he does you can be certain of one thing, that substance will be UGLY. 

 >Is it wise to rally behind a candidate, post-Biden, without any public debate or transparent selection process—especially when this candidate was, until recently, widely seen as a disappointment?

Yes I think it's very wise to rally around Harris because it's not important if she turns out to be a disappointing or mediocre president, it's not even important if she turns out to be a Nixon level bad president because we can survive that. The important thing is that she is unlikely to become an apocalyptically catastrophic president like Donald Trump would be if he gets a second term. His first term was bad enough! It's far more important to avoid a very bad president than it is to elect a very good president, that's because there's a limit to the amount of good a president can do even if she's a transcendental genius and a saint, but there is no bottom to bad. 

> Remember how late Obama’s endorsement came?

I don't think that was because of any lack of confidence in Harris, but because he thought she should win the nomination by fighting for it. I agree with Obama about that, but the party chose another way and I'll just have to live with it.    

> At least his speech included a touch of sobriety. If I recall correctly, he cautioned against confusing the euphoria in the Chicago arena with the sentiment of the entire nation.

I agree with that too. It's encouraging that Harris is doing much better in the polls than Biden but it's important to remember that Trump has historically always done much better than what the polls had predicted he would do. I think that's because many people are  embarrassed to admit to a pollster that they're going to vote for Trump. I don't blame them, if I was going to vote for Trump I'd be embarrassed to admit it too.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ite

[Alan Grayson]

Harris is about as good as it gets, but is that enough to avoid WW3 on her watch? AG

[PGC]

On Saturday, August 24, 2024 at 10:43:58 PM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:

>
You don't ask, "Is X wise." unless you compare it the possible
alternatives...if you're wise.

If you're suggesting that the alternative to rallying behind Harris is Trump, then the context changes significantly. In that light, the urgency to unite behind a candidate—despite any perceived shortcomings—becomes obvious. The stakes are high, and the Democratic Party feels that any internal debate might weaken their position against Trump.

But even in this scenario, the question of brains/wisdom still applies. If your statement instead intended to highlight a lack of alternatives within the party, it's different. What I'm saying holds in both cases: While avoiding Trump might be the primary goal, ensuring that the chosen candidate is the best possible option in terms of leadership and public trust is crucial. The comparison here isn't just between Harris and Trump, but also between Harris and any other potential Democratic candidates who could have been considered. 

 

A transparent debate where, for once, candidates could have debated realistic concrete future policy proposals, instead of slinging mud, particularly with qualifiers like "if we had house and/or senate control", would have signaled seeing eye to eye with voters. If she loses without making some major mistake, it's going to be because of this missed opportunity. They had the opportunity to show what democratic debate culture is about, without hateful, vicious attacks for spectacle's sake, and shine their colors in terms of substance: what voters would get in return for their vote. 

Cheerleading and merely passing the baton to somebody who's been invisible/ineffective + proclaiming her to have superpowers is what it is.