Defeating modern Information Security the old way: with 5$ technologies

5$ is the amount of money required to burst the tech bubble.

Security is always a problem of money. Why have the trouble of owning bikes when a lock costing the price of your bike does not even protect it for more than 2hours? In worst hypothesis, you'd need to spend 4 times the price of bikes and locks to amortize a bike per year.

Security and unsecurity can make a cheap expense very expensive. At the point you stop buying bike.

If you leave in Montréal it happens. Then, you resort (cause maybe your budget is killing you) to stolen bikes, fueling the very cause of the market unsustainable for any players. Even the thieves. No one gains.

The market of the bikes disappearing explaining how the dragons disappeared.

Funnily the world Treasure in german is Shatz from the verb shützen to protect.

Heroes took the habit of killing every dragons, because since they were known to protect huge treasures hence a dragon was supposed to always be on a heap of gold.

Specisism! Some young dragons did not have the time to earn enough proof of their value, thus had little to peanuts.

So, by prejudice dragons became extinct, heroes too having no more fiends to defeat, and a new era of creating safe vaults appeared. That's how the dragon's bubble bursted in 400 and heroes became bank robbers with dynamite. IT is a dragon of paper.

The need for secured transactions will always be there, but, if it can be harmed with 5$ then your way of securing them might disappear for a cost excedeeding 5$.

But even worse, you could have negative prices.

And Information Technology as an industry is making the exact conditions from which negative prices will exists on the market of technologies able to break itself.

What is the opposite of IT/high tech? Low tech. IT by taking part in a massive development of a low tech vulnerabilities on a scale that is growing exponentially.

Heard of side channel attacks?

Imagine I only need to know "when the lawyers of my opponent on the case are the most active on the network" ?

Well, their daily trash filling per day might increase. I am pretty sure that more workforce, means more works thus more probably network usage. Information does leak a lot in the physical world.

Imagine a smart bitcoin contract worth 10B$ is protected by a unbreakable cryptography for those who don't have the passwords?

Well, if you are ready to crack some bones, a 5$ club might do the job. With enough persuasion data can be extracted in the physical world.

These cases are happily extreme and not common. However, the problem is these are gonna be more frequent.

Tax dodging in IT is a common practice resulting in a non competitive market. Share values of company raise and new competition on the market has to be more aggressive than the other ones. Real innovation in IT is an efficient way to dodge tax.

However it became efficient. Gains now being marginal in this field. One other resource is available for making more money: wages.

GAFA outsource most of their services to avoid any liability in hiring armies of underpaid workers to do the trivial cleaning, delivering, construction work, expedition, security ... and abuse the local markets. Okay.

This proportion increases a growing population who works for less than required for a decent living. AAA batteries not included. And that's a problem, people may need this 5$ pack of AAA battery.

IT requires this workforce for ultra secretive places or data, to do operations that requires trust.

Such as making sure a hard drive sent from the providers has not been tampered by the underpaid receptionnist.

And the more data-center, third party authenticaction and trutees grow so does the hyper-surface of vulnerability.


Your USB devices, CPU, Hard Drive, electricity, information required for your "secret questions", your phone line, anything you rely on physically for your job even your 2FA have in its chain of trust disgruntled under paid workers.

Imagine how much trouble if a cleaning lady took picture of the post it in your whole organization?

By the cold calculus of rationnality some of your workers may see that your failure as IT might benefit them. And you know which organization have no ethics?
Criminal one.

Especially the one IT relies on. Tax dodging weakens justice and results in development of corruption. Not yours of course, but it helps having an increase on the offering part of the market of corruption.

Underpaid justice and public order officers result in more demand on the market street of corruption. A direct consequence of tax dodging.

People who benefit of your fiscal innovation are criminal or corrupted organizations. Bank reuse your astute laundering scheme for better use.

One side product of IT tax dodging is the development of not only reason to get corruptible but also an economical benefit in doing so by lowering the friction to benefit from the money of crime.

It also gives a lot of required persons in the everg growing chain of value people that incentive to betray.

It is a classical game theory problem with a feedback loop which output is certain. People will incrinsingly betray and for less, higher and higher in your chain of trust.

It is not the technology that will cause the end of the IT bubble, but the social and economical strain it put on society that weakens it at the point one day the costs of IT will be more than the benefits of the community as whole including: users, consumers, regulators, workers, providers, contractant, tax payers.


1848, 1870, 1900 the aftermath of industrial revolutions that saw stormy social changes never came from the disruption in technology, but from the one who did to much of a captation of the benefits without giving back to those who actually made it possible, even the cleaning lady.

No matter how IT sees itself, is just no different from the one of the arrogant steel maker, coal mine owners and old pretentious indutry of the victorian era, even imposing its puratinistic view on nudity as the most shared censorship on the whole globe.

The business model of intellectual property has something of unfair: spectre/meltdown was discovered simultaneously by 3 teams.

It happens a lot in the field of R&D. But who will be the best rewarded?

The first on the market, the one having the money to register first, or the one that benefits from an exclusive increase in productivity? IP economy builds growing incentive for monopolies that does reward neither merit nor risks taking but the one who has the biggest initial capital.

Thus, smart high value workers will understand that monopoly more than innovation is there interest. So, you are or will head towards an advantage in fighting innovation. The interest of IT is diametrically opposed to the one of the common interest. Basically: better pay, better products, progress in exchange for IP revenues.

IP claims are a huge costs to under funded public judicial system.

The more IT build its success at the detriment of the mass, the more it is undermining itself. The feedback loop being there, IT showing no efforts in fighting it, it is not a question of if it will happen, but when.

An industry betting on taking more advantages out of of the community than giving back to it will end up killing the community it parasites.

And that's how heroes and dragons disappeared. Because their greed in thinking wealth belongs to the more powerful killed the weak peasants that were not able to feed anyone anymore.

You can have all the gold on earth you want but if no one can make a living out of cropping you are dead too, and stupidly some peasant do not intend to die. So, you should really think of paying your taxes and wages before it's too late.

The persistance of peasants nowadays while dragons and heroes disappeared around us is the  undeniable scientific proof I am right.

Du concept de compression social et de ses effets

«L'abus de la propriété doit être réprimé toutes les fois qu'il nuit à la société.»
   Napoléon Ier
«La sédition de Lyon de 1831 a révélé un grave secret, celui de la lutte intestine qui a lieu dans la société entre la classe qui possède et celle qui ne possède pas.. Notre société commerciale et industrielle a sa plaie comme toutes les autres sociétés ; cette plaie, ce sont les ouvriers. Point de fabrique sans ouvriers, et avec une population d'ouvriers toujours croissante et toujours nécessiteuse, point de repos pour la société [...].
Les barbares qui menacent la Société ne sont point au Caucase ; ils sont dans les faubourgs de nos villes manufacturières».

    Saint Marc Girardin

Si il est établit que nous en sommes revenu à un ratio possédant par tête de pite pire qu'en 1789 où 3% possédaient seulement 40% des biens, il est intéressant non de se poser la question du pourquoi (théorie aristocratique prétendant que le Peuple est mauvais par défaut, et que les optimums sont obtenus par laisser l'économie dirigée par les meilleurs qui ont fait leur preuve de par la loterie de la naissance), posons nous la question plus amusante du comment.

Je me suis réveillé ce matin avec en tête l'image du man-spreading (étalement exhubérant des mecs) mais appliqué à l'espace publique, et à comment le mesurer.

Déjà on peut le mesurer de deux manières équivalente, soit par l'étalement sociale (gentry-spreading qui complète l'observation de la gentrification) soit par la compression sociale.

Moi, j'aime les mesures objectives, celle qui dérivent de théories simples, que chacun peut par son observation peut infirmer ou confirmer.

Comment mesure-t'on la pression dans un espace 2D ? c'est égale F/S.

Prenons le cas de l'immobilier (google a plein de calque sur les prix par quartier vu du dessus), on constate que
  • les pauvres ont des appartements moins grands ;
  • les pauvres sont plus concentrés.
On peut aussi observer qu'ils sont repoussés dans les faubourgs et éloignés des transports en commun.

La corrolaire de la gentrification est donc l'accroissement des populations en périphérie dans les villes anciennes, et inverse dans les villes nouvelles où les voitures sont favorisées par les déplacements.

Pour reprendre le cas de l'urbanisme des villes nouvelles, on note que plus une ville est étendue plus ses frais de fonctionnements par habitants sont élevés.

On va imaginer que vivre à 4 dans un 36m² c'est dur. On va remarquer que dans 50m² c'est plus facile. On peut en dériver probablement à partir des rapports de police une corrélation entre «espace vitale» et risque de querelles. On appellera arbitrairement la surface par tête de pipe qui diminue de 80% les risques d'atteintes aux personnes. Au doigt mouillé je vais fixer cette surface à 20m² par tête de pipe. Donc, on peut maintenant en déduire une probabilité de collision par surface, à laquelle on va associer une quantité de mouvement, donc une force.

Ainsi, on peut objectiviser une logique de pression que tout le monde peut mesurer en prenant les densités de population par zone.

Mais est-ce aussi mécanique ?

Si ton appartement est mal isolé, tes 70m² servent à pas grand chose.
Si tu as des parties communes (trottoirs) où des voitures roulent, se garent et tentent de t'écraser tu as une pression.

La notion de pression ainsi définie incorporant des si condition alors pression diffère rend caduque tout l'arsenal mathématique de l'algèbre linéaire (dérivation, intégration, raisonnement par moyenne, régression, probabilité bayesienne...) et donc l'IA.

Ça fait depuis Poincaré que certains matheux pas trop cons tentent à pas très lent d'avancer sur le sujet, avec la friction engendrée par un paquet de réac élitistes appelé Bourbaki. Gageons que poser un problème et espérer l'apparition des instruments n'est pas vain, puisque c'est-ce que fit Galilée avec le succès qu'on lui connaît : il n'est pas nécessaire d'avoir une formalisation précise pour faire de la science, il suffit de proposer des observables et de les associer à des grandeurs dont on évalue ensuite leur pertinence.

Si la partie urbaine et géopgraphique est inférable, ne peut-on aussi imaginer des couplages qui engendrent des effets secondaires.

Par exemple, si tu regardes une ville, les lieux publiques pour survivre sont souvent concentrés dans des lieux appelés en Bretagne «rue de la Soif».

J'ai fait une constatation amusante à Montréal, Paris, et dans les villes de banlieue : l'espace vitale n'est pas le même en fonction du milieu socio économique. Les personnes issues de famille propriétaires ont tendance à avoir un espace supérieur toléré largement supérieur à des gens issus de famille de locataire.

Il en résulte que dans les villes où la gentrification s'installe, les espaces publiques sont raréfiés. Après tout qui a besoin de rencontrer ses amis à l'extérieur, quand il peut organiser ses pinces fesses dans son lieu de vie ? D'où une tolérance moins grande pour des espaces qui perdent de leur légitimité.

La compression sociale en périphérie et le gentry spreading impact donc les classes populaires en les privant de lieux publics. On notera la concentration des milices municipales, nationales utilisées comme des épouvantails anti pauvres et le refus des agents publics de déployer les forces de l'ordre par logique de densité de population, mais par densité de richesses.

Quels sont les impacts de perte de lieux publics ? Il devient dur voir impossible pour les populations d'obtenir les densités d'évènements nécessaires à leur promotion sociales, culturelles et intellectuelles.

Au niveau mathématique, il est quasi certain qu'un Hamiltonien décrivant des liaison holonômes, et probablement des matrices de transition sont à imaginer à ce point. Il est assez probables au vu des liaisons de cause à effet qu'on mettra en évidence des boucles d'amplifications croisées. Il est assez probable que ceci résultera en une possibilité de modéliser des agents hétérogènes sur une matrice de voisinage que l'on pourra faire évoluer en fonction d'un monté-carlo pondéré par la densité d'aléas avec propagation des effets aux voisinages. Le temps est l'accident des accidents, il en résultera que la raréfaction des échanges souhaités (vs subis) résulte pour les populations les plus denses d'une raréfaction des possibilités pour les agents les plus démunis d'avoir une promotion sociale.

Comprenons que la vraie richesses est d'être connue.

Un individu coupé de la place publique ne peut être respecté, élu, voir sa culture représentée.

Il est aussi à noter que dans toutes les villes, la Culture, l'expression publiques sont réglementées. Il n'est pas rare lors des fêtes de la Musique de voir nos édiles faire décalisser de scène des musiques de sauvage (dites populaires) au profit de musiques dites savantes, voir inspirantes (pour ne pas dire religieuses).

À quoi peut servir un science de la dynamique sociale ?

Après tout, à quoi sert la science si ce n'est à être utile ?

Heureux que vous demandiez !

L’asymétrie de la pression sociale, et son évolution sociale doivent pouvoir éventuellement être corrélé à la richesse des Nations.

Les classes populaires sont celles sur lesquelles les tâches ardues de la création de richesse repose sans que forcément elles en bénéficient, on peut se demander en dehors de toute considération de morales, de Loi, ou autre si c'est utile.

Utile sur le point de vue écologique, médicale, économique ?

Est-ce qu'un état qui favorise le monopole obtenu par la reproduction des inégalités de naissance peut gagner dans un contexte de concurrence mondiale ?

Là, je peux pas répondre directement. Mais, que ce soit la crise de 1929, les révolutions de 1848, 1789 on a des clairs indices qu'un système basé sur l'amplification de la reproduction sociale au détriment d'une juste concurrence se fera tauler par des états plus libéraux.

Quand je parle de libéralisme je parle d'une régulation des marchés où  une pomme est une pomme, un mètre un mètre, un produit bio est garanti bio, une bière est une bière ....

Je parle d'un système où l'accès à la capacité de production n'est pas basé sur le fait d'aller voir un banquier, et d'être validé par des corporatismes verreux hérité de la monarchie, mais où tout citoyen pourvu qu'il est responsable légalement et financièrement des torts que ses défauts de production peut engendrer qu'il paie ses impôts et se soumet aux inspections peut directement mettre une table dans la rue pour vendre sa production tant qu'il ne ment pas sur ce qu'il vend.

Pour ça, il faut des régulations qui empêche la distorsion de concurrence.

Un marché où les travailleurs sont moins libres de bouger que les entreprises, n'est pas un marché libéral. Un marché où certains travailleurs sont plus découragés que d'autres à faire valoir leurs droits n'est pas un marché libre.

Enfin, j'espère que l'on peut extraire de ceci une vraie science sociale (au sens de prédictive, liée à des observables accessibles à tous, reproductible) permettant de répondre à la question :

Art. 1er. -
Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l'utilité commune. 

Je pense qu'une telle science permettrait de mesurer l'utilité commune des distinctions, et si comme je le suppose la déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen a un bug en ayant deux injonctions contradictoires il nous faudra peut être rédiger une nouvelle DDHC.

Où serait le bug ?

Du fait de la survivance de fait de la loi salique la propriété héritée renforce une distinction sociale qui va à l'encontre de l'utilité commune.

Il va donc falloir choisir si nous voulons diviniser la propriété ou aimer les hommes. C'est l'article 17 contre l'article 1.

Je pense qu'à ce point aucune science ne peut dire objectivement ce que chacun souhaite. Mais je trouve chouette de pouvoir aider à poser clairement une question sociale et de future de la Nation :
Voulons nous sacraliser la propriété (la richesse à court terme (50 ans) de la Nation) ou protéger la richesse à long terme ?

Ces 2 articles fondateurs de la République sont en conflits, et le poids de l'article 17 est en train de faire tourner au rouge tous les articles de la DDHC.

Il n'y a pas de mal à vouloir vivre esclave soit même en espérant un aléa qui viendra probablement jamais d'être soi même un esclavagiste.

Moi évidemment, j'ai ma préférence. Comme la majorité de la population, mon kiki est de plus en plus serré par la pauvreté, donc je vote pour l'article 1 et contre l'article 17. Mais, ça n'est plus une logique scientifique, c'est une logique politique, celle de croire que je préfère une société libérale à une société aristocratique.

Qu'est ce que le Tiers État? v2017

Ceci est une tentative de réactualiser dans ses mots et non ses idées un texte qui traite ce que l'on appelle aujourd'hui les 95%

Je conseille de lire le pamphlet original : Qu'est-ce que le Tiers État? (d'Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès prêtre catholique français, Membre de l'Académie française ())

Le plan de cet écrit est assez simple.

Nous avons trois questions à nous faire :
1º Qu’est-ce que le tiers état ? Tout.
2º Qu’a-t-il été jusqu’à présent dans l’ordre politique ? Rien.
3º Que demande-t-il ? À être quelque chose.

Ici il ne sera traité que de la première question.


Chapitre premier. Le tiers état est une nation complète.

Que faut-il pour qu’une nation subsiste et prospère ? Que tous aient accès aux ressources nécessaires à leur survie. Pour cela on peut identifier qu'il faut une fonction publiques et des métiers particuliers :

Les métiers peuvent être découpés comme suit :
  1. ceux qui fournissent les matières premières (eaux, minerais et énergies) et cultivent le sol (le primaire);
  2. ceux qui les transportent et vendent, mais aussi l'industrie qui par composition et transformation créent de nouveaux produit et rajoutent de la valeur (secondaire);
  3. entre la production et la consommation le commerce et le négoce qui permettent une optimisation des ressources en les stockant ou les écoulant sur d'autres marchés (tertiaire) ;
  4. enfin, les professions libérales, scientifiques et parfois moins estimée de services à la personne qui apportent conforts et progrès (quaternaire/service) ;
Tels sont les secteurs industriels qui soutiennent la sociétéet dont les acteurs sont le tiers état. 

Les fonctions publiques peuvent également, se ranger toutes sous quatre dénominations: 
  1. le maintien de l'ordre
  2. la fonction judiciaire et légale,
  3. l'éducation
  4. et l’administration. 
Quelque soit la fonction ou le métier, il est aisé de constater que le tiers états correspond à 95% de la population qui est chargé de tout ce qui est vraiment pénible et que les privilégiés refusent de remplir sans accepter que le salaire soit lié à la peine.

Les places lucratives et honorifiques seules y sont occupées par des membres de l’ordre privilégié.

Est-ce mérité ?

Il faudrait pour cela que le tiers état refusât ces places ou qu'il soit inapte à les remplir. Cependant, de par une reproduction sociale au niveau de l'école et une barrière de diplôme on a barré toute une partie de la population vers les places qui rapporte gloire et argent. Il y a bien d'anecdotiques exceptions, mais les exceptions ne font pas une vérité statistique. Et pour le reste du peuple que l'on traite de fainéant qui aurait refusé de travailler à l'école, ce permanent rappel de l'injustice qui lui est faite sonne comme une insulte permanente.


Faisons nous l'avocat du Diable, au moins : est-ce utile à la Chose Publique (Res Publica)?

Comment peut-on imaginer qu'un monopole n'ai jamais rien donné de bon?

Il démotive les écartés (95%) et en l'absence de compétition fait perdre leur compétences aux favorisés.

A-t'on oublié que l'absence de concurrence se fait en perdant qualité et compétitivité?

A-t'on oublié que quand on crée un ordre social privilégié quand un de ses membres travaille il s'attend à ce que son salaire ne  le nourrisse plus lui seul, mais aussi femmes, enfants et tout ceux de la caste qui ne sont pas salariés ?

A-t'on oublié qu'un système de caste pareil à celui de l'Égypte antique ou de la Jérusalem des marchands du temples et philistins et contraire aux valeurs chrétiennes de la nation ? [NDLR : l'auteur du texte original est un prêtre catholique]

On voit ici qu'un ordre privilégié ne va pas servir la plupart ; on constate que tout ce qui est pénible retombe sur les épaules de la majorité ; que les places supérieures sont remplies par les incompétents au lieu de l'être la récompense du talent ou des services reconnus. Cet été de fait est une iniquité odieuse pour les citoyens et une trahison de la Chose Publique (République).

Faut-il vraiment être con pour pas voir que l'on peut se passer des 5% privilégiés de la Nation l'améliorerait au lieu de l'amputer ?

Qu'est que le tiers état ? (les 95%) Un tout entravé et opprimé.

Que serait-il sans les privilégiés? Un tout, libre et florissant. Les privilèges ne renforcent pas la Nation, mais l'affaiblissent et lui nuise. Les 5% privilégiés de la Nation sont une charge pas un atout.

Oh certes, on peut trouver des fainéants, infirmes, profiteurs de toute sorte dans la majorité oppressée, comme dans toutes les parties de la Nation incapables d'avoir une activité productive.

L’exception et l’abus sont partout à côté de la règle, et surtout dans un vaste empire. Mais au moins conviendra-t-on que, moins il y a de ces abus, mieux l’état passe pour être ordonné. Le plus mal ordonné de tous serait celui où non seulement des particuliers isolés, mais une classe entière de citoyens mettrait sa gloire à rester immobile au milieu du mouvement général et saurait consommer la meilleure part du produit, sans avoir participer à le créer.

Une telle classe est assurément étrangère à la nation par sa fainéantise. L’ordre privilégié est étranger au peuple par ses prérogatives civiles et publiques.

Qu’est-ce qu’une nation ?

Des gens vivant sous une loi commune et représentés par le même gouvernement.

Quel est le résultat d'un corps social qui se privilégie et se soustrait aux impôts, à l'obéissance à la loi, et requiert un droit séparé ? Un ordre qui se refuse à vivre avec le peuple dans la nation, un empire dans l'empire (imperium in imperio).

Les privilégiés à ses représentants qui ne représentent qu'eux même, étranger à la nation, dont la légitimité n'est plus celle du peuple, mais celle de défendre son intérêt particulier étranger au tiers.

Qu’est-ce que le tiers ? Tout, la Nation.

....

Suite au prochaine épisode, sur demande explicite (c'est hyper cool à lire, mais Dieux que c'est lourd à traduire :))

Wasted years

2080 1st January

Time for a medical visit.

In 2049 the great revolution came, it was called the what the fuck revolution.

Imagine billions of persons pissed at the way the worl is unfair but unable to come to a consensus other than let's over throw these nations, and then agree to disagree.

So as the revolution came from Internet and people were not too likely to riot in the streets something horrible appeared: the great Net Split.

It may seems a bad news, but it was in fact a good news. People learned to value information. Some gateways existed provided by flying carrier, old landline modems that were reactivated... You cannot imagine the inventivity of idiotic people.

OS where however drifting, different updates being applied in different nets... It was as if to avoid any consensus Nations where purposefully building a Babel tower.

And people realized a radical change should be enforced with a small heavily packed piece of information: a single sentence.

A nation should not own our ass, we should be free to choose our government according to our beliefs.


And so in a lot of confusion an idiotic motto made the biggest confusing revolution in the world: people actually decided that systems of government should be like a religion. There are conditions to meet and accept to enter any of them. People can change, and all Nations share the same unique territory with an arbitration of the other government.

Basically, at the age of around 18, you could ask in any country of the world to change your nationality. Then you would have a «national service», and then you could live like a free citizen. You could choose a royalist nation, a socialist, an anarchist or a liberal one. Each one applying his own rules and taxes on the same territory.

So what his the nation I chose?


The harmonic house of glass.

A nation based on the idea that the only stuff that his precious is our time of happiness in good health on earth. That a nation should treasure what is precious.

So basically it is a nation based on an extensive health and social insurance.

We are harmonic because if ever you have an expected lifetime of 100 years or 10 years left then national service duration is a part of your lifetime so that anyone can enjoy their lives and be part of the system.

An house of glass, because the only way to entrust your personal data is either to hide them deep, or show them to the face of the world.

In exchange for our belonging to the nation HHG requires that every citizens always answer truly to any verifiable questions.

Thanks to this, our citizens are rented at very high prices in other states, as public servant.


So today, I will have my revised medical visit to re-evaluate my national service length in regard to the new addiction I caught working as an accountant for a recreational drug based nation. And I will evaluate the cost benefit of keeping it or not with my physicist.

I would have the time, I would gladly write about all the absurdities of such a political system, and why my doctor strongly encouraged keeping on the hallucination to keep my mental health.

At first this revolution looked promisiing, but

Google's silent autodafé

TL; DR google is not evil, blocking access to relevant information is just a side effect of its business model:

google silent autodafé rule is : any knowledge that is not generating a revenue stream does not deserve to be shown to you

Years ago, after a «burn out», because I am library rat I used my usual paper based routine to dig information on the topic.

Before I go for «new text», I always go in the past to see if there was no precedent to a bigger extent of a phenomenon we know. The rationale being if a phenomenon was extreme at this time hence it would have been easier to study. (How to do science with a Hammer (function)).

My topic was why am I feeling like shit after 60 hours work per week?

So instead of looking for burn-out in google I went for what were the reason to limit working weekly hours to 48hours.

Through an interesting journey on google I found something that I love! Figures and charts with close to unethical experiments on human beings.

It is called the scandal of the ammunition UK 1916. Long story short: WWI saw the prevalence of death per explosive during conflicts, hence winning a war was a question of optimizing the chain of production to maximize the throughput.

Until 1900 (or 2000?) there was a belief productivity was linear to the number of hours worked, and after a lot of patriotic propaganda, workers were pumped up to work willingly extra hours for the same money, and then all hell broke loose: productivity plunged, but more importantly quality; UK explosives were killing tommies because of defects.

So, the UK army did extensive unethical studies justified by war time on humans to scientifically establish the parameters influencing production and generating this mess.

Long story short:
- peak of productivity is 30 something hours;
- peak of productivity when accepting non lethal defects in production is 48hours;
- night works harm;
- the health cost due to burn out far outweighs the benefit in produced units after 48h weekly hours.

48hrs is not the optimum, it is the optimum degraded mode acceptable during wartime when it is okay to push workers above their limit to get a 7% increase in production in exchange for reduced quality.

Just so you know this was a thing USA adopted the 48hrs week in 1917 because they saw obvious business benefits. And O.I.T. later made it an international obligation that is on par in our states with Geneva convention on war law, and IP convention.

A lot of 1900's books reachable with google used to evocate fatigue professionelle (in texto) and the cost of damages and responsibility that lied on the employers.

Just for the record 1800 to 1900 have been quite intense in terms of work conflicts.

And google would give to the astute persons a way to uncover traces of this history. It would be in google books notably.

What pisses me off is that years after years this kind of knowledge disappears from all the search engine.


But where is it now on the internet?

It is gone, and all because of an algorithm.


What matters to me is not what matters to google. Google first reason to be is profit. They make stream of revenue on ads that are either on the contents you look for, or on the keywords you enter.

So their algorithm to maximize profits tends to favour when searching topics topic who have a paywall (academic, software or normative (like IEEE)).

Pointing at anything in the public domain is a clear cost sink for them.

If you try to visualize their algorithm, you will notice it favours fresh news other older one. And it is a good idea : I don't think a physical teaching of 1760 he is on par in terms of relevance with a 2017 teaching.

Basically, they modulate their relevance with a temporal curve. Probably and amortized exponential, that has a strong cut around anything that is not protected by patrimonial right.

It is probably not intended but a side effect of an algorithm optimizing the revenues.

No need to be a genius to guess the google engineers made the sin of any mechanical engineers : they put a positive feedback loop in their algorithm.

If you are good at "machine learning", why not teach your search engine to return the more relevant search results that maximizes your incomes? Resulting in the fact that any free content that doesn't generate revenue thus become irrelevant. They still are on the internet: but google will not give you the link to reach them.

Yes of course NEW materials tends to be more relevant than old one. But, it is far from being always the case. Like in the case of old established knowledge like: vaccination, Fourier transform, thermodynamic ....

You know in 1804 Fourier, one of the father of thermodynamics clearly stated human activity is responsible for global warming, and because of a small mistake in calculation, he concluded it was a good thing since according to him we were condemned to die in cold otherwise. The demonstration is still totally relevant. But it is not Fourier simple and clear demonstration that bubbles up in google : it is either the anti-climate BS or GIEC smoke-screen that comes up. The 1804 thesis of Fourier on global warming SHOULD BE in the top 10 choices when asking about global warming scientific basis.

I can also point you to "out of internet" knowledge that proves Fourier's calculation are not relevant anymore: trees and plants have moved up to 200kms/decade to colder places. But it comes from out of the web knowledge, people counting plants and insects around the world in (paper) notebooks.



It is funny that the anti-ageism and pro-tech bias of google seems to be at least a reality in its search algorithm.

Google silent autodafé rule is : any knowledge that is not generating a revenue stream does not deserve shown to you, hence any knowledge that is more than 70 years old.


Well, what we are doing is stupid anyway.


Imagine you have a public library, but do not want to have librarian because they cost to much.

So you give a company this mission saying just finance yourself.

The librarian goes to the bookshop and says I have business model idea: for every 10 search I submit to a reader I put one to a book you sell in exchange for a share of generated income.

This way you fund new knowledge while preserving the old one.


Readers also benefit from having updated knowledges.

The problem is that in medio stat virtue. Too much of any is stupid.

Only old news would leave us in a crusted world where no progress would be possible.

Only new contents condemn us to reinvent the wheel poorly by forgetting the basic knowledge.

Google does not care, they are not a librarian, they are a business. google is not a search engine, it is an ad based streaming revenue generator empowering any companies able to make people pay to access to data.

My conclusion is we all used so much google we forgot about Shannon definition of information: H = k ln (O) (where O is the ratio of relevant choices over total choices).

If google was useful to gather information we would have a rarefaction of choices to organically point to fewer and fewer relevant choices.

If google algorithm was information based it would tend towards losing revenues, and having its users lose revenues. At the opposite, google is in a position to create artificial revenues to make you pay for information that are publicly available out of the proposed choices. Google has a direct incentive to block you from publicly relevant accessible content so that the ads buyers can generate revenues. It does effectively hide information.

Google is NOT evil. Google is just like a rational good gear in a malfunctioning clock.

Sometimes there is no one evil but the rules of the game we play. Necessity may be evil, but there is still no necessity to leave under the realm of evil.

My conclusion is actual societies are immature thus sucking big balls at understanding the simple challenge raised by the con behind the Information Technology sector.

Information Technology is not about giving access to information, it is totally the opposite due to the incentive of the market.


Terrorism is there to hide the true threat

Terrorism has a fishy history in  France

French propaganda during WWII collaboration
Let's say a young neglected ginger teen fishy smell

The treatment of what would be called heroes during WWII in France

When you see most of the persons that were actually powerful before, during WWII were still in power after the liberation, some do wonder if the France of the elite actually should not have been condemned with the nazis.


Terrorism has been used in France as an excuse to screen and archive every one's particularities (religion, opinions, ethnicity....) and then officially condemn them. Or deport them to death camps.

They turned the word terror as an excuse to protect the citizens and then take on the most vulnerable ones. All of this in the name of the higher reason of security...

Before terrorist it was named the agent of the enemy like ... the captain Dreyfus.

Nothing changes in french history, people using the words terrorism or the hidden enemies have a tendency to attack themselves the one they pretend to defend.


Let's be real ; the money of terrorism make Euro powerful.

For money laundering you have 3 options: USA based, Europe based, UK based.

And that's one reason Google, Amazon, Facebook ... don't pay taxes in Europe. Because we have custom made international rules to permit fiscal evasion and money laundering. The GAFA just used this circuits, hence that is the reason why they won't pay taxes.

But guess what, Mr Durand who is a hardcore human-and-weapon-and drug trafficking beast wants to enjoy his week ends with his 2 years old daughter. He share his stories about his kid with me.

Mr Durand wants his money locally. He cannot use the money too obviously, he just gets lucky in deals.

A company in Monaco, Delaware, or the Caïman may propose him a good lease for a car, or nice opportunity in real estates.

Yes, money of crime finally drop down in the real world. The trickle down reality of blood money.


It is invested in stuff in which you pay 3 times.


  • Art: a market that is artificially being kept afloat through national collections and sponsoring;
  • Stock options: which market is artificially high thanks to the free money the tax payers;
Real Estate is the worse: you pay the rent, fund the urban planning of government and fund the access to the property and pay it as a part of the costs of having retail surface distinct from living places.

Money laundering makes our economies turn into valuation of rents, like during victorian era, early or mid XXth.

It amplifies a winner takes all effects. And of course, losers don't like it. Because the only justification for this hierarchy is an arbitrary divide based on randomness of fortune most of it being inherited.


Let me tell you, take the best singers their offspring are often overvalued (except Kid Rock) compared to random singers. And worst comes at 3rd generation.


A society of feudalism maybe totally suiting my hardcore RPG background. However the point of fantasies is that it is not as a reality. Feudality is a dream in the it's good to be bad register, having fun and lashing out for the duration of a game.

I don't want to leave in a society left to pedantic whom power was only granted by the luck of birth.

It makes boring societies where you feel smart too easily but can't achieve anything. A tedious boring easy game you lose because of shitty controls and you need cheat codes to win. Like seriously? No gamers in their right mind want such a dystopian world.

The true threat is tax evasion and the fact a society based on inheritance makes us go back to the state of our societies before wars.

And that these societies have been calling terrorists anyone but the terrorists they were dealing with to have their fat earnings.

Basically with fiscal evasion we create a vicious circle where crime pays. And the more criminal you are, the more it pays. A money crime that slowly the corrupt more and more of the governments.

How We Could Make Coder's Union Successful

Last week I wrote an article on how I thought software industry was flawed for its lack of liability. In one week things changed: a coder is sentenced to 40 months in jail for having written a software.

Time has come to protect our asses from decision we were imposed.

Boring part what is it about having a profession (beruf)?

- having responsibility that fits your authority; 
- being paid for every hours spent to produce, including commuting for your work; 
- having hygienic work conditions that wont harm you (fuck crunches, open-spaces, poor chairs/lighting); 
- having standards in cleaning (yes cleaning is important, stuff like nice PR, documentations...); 
- LIABILITY we have to accept we are liable for things in exchange for authority; 
- ETHIC, we must have the right to refuse to code programs that in our knowledge opposes the common laws (like privacy, embezzlement, fiscal fraud, consumers rights to be informed...); 
- the respect of IP laws, I am bored of seeing people STEAL free/open source software and claim it is theirs, it we take part in doing so we are negating the value our very own work...

At my opinion this is the minimal package a coder's union should grant.

Once you have a well defined perimeter, you defend it. And here comes the how

It is easy. I know IT generation  is supposed to not be able to read book, but it is a lie. 

All unions are based on the same patterns:


fight for your right


to party... (beasty boys' joke). No actually unions are actually base on fighting for your rights.

Imagine you are like how do I start a union?

Literature is extensive on the topic: pick your fight and stick with it. And begin with the easiest one.

I would go for the LIABILITY part. 

I would create an legal association that can accept money and fund lawsuit for any topic where there is an easy win when a coder is held  responsible for a decision he was not having having authority.

Why? Because authority on a topic define a proficiency. 

If you are held responsible for decision, then it is your job. If you don't have the authority and the wages going with it you are being fucked. And the rest comes with it.

So a union basic mission is to fight for the recognition of a profession: the alignment between authority and responsiblity.

Hence, it turns into wages.

Nowadays, most managers that are paid more than you and know nothing about coding are going to force feed you dependencies in your project. Probably because their 16 yo kids just took their first computer out of its card-box. I like the idea of innovation. As long as risks are in sync with earnings.

A manager of a coder never get responsible of his choices, but since DieselGate we know we can go in jail for someone's else choice.

Are we paid as much as the managers? Hell no. Do we risk more than them? Hell yes.

What the fuck?!



Prove yourself useful

 

Coders do not live as a separate entity from the society.

A lot of topics where their knowledge can be useful exists: consumer's rights, legal expertise, education.

A union should also break the asymmetry of information between most common people and the other part of the society. However most of us have got these infamous Non Disclosure Agreement floating on our heads that are unethical.

Maybe a product is violating your civil rights, your consumers' rights and because we are individuals against big corporations we can do nothing.

Unions could be a way to protect whistle blowers and their rights to exists.


Unions could also tell students the real expected wages in regard to their tuition. Avoiding people to live as slaves of useless student loans.

Maybe a union could help citizens that are off the grid of "usable" internet connection have access to better connections?


Leveraging Internet

I recognize that FSF, OSI and CC have some «knowledge» on IP laws that are thanks to international conventions: global. I also do acknowledge the importance of Intellectual Property laws

However, I don't like any of the aforementioned organizations.

I don't know for you, but I know for myself I do accept disagreement as a fruitful form of evolution. I do not know anything about the future of any coder's union, however I am certain IP laws are central to this.

At my opinion, future unions should no be ashamed to begin locally and challenge global organization such WIPO, FSF, CC, WTO...


Where do I sign?

You don't sign: either you tell me of coder's union I am not aware of (0 so far), or you think of starting one yourself. My own location is probably far away for your own thus I am useless to you: a lot differ especially the costs of lawsuits, their odds of success, the cost of funding a union, and funding a strike.


Sometimes your future is up to you.