I give a talk on AI-generated images, and I use this image of the Tank Man from the Tiananmen Square protests as an example of a powerful image that could be called into question.
I've had two organizations in the past year tell me that they didn't want to publish the image 1/
They don't want to publish because they want to remain "politically neutral" or "don't have the budget" to protect themselves against backlash.
There's no such thing as politically neutral. And deliberately not publishing this image is doing the job of authoritarian censors 2/
The reason the Tank Man image is so powerful is because a single, unarmed, defenseless, ordinary person with no chance of success stood in front of a line of tanks that could kill him at any moment (and had killed others) -- and he made a difference. 3/
1) Being a foster parent to even just one child is a worthwhile act 2) If you are concerned that there are other children who also need foster parents, you can encourage/persuade/help more people to become foster parents
So when someone says they don't want to do it because it "doesn't scale", what are they saying?
They can't be saying that foster care isn't a solution for all the kids who need temporary parents, because, obviously, it is if you have enough parents (see 1 and 2 above). 3/
I've noticed this difference too, but from the other side. It seems like what @Aella_Girl identifies as "good thinking" is what people would call executive dysfunction.
E.g. the brilliant Fields Medalist who could not/would not buy a blanket.
There have been a number of good responses to this thread, but far too many responses were knee-jerk critiques of critique. I think there's an interesting point here. Let's dig in:
First thing, Chaum's DigiCash was heavily patented. There was a version called MagicMoney that got around the patents but only for experimental use. I have no idea what the current state of the patents is, but it's definitely something to look into if this is a serious suggestion
Second, DigiCash required that users rely on a single authority (I'm not going to use the words "central" or "decentralized", because I think people are very confused regarding those terms). The authority is the single source of truth of whether a "coin" has been spent.
Are we too fond of governance? Do we confuse group decision-making with justice and fairness?
Here's why that's the wrong approach, and we should consider the entire spectrum of possible solutions instead:
I'll use two examples of great organizations that I actively participate in. As a participant, I have ZERO participation in group decision-making for these organizations. This is a really important distinction!
The first is an organization called Lasagna Love: home chefs bake lasagnas and give them to people in their local community for free. lasagnalove.org
It's really disappointing to realize that hardly anyone can distinguish Trump from Amy Coney Barrett. The political machinery moves on, regardless, even though they could not be more different. By all accounts, Barrett is a brilliant person of character.
Take a look at this letter, written a few years ago, in which all of the Supreme Court clerks who worked with her when she was also a clerk, unanimously said she would be an excellent justice to a high court. law.nd.edu/assets/253073/…
Or this piece by Noah Feldman, who is a Harvard Law Professor: