turmacar

If the message is "that circle of people in the back of the crowd are mumbling something", it doesn't matter.

More people checking out instead of getting involved means the more easily influenced are all that remain to campaign for.

IIRC they think it's weird, but importantly they still do it. He's an agent so there's Special Circumstances but they still value the choice to do it more than they do sticking to norms.

Frankly good luck finding one that isn't cheering for the LAPD, National Guard, and Marines to "control" civilians.

And what I mean is that prior to the mid 1900s the etymology didn't exist to cause that confusion of terms. Neither Babbage's machines nor prior adding engines were called computers or calculators. They were 'machines' or 'engines'.

Babbage's machines were novel in that they could do multiple types of operations, but 'mechanical calculators' and counting machines were ~200 years old. Other mathematical tools like the abacus are obviously far older. They were not novel enough to cause confusion in anyone with even passing interest.

But there will always be people who just assume 'magic', and/or "it works like I want it to".

"Computer" meaning a mechanical/electro-mechanical/electrical machine wasn't used until around after WWII.

Babbag's difference/analytical engines weren't confusing because people called them a computer, they didn't.

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

• Charles Babbage

If you give any computer, human or machine, random numbers, it will not give you "correct answers".

It's possible Babbage lacked the social skills to detect sarcasm. We also have several high profile cases of people just trusting LLMs to file legal briefs and official government 'studies' because the LLM "said it was real".

I think because it's language.

There's a famous quote from Charles Babbage when he presented his difference engine (gear based calculator) and someone asking "if you put in the wrong figures, will the correct ones be output" and Babbage not understanding how someone can so thoroughly misunderstand that the machine is, just a machine.

People are people, the main thing that's changed since the Cuneiform copper customer complaint is our materials science and networking ability. Most things that people interact with every day, most people just assume work like it appears to on the surface.

And nothing other than a person can do math problems or talk back to you. So people assume that means intelligence.

Pantone doesn't mean much when the lighting conditions change throughout the day.

Maybe maybe not. Camo is just about playing the odds, nothing works from every angle or circumstance. If tires on wings means 5% more planes survive it's probably worth it.

That's what config files are for. It would be a nightmare to hardcode weight and balance and have to recompile the HUD every time you change the loadout or refuel the plane.

Most code, algorithms, etc are not any more sensitive than the concept of desks and file cabinets. No, guidance programs for missiles probably shouldn't be put on GitHub, but there's a reason RSA and other encryption algorithms were open sourced. It's better to have more eyes looking for inefficiencies, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities than to just assume it's good because no-one on the team responsible is smart/engaged enough to find them.

A lot of functionality can be decoupled from anything that needs to be classified. A HUD is a HUD and no one should be hard coding in performance characteristics of the F-35 into it. I've also worked on government projects and holy crap does the code quality vary wildly, even before you get into "it's still working so deal with the problems, it doesn't have the budget for updates".

Using 'off the shelf' parts/code can save significant time and money. There's a reason subs use xbox controllers. Government websites and data interfaces at the very least should have the audit-ability that open source provides.

The moons of Jupiter and Saturn were called satellite planets from their discovery until sometime in the 20th century.

The first several asteroids were called planets, until enough were discovered that the term 'asteroid' was invented and they were renamed.

The first Kuiper belt objects were called planets, until enough were discovered that it turns out Pluto is mostly just a particularly reflective example.

That's very heliocentric of you.

The definition of 'planet' has changed a lot in the last few millennia.