I disagree in part about the "robot wrangles", the level of skill and education required for a wrangler would be entirely dependent on the types of robots being serviced. You don't need a network architect or a computer engineer to setup, troubleshoot or service router and you won't need a roboticist to do so for a robot. I think the vast majority of those jobs will be filled by candidates who get certifications or a two year degree in robot wranglin'. Maybe there will be a CompTIA Robot+ in a couple years.
I've stopped worrying about the implications of specific trends. It's because it's clear, when piling up a dozen trends or even several that fundamental change is afoot. No one can really produce a predictive conclusion from tends anyway but the outcome is going to include the sum of the most influential trends. Unfortunately these number more than the human mind can reconcile. Maybe an expert machine with some data analysis software could make heads or tales of it; but we humans are intrinsically too stupid.
I've noticed that many trends have implications that are adverse to implications of other trends. For instance, UBI and technological unemployment. You see, humans have an evolutionary predisposition to be useful. There is also another trend in passing technologies down to the common individual. Tech like PCs, 3D printers and such. What happens when people with a lot of free time and 100+ IQs start feeling the need to improve their situation? What happens to markets that put people out of work? People are going to make their own things because UBI checks would be stretched farther. Automated gardens are now a thing too. Why not save money on food too, if you have the time?
There are some Utopians suggesting that we would just be on vacation while the automated, private sector takes care of us. Sure... and the fact that the population would essentially be a bunch of wards of the state doesn't come to mind? What happens when subsidies start dipping into the funding for UBI like it has with SS (which is payed in, rather than an entitlement BTW)? That is likely to happen; and the will to survive alone would promote levels of self-sufficiency.
On Surveillance:
Privacy is something that has been going south for hundreds of years. As hunter gatherers, we had little to no privacy. In the civilized world, there really was no better time for privacy than colonial times to the late 1800s. People lived far from others and communication tech was very primitive. The Industrial Revolution packed lots of people into small spaces and privacy took a downturn. It got a little better in the 1900s until the internet. Now we're on a path to no privacy at all. What happens when people can communicate mind to mind with implants? We have no evolutionary predisposition toward the promotion of privacy. Hunter gatherers still all know each others business.
Overall, it's clear that an uncomfortable amount of change is coming for almost everyone. It seems that people are likely to choose the lesser of the evils and another social diversification might take place.
Me personally, I'm going to be a immortal cyborg with two onsite backups and one offsite. 3 2 1 bitches!!! :-)
Samsung TVs can only be hacked with a USB drive, so the CIA needs physical access to your TV.
The report describes a malicious software installed through a physically connected USB drive which applies to firmwares on TVs sold in 2012 and 2013, most of which have already been patched through a firmware update.
What I'm saying is that it's impossible for the CIA to use this to do mass surveillance like the NSA, because CIA agents would need to break into every single house, that owns a Samsung TV.
I know. They likely largely only operate in other nations. No credible source is saying otherwise.
See:
I'd also add that the Release never alleged widespread surveillance of American citizens by the CIA. Unfortunately, a lot of MSM outlets did some egregious gun-jumping, citing Wikileaks as the source of their unverifiable claims.
I know, but when you say something like "the TV is spying on you", without mentioning the need for physical access, most people will think, that it's mass surveillance, that's done remotely.
If an average person, has heard about other mass surveillance programs, and then he hears about TVs spying on you, then he will assume, that this is also about mass surveillance.
When I first heard this news, I also assumed, that it's mass surveillance, until I found the article, that I quoted.
If I only saw this video, and heard Wendell talking about the Samsung TVs, without having this information beforehand, I would probably assume the same thing.
Huh. I just read the source material. The CIA is primarily concerned with individual assets/cases abroad, and already cooperate extensively with the NSA. Why would they need redundant infrastructure that expensive if they can just pull from NSA juice?
The reason I took issue with this initially is that a vocal minority want to cast this leak as some sort of shadowy conspiracy conducted by Trump and Russia to distract from current political goings-on in the US, using misreporting as "evidence." Enabling this narrative is far more irresponsible than not clarifying that the CIA exploits need physical access for the most part.
I barely have the time to watch these videos and to use this forum.
I don't have the time to read every single source material for every single story. And most people don't either.
The only reason, why I found the article, that I quoted, was because I was happening to watch Last Week Tonight, where John Oliver quoted the same article.
True, I'm a journalist, so I get paid to find/read/parse primary sources, meaning I'm not representative of most people's reading habits.
That said, the majority of articles directly link to primary sources (if they don't, then you shouldn't believe a word of what you read in them) and it takes maybe an extra 30 seconds to look through them.
Unfortunately, things always get lost in translation when it comes to the MSM and tech. they constantly lose the script.
