Hey Bill maintained that the browser wasn’t a browser it would be defined as an operating system.
This video is a highlights video and so I don’t know if it includes Bill trying to say that Microsoft’s browser wasn’t a browser at all.
I watched the whole interview which is several hours long and I don’t recall which one has the browser debate. For some reason, I got mesmerized by the guys willingness to lie while obviously thinking he was outsmarting the interviewer by using technical jargon or crap distractions. A Bill Clinton type performance. It goes something like this: You received an email with this information. No I didn’t. Shows the email. That email doesn’t contain what you said. Reads what it said. The email doesn’t say that. What did I just read. At Microsoft we use a xyz system with techno jargon and more techno jargon. All to try to maintain that an email is only what is typed by the author of the email so embedded information, attached or forwarded information isn’t an email. Did you read this information? I don’t know I get so much information. This email is from person X which was your direct report correct? Person X used to work over in the z department and then he worked in the y department. Ok was he your direct report when he sent you this email. I cannot recall if he had that job at that time. This email is dated 2 years ago. Was he your direct report on that date? Sally Y had the job of …
My point being perhaps best illustrated by that paleo-libertarian icon, Lysander Spooner’s quote:
All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck.
What invariably happens to this arrangement is the geometric economy of scale that makes territorial area increase as the square of its boundary (more or less) – granting a de facto monopoly on force over contiguous territorial areas that bound each other. The thing that most libertarians (paleo and neo alike) fail to comprehend is that such patchwork territories go back to individual male intrasexual selection that arose just after predation appears in the fossil record – there by reducing interdeme gene flow and thereby increasing the rate of speciation (ie: explosion of species diversity). This is why, as an alternative to mano-a-mano individual combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing, I’ve offered Sortocracy’s rules regarding assortative migration, with prohabition on prisons but absolute tolerance of any kind of exclusion for any reason whatsoever by a group occupying such a “patch” of territory (the value of which is allocated on a per capita bidding basis).
I’ve thought this through quite thoroughly and it is about the closest that we can come to a compromise between genuine individual sovereignty and civilization as we would like to know it given the reality of the human animal.
Such is “journalism” in the 21st century. A person who chooses to separate his professional career from commentary on controversial contemporary issues has his identity dug out by a “reporter”, graduate of Harvard “Law” “School”, whose previous employment was at BuzzFeed, Spotify, and Facebook, and smeared all over the slimy slick pages of Forbes, which used to call itself a “Capitalist Tool”.
Forbes has learned that the Jezos persona is run by a former Google quantum computing engineer named Guillaume Verdon who founded a stealth AI hardware startup Extropic in 2022. Forbes first identified Verdon as Jezos by matching details that Jezos revealed about himself to publicly available facts about Verdon. A voice analysis conducted by Catalin Grigoras, Director of the National Center for Media Forensics, compared audio recordings of Jezos and talks given by Verdon and found that it was 2,954,870 times more likely that the speaker in one recording of Jezos was Verdon than that it was any other person. Forbes is revealing his identity because we believe it to be in the public interest as Jezos’s influence grows.
“We believe it to be in the public interest”, eh. And thus they defend this violation of the author’s privacy with this sanctimonious statement,
(Revealing the name behind an anonymous account of public note is not “doxxing,” which is an often-gendered form of online harassment that reveals private information — like an address or phone number — about a person without consent and with malicious intent.)
Well, I think that you, dear smirking Emily, deserve to spend 18 hours in the public pillory somewhere South of Market in San Francisco, where those you expose to public scorn and retribution can respond to your “journalism” with the wilted vegetables of disapprobation.
I would not think of “doxxing” Emily—why, that might be considered “gendered”—but seeing as she’s published her E-mail (ebakerwhite@forbes.com or emilybakerwhite@protonmail.com) at Forbes, why don’t you drop her a line and tell her what you think of her “journalism”?
An alternative hypothesis would be that the Forbes piece is “earned publicity” as part of a public relations effort to promote the effective accelerationism ideas. Most of the promoters of that concept come from Silicon Valley and know a thing or two about stimulating demand.
I did as you “suggested”. Here is what I sent her:
" Dear Ms White,
What you did to Jezos/Verdon IS DOXING - in it’s basest form. It was revealing someone’s private information merely for your and Forbes profit. Shame on you. Whole sections of the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonym for the purpose of stimulating discussion without the bias of a well-known name to colour things. You might do well to learn a bit of history before plunging into this mire as you did.
nes"
I sent it from my e-mail so she can see it’s a real person - who she doesn’t know.
