The extraction case would only be for high-value targets (enemy military/economic/political leaders), where having them alive would give leverage on having them order their organizations to do something useful for the drone owner.

What's left are the folks for whom power and influence is a game. If they were to fuck off to the sunset and live a quiet life which harms nobody, they'd be abandoning the game. And it's become such a part of their identity that they can't live without that anymore.

Ironically, these folks are the best argument for replacing human decision making with machines. Cold, logical, emotionless machines that don't have identities or a need to win the game. Then all the folks whose sole purpose in life is controlling others would either need to find another purpose or off themself.

Also rare earths (other than promethium) are not themselves radioactive, they just tend to co-occur with uranium and thorium deposits. This is akin to your house having a radon problem though: doesn't mean your house is radioactive, just that you built it on a uranium deposit.

I do think that the development of currency is intimately connected with the development of government. The core problem government solves is dispute resolution, and I would bet that the majority of disputes come from transaction where one side does not hold up their end of the bargain. In small communities you just have the tribal elders adjudicate, but as you start doing more currency transactions between mutually-distrusting groups that can't agree on their authority figures, you need a system in place for dispute resolution. Cue states.

My point is simply that currency comes first. State formation is a consequence of extended trade networks transacting with currency, currency and trade is not a consequence of state formation. To my knowledge this is historically accurate, and there are a lot of examples of currency spontaneously arising without a state to back it.

Hell, cryptocurrency itself is a good example. We now have a viable transnational, trustless, instantaneous currency. We do not have a viable transnational trustless dispute resolution process. And we very much feel the lack, because crime and fraud is rampant in cryptocurrency transactions. Currency creates the problem that government solves. Creating a government that can go along with cryptocurrency is an unsolved exercise left to the reader.

You actually see this on a small scale today in the functioning of many small communities, eg. you don't actually exchange currency to pay the host of a party, but you are expected to reciprocate and host sometimes yourself if you want to keep getting invited. There's a surprisingly large amount of these unpaid micro-transactions that happen, eg. my wife has gotten free childcare, free advice, free (used) furniture, free baby clothes, etc, all in the heart of Silicon Valley, because she reciprocates and also gives away her old furniture, baby toys, baby clothes, advice, introductions, childcare, etc. But when we have to pay the contractor for work on our house, we need dollars. When we buy a computer, we need dollars. When we buy all those goods that we give away new, we need dollars. That again reinforces the "credit is for people you know, currency is for people you don't" distinction.

Barter is used when a previous currency system collapses. The currency is no longer guaranteed to be accepted, so people want hard goods that they know they can use. But barter is an unstable equilibrium: as you mentioned, currency is just barter where one particular good becomes so widely accepted that people will take it not because they want it, but because it can be traded for other things that they want. There are reports of the Bosnian War [2] that described how alcohol and ammo quickly became pseudo-currencies because they were universally accepted and could easily be traded for what you actually needed.

Graeber isn't wrong, but as an anthropologist he over-indexes on the within-group interactions. There are lots of documented examples of currency emerging spontaneously from trade between groups where the groups all mutually decided that one type of object had value.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49708431

[2] https://www.scribd.com/document/664716931/How-I-survived-a-y...

Cryptocurrencies have the advantage that they can be spent worldwide, instantaneously, with little friction, while most commodities require that you be physically present to exchange them. They're also significantly easier to store and more resistant to garden-variety theft, as long as they're secured by passphrases. But they exist in the uncanny valley of requiring electricity and Internet. It is fairly unlikely that the government collapses and yet you still retain always-on electricity and Internet. What will you use to pay the electric company, and how do you enforce the contract that they keep providing you power?

There's perhaps an interesting role for a digital cryptocurrency that does not require always-on connectivity, eg. something that can be carried over SneakerNet for local transactions, and then automatically syncs up with the global system when the community regains Internet connectivity. In actual conflict zones today, people seem to get intermittent electrical & Internet connectivity, eg. the electricity will come on for an hour a day with rolling blackouts, and then you try to get everything charged in that one hour. And there are enough solar installations out there that several communities are likely to retain significant power even in the event of a societal collapse. But current crypto's consensus mechanisms aren't built for intermittent connectivity: you'd need to build and design something that is eventually consistent, where a weeks-long fork does not result in two competing cryptocurrencies.

In some ways this is kinda encouraging, because it means that even in cases where society collapses and the government disappears, there are really only two fundamental technologies needed to reboot everything: money and contracts.

The next Snowden disclosure (MUSCULAR) was significantly more concerning though. It was that the NSA was tapping the internal fiber of Big Tech companies. I was at Google when the Snowden disclosures broke, and read the SRE postmortem. They found 2 fiber cuts underneath the English Channel, an hour apart, lining up with the start of the program as disclosed by Snowden. My inference is that the NSA paid off MI6 to send a submarine commando team to cut and tap the fiber of an American company, without consent, and then all the data was shared through Five-Eyes reciprocal data sharing agreements. Google leadership was hopping mad after this, but it would've been impolitic to bring it to the public. They started encrypting all internal traffic soon after, assuming that their internal network was compromised by various nation-state actors, which had some unfortunate effects on their internal culture of openness.

Traditionally cybercrimes have been prosecuted by the victim going to their local PD (or the FBI) with the IP address of the offender, and then law enforcement subpoenas the ISP associated with that IP address to figure out the customer associated with that account, and then they have a case for prosecution. It all works as long as cybercriminals are less numerous than law enforcement, fall in the same jurisdiction (or in jurisdictions that have reciprocal extradition treaties), and have a real identity that can be tied to their online activities.

Now, many law enforcement agencies are tied up prosecuting political opponents of their bosses. To the extent that they have bandwidth to investigate and prosecute ordinary crimes, they're going to prioritize the ones that target a.) the government that backs them (of which there are many - you see another headline about the government being hacked every week or so on HN) b.) major corporations that have sophisticated IT systems that can aid prosecution or c.) headlines that will get their boss a PR boost and themselves a promotion. Your personal website does not register among those priorities. You probably can't even prove damages from the intrusion itself. The perpetrator might be a Russian bot that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over, or a Canadian teen that the U.S. previously might've been able to prosecute with reciprocal judicial treaties but now has no leverage over because we've blown up our relationship with Canada. It may be legally a crime, but economically it's not worth prosecution.

Traditionally security researchers had to be very careful because they were doing everything above-board, with their real identity attached to their actions, and they made a very attractive (and PR-worthy) target. Somebody who's port-scanning from Russia through a VPN or residential proxy network is a.) anonymous b.) untraceable c.) out of U.S. jurisdiction and d.) not a headline-worthy target anyway.

A couple years ago I predicted here that a lot of things will break as the U.S. transitions from a high-trust to a low-trust society. This is one of them. Much of our justice system works well when criminals are rare and utterly falls apart when they're ubiquitous.

The sole advantage of Rust over C or C++ is that the borrow-checker provides a set of guardrails for the AI so that certain classes of bugs become impossible to generate, and then the compiler error will feed back to the AI so that it knows it's gone off the rails. This is a common failure mode for AI: frequently it does what you tell it to, but then its attention mechanism isn't on things like security or robustness and so it unknowingly introduces a crash or memory safety violation. The sole advantage over Java is that it generates faster code, which is normally something you have to prompt the AI to do. All the stuff about programmer ergonomics or ecosystem health is meaningless, because there are no programmers.

There's a bunch of threads going on simultaneously on HN now about how people often misuse AI by applying rules of thumb learned from doing things as a professional to what they prompt the AI to do, rather than just asking it directly for what you want. This is one of those cases. Many of the rules of thumb of professional programming no longer hold under the radically different economics of AI-driven development.

C introduces the possibility of memory-safety issues, which are deadly in server software that's exposed to the Internet. And AI, from what I've seen, is not all that great at writing software with zero memory bugs.

Rust closes the memory safety holes, at the cost of making the programmer think through ownership and architecture much more carefully. Those are exactly the skills that AI is good at. So if you want something fast and are writing it with AI anyway, why not have the AI generate Rust code?

FWIW, my community is 30% foreign-born and we don't really have any social cohesion problems. I think that length of time in the country actually matters more than the absolute number of immigrants; people who have been here since they were teens are very well acculturated. But if I were to put numbers on how many new people a group can absorb per year without radically changing its culture, I'd put it at about 10% (that's like having one new person on a 10 person team hired within the last year). If we extrapolated to the whole U.S. population and assumed they were all evenly distributed, this'd be 34M people/year.

Honestly, I think the bigger problem is that they're not evenly distributed. Some places in America never change, over generations, and remain very suspicious of outsiders. Other places become 80% immigrant over a span of 10-15 years, and then they never talk to anyone outside their ethnic background. In not very long, you end up with multiple different Americas that can't relate to each other. The parable of the polygons is very relevant here:

https://ncase.me/polygons/

I think the logic behind being anti-immigrant are "These people don't follow our culture" and "These people don't contribute to American society", then we should have objective criteria that addresses that. Time in U.S. is a proxy for acculturation; so measure that. And taxes paid is a direct financial measure of how much they have contributed to the American government. Both of these are extremely easy to ascertain from official records, so take the corruption and the human guesswork out of it and make clear and consistent rules that address the objectives you're trying to attain.