Koramei posted:

Reading about South Korea's authoritarian past, I've heard people explain this phenomenon this way: being in a totalitarian regime is mostly not actually that different--when you happen to be one of those within the "envelope" of people that the regime dictates it is okay to be. The issue is when the regime changes that envelope, as it's able to do capriciously

It's alright, for you, until it isn't. It's just the old "first they came for..." thing.

landgrabber posted:

I listened to you guys's show and thought it was really good. It already sounds really good but if you want audio mixing/production or design work, I'd be absolutely willing to help out

Gort posted:

That's the most nothing article ever. There's zero detail and a bunch of posturing.

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

GreyjoyBastard posted:

guy who spent some time in the xinjiang concentration reeducation camps

https://www.varsity.co.uk/interviews/19990

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

GreyjoyBastard posted:

guy who spent some time in the xinjiang concentration reeducation camps

https://www.varsity.co.uk/interviews/19990

quote:

In defending the detention camps to counterparts, Chinese diplomats have mounted some novel arguments. They have told American officials, for example, that Beijing is applying in Xinjiang best practices it gleaned from studying the United States.

The Chinese argue that the facilities in Xinjiang are no different from the American military prisons in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where foreign terrorism suspects have been held without trial.

Not So Fast posted:

Whataboutism does make sense when it's American official doing the complaining, but you'd hope the practices of the USA would be a low bar to clear and not a gold standard.

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

Charlz Guybon posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1334795593286373377

Silver2195 posted:

France is doing it too, apparently: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55243014

Also note the reference to "other nations," plural. I guess cyborg super-soldiers are going to be a thing all over the place now.

strange feelings re Daisy posted:

The Western researchers thus far have a strong objection to genetic manipulation but are fine with seeming unlimited control and modification through all other means.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Gene therapy etc has been going on for a long time this is mostly a quip to try to delegitimize the enemy. Even though we tried to recruit psi soldiers in the loving 70s etc and drugged soldiers to see if their intelligence increased

We are loving worse. it is doubtful the US wouldn't utilize gene therapy to increase combat effectiveness.

Warbadger posted:

I mean, the tweet seems to be implying human testing of these things is going on in China. Is the US shoving cyborg parts into soldiers or genetically modifying them? France stuck a microchip in a pig and there's certainly research into these fields going on in the US and many other places, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Warbadger posted:

I mean, the tweet seems to be implying human testing of these things is going on in China. Is the US shoving cyborg parts into soldiers or genetically modifying them? France stuck a microchip in a pig and there's certainly research into these fields going on in the US and many other places, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Can you elaborate?

Warbadger posted:

Is the US shoving cyborg parts into soldiers or genetically modifying them?

strange feelings re Daisy posted:

In the West it's acceptable to find genetic cures for disabilities or disease but it's forbidden to create superhuman abilities in people through gene editing. There are no such restrictions with cybernetics.

The view in China is generally that if you can make someone smarter it doesn't matter morally whether you're using a gene therapy or a brain implant. They still have ethics and safety concerns though. There was a Chinese scientist who created an HIV resistant baby and he was arrested. The idea that they're cranking out an assembly line of super soldiers is very sensationalist.

Right now they haven't produced a viable cyborg product, but they do give volunteers implants for research purposes. They intend to create transhuman soldiers when the technology is ready. One of their successes was a brain implant that improves short term memory. Another was a neural bypass that could route signals around a severed spine and restore motor control. Another human subject controlled 3 simulation drones simultaneously using a direct neural interface. They've also figured out a non-invasive electrical brain stimulation method to increase performance in conventional drone operators.

They have ambitions for many other implant features like the ability to dull pain, wire an HUD or video feed directly to your visual cortex, treat PTSD and depression, increase learning speed to superhuman levels, reduce fear, reduce the need for sleep, heal rapidly, and reduce hunger. Some of that is in combination with drug dispensing implants.

Because of the taboo on genetic enhancement they claim to only research medicine. The former DARPA director noted that they are researching genetic engineering that would let soldiers resist bioweapons and disease. That's clearly smudging the line between medicine and enhancement and eventually they are just going to drop the pretense.

Warbadger posted:

You're talking about non-invasive neural control devices and a surgery to repair a severed spine which are not the same thing as conducting human cyborg experiments any more than the POWERGLOVE was or getting a pacemaker. The short term memory implant thing would be, but it seems like they ran the experiments on people who already had electrode implants as part of a brain mapping program to treat seizures so it's borderline.

GlassEye-Boy posted:

Remember this whole thing is based on a tweet with no evidence or details. Also, when we do it it's fine maybe borderline at most, when China does it its heinous and crosses the line.

GlassEye-Boy posted:

Also, when we do it it's fine maybe borderline at most, when China does it its heinous and crosses the line.

A Doomed Purloiner posted:

China probably just glued some microchips onto PLA soldiers and said "差不多".

Warbadger posted:

You're talking about non-invasive neural control devices and a surgery to repair a severed spine which are not the same thing as conducting human cyborg experiments any more than the POWERGLOVE was or getting a pacemaker. The short term memory implant thing would be, but it seems like they ran the experiments on people who already had electrode implants as part of a brain mapping program to treat seizures so it's borderline.

Warbadger posted:

You're talking about non-invasive neural control devices and a surgery to repair a severed spine which are not the same thing as conducting human cyborg experiments any more than the POWERGLOVE was or getting a pacemaker.

"strange feelings re Daisy" posted:

Spazzle posted:

DARPA program managers propose dumb poo poo all the time, it doesn't mean it gets anywhere ornus even feasible. Their job is to propose and manage high probability of failure out there stuff.

quote:

* Flight: The minimal required airborne tactical radius of the sub-plane is 1000 nautical miles (nm). The minimum surface tactical radius is 100 nautical miles. The minimum subsurface tactical range is 12 nautical miles. Note that the ranges quoted are one-way ranges. The platform would need to be able to fly to a location, insert and extract personnel without refueling and this would require the total operational range to be 1000 nm airborne, 200 nm surface, 24 nm under water.

* Loiter: The platform should be capable of loitering in a sea-state five, in theater between inserting and extracting personnel for up to 3 days (72 hours). The craft does not need to be submerged during loitering operations; it can operate at the surface.

* Payload: The platform should be capable of transporting 8 operators, as well as all of their equipment, with a total cargo weight of 2000 pounds.

* Depth: The operating depth of the platform will be constrained by balancing the need to reduce depth in order to minimize structural loads and snorkel complexity with the need to increase depth in order to minimize any potential signatures that could be generated by perturbing the free surface. The effect that the submerged platform will have on the free surface is exponentially proportional to the depth, therefore the platform should be able to operate at a relatively shallow depth and only have the snorkel affect the free surface.

* Speed: The speed of the platform in each mode of operation must allow the system to complete a tactical transit (1000 nm airborne,100 nm surface ,12 nm sub-surface) trip in less than 8 hours. This 8 hour time must include any time required by the platform to reconfigure between modes of operation.

https://gizmodo.com/darpa-working-on-a-submersible-aircraft-that-can-go-fro-5059668

quote:

A marked shift in China’s approach to the region can be traced back to two brutal attacks on pedestrians and commuters in Beijing in 2013 and the city of Kunming in 2014, blamed by China on Uighur Islamists and separatists.

Its response, from 2016 onwards, has been the building of “re-education” camps for anyone displaying any behaviour viewed as a potential sign of untrustworthiness, such as installing an encrypted messaging app on a phone, viewing religious content or having a relative living overseas.

While China calls them “schools for de-radicalisation”, its own records suggest that the reality is a draconian system of internment which aims to replace old identities of faith and culture with an enforced loyalty to the Communist Party.