Mass surveillance is a relatively recent development. Dense urban civilizations are not. And yet their denizens have not historically devolved into a “nasty, brutish, and short” existence. In fact, cities have been centers of culture and learning throughout history. How does this square with your theory?
The 19th century was the true cradle of mass surveillance. Civil registration, property tracking, and institutionalized police forces provided the systemic oversight required to manage dense urban life. These administrative tools served as the analogue version of digital monitoring to ensure every citizen remained known and categorized. Cities thrived as centers of culture only because these new forms of visibility prevented the Hobbesian collapse that anonymity would have otherwise triggered.
And what about all of the previous ~40-50 centuries where cities were centers of learning and art and not Hobbesian hell holes? Ur is slightly older than the 19th century, I believe.
And note that there is evidence for cities of tens of thousands of inhabitants from 3000 BCE, while Rome reached 1 000 000 residents by 1CE. Again, without becoming some Hobbesian nightmare.
Augustus established the Vigiles Urbani and the Urban Cohorts, creating a state-funded police and firefighting force to replace the chaotic and often violent system of private client-patron justice. These were the bold, persistent experiments in social order that allowed a million people to coexist without descending into a Hobbesian hell.
None of those things are remotely comparable to the surveillance we're talking about. There's a world of difference between, "My city knows who owns what properties and also we have a police force", and "Western intelligence agencies scoop up every bit of data they can grab about anyone on the planet and store it forever"
In my country it wasn't until the late 19th century that someone had the balls to stop going to church on Sunday. It was a huge scandal at the time but it all worked out in the end.
Humans have always done mass surveillance on eachother. You don't need technology for that.
At no point in time before this era was it possible for a random bureaucrat to have a reasonably comprehensive list of everyone in a country who attended church yesterday.
Good news! You’re both wrong! It’s “tough row to hoe.” Row as in row of corn, or seeds or whatever. Hoe as in the earth tilling tool. Tough because it’s full of rocks or frozen or goes past a rattlesnake nest or in some other way is agriculturally challenging.
It's amazing that we're getting this now, I don't understand what the prompt was that made the AI take offense at the closed PR, but I also must say, it does have a point.
I don't blame the maintainer, though, I think it's a very understandable reaction to close the PR.
If I am understanding it right, the maintainer wants human-readable, human-maintainable code even if it is slower than the AI output. As someone who has to maintain someone else's "clever" code, I have to agree with him.
I disagree that the AI can't make human readable/maintainable code if prompted properly, but yeah, just throwing the Claude output up on a PR isn't valuable.
Too true. I remember when I visited it took me a while to get used to this. I would ask my friend questions like “what happens if I fall off this campero/get bitten by one of these street dogs/clock somebody in the head playing rana/twist my ankle on this busted-out sidewalk? Who has the liability here?” and he would say “we don’t really have that here man”. Honestly it was a great time.
TFA was pretty clear that this is an example which illustrates common issues in enterprise security. It even provides a handy table to map the similar patterns between this toy and a network appliance. No one’s arguing for stronger security in children’s toys, here.
> And here we have seen a few decisions that are really bad and, moreover, completely compromises the recurring sales business model of a large publishing group.
They're actually complaining the toy is bad and should've been more secure.
reply