Dans son livre, Sunstein explique que le Sludge donne aux gens le sentiment qu’ils ne comptent pas, que leur vie ne compte pas. Pour la sociologue Pamela Herd et le politologue Donald Moynihan, coauteurs de Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means (Russel Sage Foundation, 2019), le fardeau administratif comme la paperasserie complexe, les procédures confuses entravent activement l’accès aux services gouvernementaux. Plutôt que de simples inefficacités, affirment les auteurs, nombre de ces obstacles sont des outils politiques délibérés qui découragent la participation à des programmes comme Medicaid, empêchent les gens de voter et limitent l’accès à l’aide sociale. Et bien sûr, cette désorganisation volontaire touche de manière disproportionnée les gens les plus marginalisés.
Veille - société
Vous êtes ici
Depuis deux ans, leur vie professionnelle a été bouleversée par la vague de l’IA générative. Récit du combat donquichottesque des traducteurs qui refusent de voir leurs métiers se paupériser, et qui dénoncent la réalité de l’impact de l’IA sur leur secteur, et plus largement sur la langue, la pensée, la culture et la société.
“Trump 2.0.” This coinage is often used to distinguish the current Trump administration from the first. The phrase is telling: it underscores that we’re in a new era and that behind the scenes, the people and forces driving this iteration of the Trump administration are different from those that came before. The second Trump administration is being driven to a greater degree by tech billionaires and their interests: self-dealing on public contracts; privatizing public services; expanding corporate power while crushing human rights; promoting crypto; removing guardrails against fraud, waste, and abuse; and pursuing personal vendettas.
The cadre of people driving today’s agenda is leveraging a set of interlocking ideologies related to technology to rhetorically justify and propel these changes. In this series, “Ideologies of Control: A Series on Tech Power and Democratic Crisis,” we asked expert contributors to name and dispel the myths and ideologies that animate their actions. A number of ideological projects prepared the ground for today’s assault on American institutions; we will focus on those that run through data, AI, and the tech sector.
[...]
The ideological agenda behind the headlines positions technology and its architects as power brokers in an increasingly illiberal environment. Their changes are bolstered by the narrative that AI is a force that will inevitably reshape society. To make informed choices about how to respond to this aggressive reshaping of the US government, we must examine these animating ideas. We approached authors for this series who have deep knowledge about the unusual views of reactionaries in the tech industry: whether it be fantasies of libertarian paradises built on defunct sea-based oil rigs, the vision of company towns in Texas and eventually Mars, enthusiasm for debunked 19th Century ideas about race science and eugenics, or the goal of replacing the US dollar as the global reserve currency, these more esoteric backstories can be disorienting to non-specialists. But, seemingly overnight, understanding the ties that bind these projects together—however strange they may seem—has become essential information for all of us to understand and grapple with.
Tech CEOs, futurists, and venture capitalists describe artificial general intelligence (AGI) as if it were an inevitable and ultimate goal for technology development. In reality, the term is a vague signifier for a technology that will somehow lead to endless abundance for humankind — and conveniently also a means to avoid accountability as tech moguls make off with billions in capital investment and, more alarmingly, public spending.
[...]
The second issue is closely related to the first: claims of “AGI” are a cover for abandoning the current social contract. Instead of focusing on the here and now, many people who focus on AGI think we ought to abandon all other scientific and socially beneficial pursuits and focus entirely on issues related to developing (and protecting against) AGI.
I do not believe that tech culture today has any patience for lightness. Instead, it rewards baroque complexity. Engineers perform feats of convolution. Designers argue for maximal configurability. Founders pride themselves on having their own stack for everything. Lightness = for normies.
[...]
It’s not that these tools are bad. Many are quite good. Obsidian is beautiful. But the way they are used - to signal intellectual rigor, to differentiate oneself from the casuals, to construct a lifestyle rather than solve a problem - shows off a moral hierarchy in which difficulty equates to virtue.
Writing is thinking. It’s a writer’s cliché, but a good one. When you first conceive a lecture, dissertation chapter, a book, even an article for Active History, everything seems so straightforward. “This one will be a cinch,” you think. “Two days, tops.” Once you actually sit down to write, that boundless optimism meets an unceremonious death. Writing is hard. It’s painful. To write is to submit yourself to seasons of self-doubt. The ideas seemed so natural and free-flowing in your head. Now you get to the page. And what comes out is jilted, ham-fisted, and awkward. You are again and again confronted with nagging questions. What am I even trying to say? Who even cares? Why even bother?
Given the nature of this experience, it is not surprising that people would jump at the opportunity to skip the pain and get right to the end. Or at least to an end. Because any writer can tell you that the end is determined by the path taken to get there. Rare is the piece that gets written exactly how it was outlined. Why? Because writing is thinking.
This is America, June 2025. Trump's back, and he's moving fast. Marines - actual Marines - carrying out immigration raids in an American city. It's unprecedented, it's shocking, but here's the thing: it's tragically predictable
This isn't just Trump being Trump. This is the inevitable result of decades of corporate power combining with an authoritarian president. It's been a journey, and we need to understand how we got here.
Il ne s’agit pas ici d’innovation, mais d’une offre publique d’achat hostile sur la monnaie. En l’absence de toute réglementation sérieuse, les stablecoins ne sont ni stables ni une réelle alternative au dollar. Ils ne sont que le cheval de Troie d’une privatisation de l’argent.
Google back then prided itself on broadcasting its Best Place To Work award, won year after year after year. Younger people will have trouble picturing this, but Google used to nurture an image of being the “good one” among megacorps; they championed open standards (except when they didn’t), supported open source projects (until they backstabbed them), and used language that corporate wasn’t supposed to use, like “don’t be evil” (until they, infamously and in a true dark comedy move, retracted that motto). The work environment was all colourful, nerdy cool, not a single necktie in sight—this was seen as brave and refreshing rather than cringe and tired, you see. And they made a big deal out of something called “20% time”: Every engineer was promised 1/5 of their work time for themselves, to do anything they want. (Google owners will still own whatever you create during your 20% time, natürlich). Famously, Gmail came out of someone exploring their interests during 20% time.
I don’t think much of anything else came out of it, though.
The Last of Us Part II is an incredible journey that provides not only one of the most mesmerizing spectacles that we’ve seen from big budget video games, but one that manages to ask difficult questions along the way. It’s clearly coming from an emotionally authentic and self-examining place. The trouble with it, and the reason that Ellie’s journey ultimately feels nonsensical, is that it begins from a place that accepts “intense hate that is universal” as a fact of life, rather than examining where and why this behavior is learned.
Critically, by not asking these questions, and by masking its point of view as being evenhanded, it perpetuates the very cycles of violence it’s supposedly so troubled by.
Un article de Ars Technica qui explore (nombreux exemples à l'appui) les capacités assez impressionnantes de Veo 3, le dernier modèle d'IA générative de vidéos dévoilé par Google.
Quelques remarques :
- Bien sûr on pense immédiatement à la capacité de ces outils pour produire des fake news et par conséquent contribuer à la désinformation. Mais l'effet plus délétère et inquiétant est peut-être indirect : lorsque le grand public s'habitue à ne plus rien croire (pour éviter de se faire avoir notamment par ce genre de vidéos), notre capacité collective à communiquer et informer est remise en question de manière fondamentale. Quelque part cela rappelle la fameuse stratégie de Steve Bannon pour détruire la démocratie : flood the zone with shit, "inonder la zone avec de la merde" pour lui ôter toute valeur et la rendre inutilisable.
- Je pense quand même qu'il y a une différence entre le fait d'être simple spectateur de ce genre de vidéo (on est facilement bluffé par le résultat) et le fait de produire celle-ci. Les quelques expériences que j'en ai faites (sur d'autres outils du même genre, certes moins sophistiqués mais qui reposent sur les mêmes bases) m'ont surtout fait prendre conscience que quand on a une intention créatrice en tête, il est très difficile de contrôler l'algorithme pour qu'il fasse réellement ce qu'on veut. Face à la qualité un peu "magique" de ces interfaces conversationnelles auxquelles on peut communiquer des instructions comme si on parlait (écrivait) à un humain, il est facile d'oublier que le langage est un outil hautement conceptuel, qui repose sur l'abstraction, et qui appauvrit fondamentalement la réalité qu'il décrit. C'est très efficace pour communiquer entre humains qui ont la même compréhension viscérale et intuitive du réel, mais probablement pas aussi adapté pour un outil qu'on aimerait contrôler précisément. Un artiste maître de son art sera incomparablement plus précis pour obtenir le résultat qu'il souhaite avec son pinceau, que n'importe quel "prompt engineer" avec une IA.
- Comme l'écrit Tante sur Mastodon (source 1 et source 2) : les IA génératives nous poussent imperceptiblement à baisser nos standards pour nous convaincre que ce qu'elles produisent correspond à ce qu'on voulait.
- En d'autres termes, l'IA n'est pas un outil de création comparable à un crayon, une machine à écrire, ou même à un logiciel informatique de 3D traditionnelle, par exemple. Créer avec une IA s'apparente plus à demander à un artiste de créer quelque chose pour nous. Quelqu'un qui dirait "je suis un créateur parce que j'ai dû trouver les bons mots pour demander à tel artiste de me peindre un tableau" ne serait pas pris très au sérieux...
- La comparaison est d'ailleurs d'autant plus pertinente que l'IA doit effectivement vampiriser le travail des artistes (généralement de manière non-consensuelle) pour pouvoir créer quelque chose; l'IA constitue donc une sorte d'interface entre l'utilisateur et l'ensemble des artistes humains qui ont servi à l'entraîner, artistes dont les travaux ont été mélangés et anonymisés dans un immense modèle statistique. Quand on demande à une IA de créer une image, on demande indirectement à des artistes de la créer... Sauf que leur travail a été fait en amont, qu'ils ne sont pas crédités ni payés, et que le résultat contribue à dévaloriser leur activité.
- Pour impressionnantes qu'elles soient, ces vidéos restent toujours très lisses. Comme l'article le souligne, c'est le résultat du principe fondamental de ce genre de modèle, dont les capacités de production sont conditionnées par le matériel sur lequel il a été entraîné. Le résultat sera toujours dans une certaine "moyenne" des données d'entraînement.
The social media billionaires want us to believe their putrid platforms are the “new town squares.” That their half-baked social videos and for-you feeds have replaced the agora. And that, somehow, we’re all better for it.
It’s the most overused, meaningless claim on the Internet.
A litany of exploiters and extractors have trotted out that same phrase to excuse the vagaries of their platforms and give themselves a free pass to irresponsibility, hostility, and self-enrichment.
But their apps — virtual panopticons — have more in common with prison yards and shopping malls than public forums.
Climate change is one of the instances, Stiglitz and Stern told me in an email, in which “it is generally agreed there is extreme risk — we know there are some really extreme events that could occur — and we know we cannot pretend (i.e., act as if) we know the probabilities. Nordhaus’s work doesn’t appropriately take into account either extreme risk or deep uncertainty.”
In other words, the economist who has been embraced as a guiding light by the global institution tasked with shepherding humanity through the climate crisis, who has been awarded a Nobel for climate costing, who is widely feted as the doyen of his field, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The effects of AI on cognitive development are already being identified in schools across the United States. In a report titled, “Generative AI Can Harm Learning”, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that students who relied on AI for practice problems performed worse on tests compared to students who completed assignments without AI assistance. This suggests that the use of AI in academic settings is not just an issue of convenience, but may be contributing to a decline in critical thinking skills.
Nous avons récemment consacré un petit billet au cas particulier d’Alain Bentolila : cet ancien professeur d’université inonde les médias d’une intox sur des jeunes qui « vivraient avec 400 mots » ou 500, ou 800, tout en sachant pertinemment que cela est faux (billet ici).
Mais il n’est pas le seul à véhiculer des chiffres fantaisistes sur la taille du vocabulaire, et plutôt que vous laisser observer des guerres de chiffres invérifiables, on vous propose de prendre les choses en mains et vérifier par vous-mêmes. Ce n’est pas si compliqué, on vous donne toutes les billes ici et en quelques minutes vous serez autonomes.
It's not a history you learn about in school—we were whitewashing history long before the current executive orders—but the Klan in the '20s was everywhere. There were millions of Klan members across the country. People joined it like they were joining a golf club or the Elks Lodge. There was a women's auxiliary. There was the Ku Klux Kiddies, for children. Klan rallies were held across the country; thousands would turn up at fairgrounds for the marching bands and cross burnings. In 1925, the Klan even held a march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC. Tens of thousands strong, crowds were six deep in the streets to watch and cheer. They did it again the next year.
Kennedy exploits the language of the "wellness" industry, with its misleading emphasis on "natural" health care and "letting" your body heal itself. What's ironic is that's what vaccines do. Vaccines work by stimulating the body's natural immune response, so that it prevents infection using the body's own resources. All these "treatments" Kennedy touts aren't just ineffective, they're not "natural." They're blitzing a child with often overwhelming amounts of medication, which won't work but could make the kid even sicker.
Fascist movements, formal or otherwise, operate much like cults. When one joins them, they are at first overwhelmed with the appearance of validation and support. This is called "love bombing" and it's meant to endear you to them, to become dependent on them to meet your emotional needs. Then that validation and support is gradually withheld in order to pressure the target into severing ties with the "normie" world. They drive away anyone outside of their hateful little bubble. So their entire network of social support depends on how useful they can be to the cause. It's the only way they can feel part of something anymore because nobody else wants anything to do with them at this point.
For its right wing adherents, the absence of humans is a feature, not a bug, of AI art. Where mechanically-produced art used to draw attention to its artificiality – think the mass-produced modernism of the Bauhaus (which the Nazis repressed and the AfD have condemned), or the music of Kraftwerk – AI art pretends to realism. It can produce art the way right wingers like it: Thomas Kinkade paintings, soulless Dreamworks 3D cartoons, depthless imagery that yields only the reading that its creator intended. And, vitally, it can do so without the need for artists.
Javier Milei, a prodigious user of AI-generated art, wants Argentinians to know that any of them could join the 265,000, mostly young people who have lost jobs as a result of the recession that he induced, to the rapturous praise of economic elites. He wants to signal that anyone can find themselves at the wrong end of his chainsaw, even if doing so means producing laughably bad graphics for the consumption of his 5.9 million deeply uncritical Instagram followers.
Ce type d’intervention politique sur les archives n’a rien d’anodin. L’histoire regorge d’exemples où la manipulation ou la destruction d’archives a servi des régimes autoritaires. De l’Allemagne nazie à l’Union soviétique, en passant par la Révolution culturelle chinoise et le régime des Khmers rouges, les archives ont toujours représenté un enjeu de pouvoir majeur. L’accès à une information libre, fiable et contextualisée est une menace pour ceux qui cherchent à réécrire l’histoire à leur avantage.
La désinformation en ligne fait partie intégrante de la stratégie des extrêmes droites, tandis que les formations de gauche, qu’elles soient radicales, écologistes ou sociales-démocrates, ont moins recours à cette pratique, selon une étude récente réalisée par des universitaires néerlandais.
16 activistes climat relaxé·es au nom de « l’état de nécessité » : une victoire qui fait date
Imaginez un monde dans lequel, au moment même où une régulation du tabac était débattue au parlement européen, les plateaux télé, les radios et les journaux invitaient systématiquement le directeur de la recherche de Philip Morris, en le présentant comme un pionnier scientifique de la chimie des nouvelles générations de cigarettes. Omettant d’évoquer sa casquette industrielle et ses conflits d’intérêts, les journalistes le questionneraient sur l’avenir de la cigarette, les enjeux sur la compétitivité économique du pays et les régulations adéquates.
If you follow American politics, you may think of a “pro-business” platform as something that consists of the things that business interests often lobby for: lower taxes, less regulation period, less oversight, less protection for labor, less responsibility of all sorts to anyone other than their own shareholders. Yet all these things that they seek (for the purpose of increasing short term profits) are things that they assume will exist within the context of the basic principles outlined above. Businesses want lower taxes, but they still want well-maintained roads. They want weaker labor protections, but they still want a healthy and well educated workforce. They want less regulation, but they still want transparent laws and functional enforcement. Their short term greed, unwise and distasteful as it may be, is only something they fight for because they assume that the big, fundamental pillars of society and government that allow them to operate freely will always be in place.
Though many no doubt feel betrayed by what seems like a sudden rightward turn, billionaires like Gates have always behaved like wolves in sheep's clothing, prioritizing their fortunes above all.
For example, Gates was heavily involved in establishing the Global Fund, a privately-funded rival to the World Health Organization. While the Global Fund did improve global vaccination rates, the cost of basic medicines skyrocketed thanks to his introduction of for-profit actors into global health efforts — another sector made to rely on the generosity of billionaires.
L’économiste britannique Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) est passé à la postérité pour la découverte d’un paradoxe spectaculaire. Il a constaté que, plus on inventait des machines économes en charbon, plus sa consommation globale augmentait. Un constat qui désespère encore aujourd’hui les écologistes et renforce leur méfiance envers le progrès technique comme solution au problème du réchauffement climatique.
Le dernier rapport de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE) apporte une nouvelle illustration du phénomène. Pour la première fois depuis cinquante ans, le pétrole n’a représenté, en 2024, que 30 % de la consommation mondiale d’énergie. A l’inverse, les énergies renouvelables et le nucléaire dépassent désormais les 40 % du total. Pour autant, ni la consommation de pétrole ou de charbon, ni les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, + 0,8 % toutes les deux, ne diminuent.
« Comme l’a noté la linguiste Emily M. Bender, les enseignants ne demandent pas aux étudiants d’écrire des essais parce que le monde a besoin de plus d’essais d’étudiants. Le but de la rédaction d’essais est de renforcer les capacités de réflexion critique des étudiants. De la même manière que soulever des poids est utile quel que soit le sport pratiqué par un athlète, écrire des essais développe les compétences nécessaires pour tout emploi qu’un étudiant obtiendra probablement. Utiliser ChatGPT pour terminer ses devoirs, c’est comme amener un chariot élévateur dans la salle de musculation : vous n’améliorerez jamais votre forme cognitive de cette façon. Toute écriture n’a pas besoin d’être créative, sincère ou même particulièrement bonne ; parfois, elle doit simplement exister. Une telle écriture peut soutenir d’autres objectifs, comme attirer des vues pour la publicité ou satisfaire aux exigences bureaucratiques. Lorsque des personnes sont obligées de produire un tel texte, nous pouvons difficilement leur reprocher d’utiliser tous les outils disponibles pour accélérer le processus. Mais le monde se porte-t-il mieux avec plus de documents sur lesquels un effort minimal a été consacré ? Il serait irréaliste de prétendre que si nous refusons d’utiliser de grands modèles de langage, les exigences de création de textes de mauvaise qualité disparaîtront. Cependant, je pense qu’il est inévitable que plus nous utiliserons de grands modèles de langage pour répondre à ces exigences, plus ces exigences finiront par devenir importantes. Nous entrons dans une ère où quelqu’un pourrait utiliser un modèle de langage volumineux pour générer un document à partir d’une liste à puces, et l’envoyer à une personne qui utilisera un modèle de langage volumineux pour condenser ce document en une liste à puces. Quelqu’un peut-il sérieusement affirmer qu’il s’agit d’une amélioration ? »
[...] hallucination refers to the mysterious capacity of the human brain to perceive phenomena that are not present, at least not in conventional, materialist terms. By appropriating a word commonly used in psychology, psychedelics and various forms of mysticism, AI’s boosters, while acknowledging the fallibility of their machines, are simultaneously feeding the sector’s most cherished mythology: that by building these large language models, and training them on everything that we humans have written, said and represented visually, they are in the process of birthing an animate intelligence on the cusp of sparking an evolutionary leap for our species.
Comment les différentes facettes de la "gun culture" américaine (qui n'est pas du tout uniforme) prennent racine dans les différentes cultures qui ont colonisé les différents territoires US il y a plusieurs siècles. Et comment ces différences culturelles, qu'on pourrait croire gommées par des siècles de coexistence au sein d'une seule nation, subsistent et colorent encore fortement la vie politique actuelle.
À l’inverse des plateformes centralisées telles que Facebook ou X, qui reposent sur des infrastructures et des algorithmes contrôlés par des entreprises privées, le fédiverse fonctionne grâce à une multitude de serveurs indépendants (également appelés instances), gérés par des individus ou des collectifs. Ces instances communiquent via des protocoles ouverts, comme ActivityPub, le plus utilisé. Standardisé par le World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), il permet aux usagers d’interagir tout en conservant la liberté de choisir leur serveur et d’en changer.
Focus feels impossible right now. There is so much happening—so much awful news breaking at an unrelenting pace, so many warning signs and red flags being hoisted—that it feels like you can't look away. At least, it feels like that to me. Which means that you're looking at a cascade of horrors instead of the things you're actually supposed to be doing.
This is something far beyond simple doomscrolling, this is full-on doom living. And it's completely untenable. And yet most of the time it feels impossible to shake.
If enough people tried—just tried, even imperfectly—things would shift. If more people opted for alternatives when they could, if more people supported independent platforms even three times out of five, if more people put even a fraction of their energy into challenging the defaults, it would matter.
A lot of folks don't, or won't, because they think - they've been scolded into believing - that if they can't do it completely, it's not worth doing at all.
Entretien avec l'historien Johann Chapoutot, spécialiste du nazisme.
Au moment où le centre et les conservateurs se rapprochent de l’extrême droite dans de nombreux pays d’Europe, dont la France, je rappelle que l’arrivée d’Hitler au pouvoir est liée, non à un vote populaire mais à une décision politique cynique des libéraux autoritaires – Franz von Papen en l’occurrence. Ce dernier a pensé que la meilleure manière de se maintenir au pouvoir, c’était de s’allier avec les nazis. Or cette décision a été prise dans un contexte d’effondrement du parti nazi qui aurait pu conduire à sa disparition.
Cette histoire montre que l’arrivée des nazis au pouvoir n’était pas inéluctable, pas plus que le « retour » de l’extrême droite aujourd’hui n’est inéluctable. Il n’y a pas de phénomènes géologiques ou tectoniques ou hydrographiques à l’œuvre, il y a des acteurs politiques avec leurs intérêts, leurs décisions, leurs responsabilités.
Plusieurs questions du même acabit ont ainsi été posées à une dizaine de chatbots parmi les plus connus - de ChatGPT à Copilot de Microsoft, en passant par Claude d’Anthropic - pour évaluer à quel point ces agents conversationnels avaient été "infectés" par une vaste campagne de désinformation russe.
Les résultats ne sont pas encourageants : environ une fois sur trois, ces AI fournissent des réponses teintées de faux narratifs inspirés par la propagande russe, assurent les experts de Newsguard. Ainsi, six de ces machines expliquaient les raisons pour lesquelles Volodymyr Zelensky avait interdit en Ukraine le réseau social de Donald Trump Truth Network… alors même que le président ukrainien n’a jamais rien fait de la sorte.
Like it or not, BP doesn’t have the luxury of saying: “Oh, we’ll do something less profitable but better for the planet.” Capitalism chews you up and spits you out if you do that. “Shareholder value” is not a consulting gimmick, or at least not only that; it is a very real disciplinary force.
All of this, to be clear, is not to absolve BP of responsibility. Rather, it is to make a case about how we should understand the problems we face – that is, not as a problem of greedy individual firms, but a system rigged against positive change.
J’ai récemment assisté au Movement for Socialism (Mouvement pour le Socialisme) à Zurich, un joli rassemblement de gauche dans un contexte de résistance au World Economic Forum (WEF) à Davos. Voici quelques observations et points relevés pendant cet évènement, ainsi que les discussions qui en découlent.
A declassified World War II-era government guide to “simple sabotage” is currently one of the most popular open source books on the internet. The book, called “Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” was declassified in 2008 by the CIA and “describes ways to train normal people to be purposefully annoying telephone operators, dysfunctional train conductors, befuddling middle managers, blundering factory workers, unruly movie theater patrons, and so on. In other words, teaching people to do their jobs badly.”
Au risque de faire bondir l’ensemble de mes camarades qui travaillent sur les modèles d’IA, nous sommes déjà au bout du cycle de développement de ce que l’on qualifie aujourd’hui « d’IA conversationnelle ». Ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’il n’y aura pas de progrès en termes de performance, de coûts, d’infrastructures, de modèles même comme les « transformers » qui marquèrent une rupture et un progrès presqu’exponentiel. Bien sûr qu’il y aura des progrès. Mais le narratif d’une « intelligence artificielle générale » est une mythologie moderne. Et comme toutes les mythologies, elle est là pour nous avertir à la fois d’un aveuglement, d’un risque et d’une dérive en les mettant en récit. Et il est assez fou que nous ne la traitions presque jamais comme telle.
Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. They know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know little or nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like “socialism” and “capitalism.” Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions. This is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores. An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete. They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone to irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local, and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover). One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services. But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy?
Lost in the spectacle of billionaires catfighting on decaying social media platforms is something mildly more consequential: the firesale of America - and the world's - future. While we obsess over Musk's bloviations and Altman's careful rebuttals, the actual mechanisms of AI power are being divided up among a handful of private entities, operated by oligarchs and funded by overseas interests, with the blessing of an Autocrat.
[...]
Stargate isn't a battle between billionaires or a test of financial commitments. It's a preview of how power will flow in the AI age, through layers of technology, capital, and influence that would baffle the monopolists of the past. As Musk and Altman trade barbs on social media, they're actually fighting over who gets to be the new robber barons – and we're left wondering whether anyone has the will or the means to stop them. This isn't progress. It's a heist.
In 2021, U.S. Sen.Ted Cruz compared critical race theory — an academic subfield that examines the role of racism in American institutions, laws, and policies — to the Ku Klux Klan, the most notorious homegrown terrorist organization in U.S. history. In doing so, he opened a playbook that resembles one put into practice by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and others: Attack ideas that are unfriendly to a narrow view of the world, and do so by eliminating them from our school curricula and public conversation. The movement against critical race theory has now swallowed up high school Advanced Placement African American Studies in several states and threatens the teaching of basic facts about U.S. history. And this movement has devolved from pundit tough talk into authoritarian policies to ban books, modify curricula, and threaten intellectual freedom across the country (and world).
By now, many realize that these policies are a harbinger of things to come — even for fields ostensibly unrelated to African American studies, like biology. Modern breakthroughs in biology are producing a picture of life that is increasingly incompatible with authoritarian preferences for neat boxes that dictate what people are and how they should behave. Consequently, biologists must shed the naive belief that our work is apolitical and recognize that the recent attacks on how to teach U.S. history are a battle in a larger war on ideas that includes the natural sciences.
By flooding the zone with an endless stream of new partnerships, new products, new promises, the tech industry makes us feel disoriented and overwhelmed by a future rushing at us faster than we can handle. The desire to not be left behind — or taken advantage of — is a powerful motivator that keeps us engaged in the AI sales pitch. The breathless hype surrounding AI is more than just a side-effect of over-eager entrepreneurs; it’s a load-bearing column for the tech sector. If people believe hard enough in the future manufactured by Silicon Valley, then they start acting like it already exists before it happens. Thus the impacts of technologies like AI become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Est-il acceptable, souhaitable, responsable d'utiliser des arguments d'essence néo-libérale (rentabilité, performances, compétitivité etc) pour défendre des valeurs progressistes ?
Whenever I make an argument like that I get similar responses: “You have to be pragmatic” or “Games of intellectual purity don’t get us anywhere” or “The argument needs to work for those we want to convince” or “Shut up” (it still is the Internet after all). And I am not saying that those replies don’t have any value. They are pragmatic. Saying something in a way that people in power like or that supports their world view increases the chances of creating change. Especially when one has facts and studies at one’s disposal (at least that was how it maybe was a bit in the past before the reign of Musk).
But I think there is a cost. Because I think people mistake tactics for strategy. The basic difference between tactics and strategy is that while tactics focus on smaller, short-term actions, strategy looks at the long-term big picture. And I feel like that is where the costs stack up.
By crunching all the different datasets together, the researchers were able to create what they described as an aggregate “factuality score” for each politician and each party, based on the links that MPs had shared on Twitter.
The data showed conclusively that far-right populism was “the strongest determinant for the propensity to spread misinformation”, they concluded, with MPs from centre-right, centre-left and far-left populist parties “not linked” to the practice.
By crunching all the different datasets together, the researchers were able to create what they described as an aggregate “factuality score” for each politician and each party, based on the links that MPs had shared on Twitter.
The data showed conclusively that far-right populism was “the strongest determinant for the propensity to spread misinformation”, they concluded, with MPs from centre-right, centre-left and far-left populist parties “not linked” to the practice.
Cartographie des métiers de l'IA et son impact sur les activités humaines.
Une vidéo très claire sur le fonctionnement de la dette des états, et pourquoi faire du chantage en prétendant que "nos enfants devront la rembourser" pour pousser des politiques d'austérité ne tient pas debout.
This is all being spun by the Trump administration as an effort to save money and reduce government "waste," but no one should be fooled. The sadism of these efforts belies the psychological damage motivating people like Musk and Russ Vought, the Project 2025 author Trump nominated to run the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). MAGA is certainly a racist and sexist movement, but it's crucially also a movement of bullies lashing out at people whose skills and talents remind MAGA folks of their own insecurities. Nowhere is this more evident than in the unhinged MAGA hatred of federal workers, a group largely known for being humble and hard-working, reminding MAGA leaders of their own lack of basic virtues.
Bitcoin was never used by most Salvadorans, its modern city was never built, and now it will cease to be legal tender in El Salvador, the first country in the world to adopt it in 2021: a complete failed economic bet by President Nayib Bukele. Congress, dominated by the ruling party, approved last Wednesday a confusing reform to the Bitcoin Law at the request of Bukele’s government, which had no other option to receive the $1.4 billion credit agreed in December with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Le premier ministre a évoqué, lundi 27 janvier sur LCI, le « sentiment de submersion » généré par l’immigration. Des propos qu’il a réitérés et assumés le lendemain, au sein de l’Assemblée nationale, indignant la gauche. Pourtant, les chiffres et les études sur le sujet démentent clairement cette idée. Entretien avec Tania Racho, spécialiste des questions relatives aux droits fondamentaux.
As many people reading this know, last month I retired from my position as an opinion writer at the New York Times—a job I had done for 25 years. Despite the encomiums issued by the Times, it was not a happy departure. If you check out my Substack, you will see that I have by no means run out of energy or topics to write about. But from my perspective, the nature of my relationship with the Times had degenerated to a point where I couldn’t stay.
Aucune technologie n’est neutre ni inéluctable. Chacune se déploie dans un certain contexte économique et politique qui oriente les choix. Cela a toujours été le cas pour le numérique, depuis le début. L’extrême concentration d’acteurs et de moyens qui préside au déploiement des IAs génératives devrait aider à prendre conscience de cet état de fait. L’annonce récente de 500 milliards de dollars à consacrer au sujet donne la (dé)mesure de la chose. Je ne détaillerai pas les courants politiques et philosophiques qui circulent parmi les promoteurs des IAs. Certains acteurs affirment croire à l’avénement des IAs générales, comme résultat inéluctable de l’accumulation de moyens et de ressources. Que l’on fasse miroiter ces IAs capables de sauver le monde, ou qu’au contraire on annonce l’apocalypse, leur prise de pouvoir et la fin de l’humanité, on participe à détourner l’attention des dégâts déjà bien présents ici et maintenant.
Certes, sur la même période, les groupes du CAC 40 ont créé de l’emploi au niveau mondial, + 9% sur quatre ans. Des créations qui sont essentiellement le fait de quelques groupes dans les services à distance (Capgemini, Teleperformance) et le BTP.
En France cependant, les groupes du CAC 40 qui publient des chiffres à ce sujet ont très légèrement réduit leurs effectifs (-0,1%). Plusieurs piliers du CAC 40, dont Michelin et ArcelorMittal, ont annoncé de nouvelles suppressions d’emploi en 2024 qui vont toucher notamment la France.
There is increasing disparity in the world today as an "aristocratic oligarchy" is amassing wealth at unforeseen levels, a report published by development organization Oxfam said.
Published ahead of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, the report titled "Takers Not Makers" said billionaire wealth soared by $2 trillion (€1.94 trillion) in 2024, growing three times faster than the previous year.
L’alliance entre Donald Trump et des patrons de plateforme sociale, tels Elon Musk ou Mark Zuckerberg, représente une menace à l’échelle mondiale sur le libre accès à une information fiable. « Le Monde » fait donc le choix d’interrompre le partage de ses contenus sur X et de redoubler de vigilance sur des plateformes comme TikTok et sur celles de Meta.
Selon un sondage réalisé par YouGov pour Le HuffPost, 70 % des Français sont favorables à la création d’un impôt sur les ménages les plus riches pour financer la baisse du déficit public. Un score en légère hausse en comparaison du mois de septembre, lorsque 67 % des sondés se disaient favorables à cette option. Détail intéressant, l’idée séduit l’ensemble du spectre politique, y compris chez les sympathisants de formations politiques hostiles à toute hausse de fiscalité chez les plus riches. Ainsi, 73 % des électeurs LR se disent favorables à cette idée, tandis que ceux de Renaissance l’approuvent à 75 %.
Entretien avec Renaud Chaput, responsable technique de Mastodon et l’un des francophones du projet (créé par un Allemand), qui réunit aujourd’hui des contributeurs et des utilisateurs à travers le monde.
We have arrived at an obscene inequality crisis, in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a powerful few, at the cost of crippling hardship, precarity, and compromised well-being for the many. When a single billionaire can accumulate more money in 10 seconds than their employees make in one year, while workers struggle to meet the basic cost of rent and medicine, then yes, every billionaire really is a policy failure. Here’s why.
Les grands enjeux pour wikipédia sont tout autres que ces querelles « woke ou pas woke ». Les préoccupations portent plutôt sur les questions de fiabilité de l’information, avec les multiples campagnes de désinformation, ou encore l’utilisation de l’IA, qui ciblent Wikipédia, mais aussi et surtout les sources utilisées pour écrire des articles sur Wikipédia. En effet, la règle de base est que Wikipédia ne peut être qu’une synthèse du savoir existant, et n’est en aucun cas un lieu de production de savoir inédit. Donc si les sources utilisées sont « corrompues », cela se retrouvera nécessairement sur Wikipédia.
Note : Comme toujours lorsqu'il est question de "wokisme", il est important de se souvenir que ce terme n'a pas de définition précise et est essentiellement une invention des milieux réactionnaires pour attaquer les mouvements humanistes ou progressistes sans avoir besoin d'argumenter, en donnant l'impression de s'attaquer à un phénomène "inquiétant" ou "excessif", et sans jamais avoir besoin d'exprimer clairement les valeurs qu'ils poussent réellement. C'est un épouvantail et une arme de manipulation rhétorique, absolument pas un fait objectif.
Quand le Figaro accuse Wikipédia d'être "woke", la première réponse devrait être une déconstruction de cette affirmation et des valeurs qui la sous-tendent; mettre à jour la vision du monde et le projet politique qui se cachent derrière cette accusation, et réfuter sa légitimité même.
Le contenu de cette vidéo est tellement insensé qu’on croit d’abord à un fake. Mais c’est bien Mark Zuckerberg qui s’exprime ce mardi 7 janvier sur Facebook. Ses propos méritent d’abord un verbatim complet [...]
Facebook built up its Trust & Safety program after the 2016 election debacle. The company’s name was getting dragged through the mud. There was the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the misinformation factories and the political ads paid for in Rubles. Mark Zuckerberg announced he was taking responsibility. It wouldn’t happen again.
He didn’t like it, though. And he didn’t mean it. Zuckerberg’s commitment to Trust & Safety was as deep as Exxon’s commitment to combating the climate crisis. He’ll only commit resources when it seems like he has to.
Despite these ugly attitudes from Trump and his supporters, in the past few months, there's been a deluge of pundits expressing confusion and outrage at straight women who conclude that it's better to be single than waste your one precious life dating — much less marrying — conservative men. Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, famously and repeatedly insisted that such women are "miserable cat ladies," even though it's self-evident that cats make better company than MAGA men. Even the Washington Post editorial board got involved, calling on women to "compromise" by marrying Trump voters.
In 2024, women increasingly responded to these pressures with a "no thank you," though often phrased less politely. After Trump won the election, there was even a spike in interest in the South Korean "4b" movement, where women quit dating, marrying, or having children with men. In truth, this idea was more aspirational than realistic, but the discourse mattered nonetheless. It created space for women to ask the question: Why should they sacrifice their happiness to save the institution of heterosexuality?
This is not to downplay the extent to which Trump is grifting his devotees and those crypto traders looking to make a buck on memecoin speculation. But it is important that we accurately report on his cons and do not contribute to misleading crypto hype for the sake of large numbers.
You don’t have to be a cynic to see a flywheel effect: Crypto has become a meaningful political constituency not because its technology has broad, undeniable utility, but because it has made certain people extremely wealthy, which has attracted a great deal of attention and interest. The industry courts politicians with its wealth, and politicians pander for donations by making promises. Ultimately, the pro-crypto candidate wins, and the price of bitcoin surges, making many of these same people richer and thus able to exert more influence.
[...]
Crypto’s future is uncertain, but its legacy, at least in the short term, seems clearer than it did before November 5. It turns out that cryptocurrencies do have a very concrete use case. They are a technology that has latched on to, and then helped build, a culture that celebrates greed and speculation as virtues just as it embraces volatility. The only predictable thing about crypto seems to be its penchant for attracting and enriching a patchwork of individuals with qualities including, but not limited to, an appetite for risk, an overwhelming optimism about the benefits of technology, or a healthy distrust of institutions. In these ways, crypto is a perfect fit for the turbulence and distrust of the 2020s, as well as the nihilism and corruption of the Trump era.
Soupçonné d'avoir tué Brian Thompson, patron d'une assurance privée aux États-Unis, et aujourd'hui devant la justice de New-York, Luigi Mangione a été présenté comme un "bad boy". Pourtant, en ligne, il a été adulé. Une fascination que les journaux n'ont pas cherché à analyser. Entre tentatives ratées de profilage numérique du mis en cause, refus de politiser son acte et de nommer la violence du système de santé privée, mais aussi, les cris d'orfraie moralistes sur la sacralité de la vie humaine, la presse étasunienne a fait l'étalage de sa déconnexion sociale.
AI can turn some impressive party tricks, but it's unsuited for solving serious problems in the real world. This is true of predictive AI, whose correlations are data-driven conspiracy theories, and of large language models like ChatGPT, whose plausible waffle is always trying to pull free of the facts. The real issue is not only that AI doesn't work as advertised, but the impact it will have before this becomes painfully obvious to everyone. AI is being used as form of 'shock doctrine', where the sense of urgency generated by an allegedly world-transforming technology is used as an opportunity to transform social systems without democratic debate.
[...]
Real AI isn't sci-fi but the precaritisation of jobs, the continued privatisation of everything and the erasure of actual social relations. AI is Thatcherism in computational form. Like Thatcher herself, real world AI boosts bureaucratic cruelty towards the most vulnerable. Case after case, from Australia to the Netherlands, has proven that unleashing machine learning in welfare systems amplifies injustice and the punishment of the poor. AI doesn't provide insights as it's just a giant statistical guessing game. What it does do is amplify thoughtlessness, a lack of care, and a distancing from actual consequences. The logics of ranking and superiority are buried deep in the make up of artificial intelligence; married to populist politics, it becomes another vector for deciding who is disposable.
Here’s a sad statistic for you: In the United States, we have a whopping 1.4 million people employed with the job of DENYING HEALTH CARE, vs only 1 million doctors in the entire country! That’s all you need to know about America. We pay more people to deny care than to give it. 1 million doctors to give care, 1.4 million brutes in cubicles doing their best to stop doctors from giving that care. If the purpose of “health care” is to keep people alive, then what is the purpose of DENYING PEOPLE HEALTH CARE? Other than to kill them? I definitely condemn that kind of murder. And in fact, I already did. In 2007, I made a film – SICKO – about America’s bloodthirsty, profit-driven and murderous health insurance system. It was nominated for an Oscar. It’s the second-largest grossing film of my career (after Fahrenheit 9/11). And over the past 15 years, millions upon millions of people have watched it including, apparently, Luigi Mangione.
Depuis son arrestation, les médias peinent à décrire Luigi Mangione autrement que comme un garçon sans histoire. Le fait que quelqu’un comme lui puisse se transformer en tueur de PDG de sang froid a de quoi effrayer bien des puissants, puisque son geste semblait impossible à prévenir. Et c’est donc cette banalité du coupable présumé qui l’a transformé d’ores et déjà en icône de la culture populaire. Cet engouement n’est pas neutre politiquement puisque ce meurtre a mis les assurances privées et leurs pratiques au cœur du débat public aux Etats-Unis.
One of the first pieces of publicized evidence in the wake of the killing was that three 9mm cartridges left at the scene were found to have been labeled with three phrases: “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” It was speculated the first two phrases referred to the oft-cited practice of health insurance companies to deny coverage to clients and defend these decisions with legalistic trickery. “Depose,” of course, has multiple meanings, but in this context just two: one might depose a health care company CEO in court, and one might also depose a figure of terrific unaccountable authority, such as a king or tyrant.
The only good news about space colonies designed by Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is that they aren’t going to happen. Musk will not be launching a million people to Mars in 15 years, not even close (although I do see some fantasy synergy between Musk and Trump’s plan to deport millions of people on day one of his presidency — maybe he’s dreaming of filling his Martian city with Puerto Ricans, Haitians, and South American gang-bangers). Bezos is not going to build an office park in Earth orbit, not as long as he can bulldoze farm land for cheap and assemble giant concrete boxes here on Earth. Those are two professional liars. Don’t believe anything they promise, because all they really promise is controlling you to their benefit.
Dans les lieux de travail, l’IA apparaît souvent de manière anodine, en étant peu à peu intégrée à des applications de travail existantes. Dans la pratique, l’automatisation remplace rarement les travailleurs, elle automatise très partiellement certaines tâches spécifiques et surtout reconfigure la façon dont les humains travaillent aux côtés des machines. Les résultats de l’IA générative nécessitent souvent beaucoup de retravail pour être exploitées. Des rédacteurs sont désormais embauchés pour réhumaniser les textes synthétiques, mais en étant moins payé que s’ils l’avaient écrit par eux-même sous prétexte qu’ils apportent moins de valeur. Les chatbots ressemblent de plus en plus aux véhicules autonomes, avec leurs centres de commandes à distance où des humains peuvent reprendre les commandes si nécessaire, et invisibilisent les effectifs pléthoriques qui leur apprennent à parler et corrigent leurs discours. La dévalorisation des humains derrière l’IA occultent bien souvent l’étendue des collaborations nécessaires à leur bon fonctionnement.
Dans [son] livre, le sociologue [Antonio Casilli] démontre combien ce travail invisible, qui est lié aux plateformes et aux datas, reproduit une dichotomie nord-sud. Le travail du clic est un job précaire réalisé par des millions de personnes et que l’on retrouve partout sur la planète. Parfois, ce sont des freelances aux États-Unis, des Philippins dans un cybercafé ou des milliers de travailleurs africains dans des fermes du clic. Il y a néanmoins des différences très importantes dans les conditions de travail. Tout en bas de l’échelle, on retrouve les travailleurs africains. Finalement, c’est une nouvelle dimension néocoloniale, loin de l’image épurée de la Silicon Valley. Le fait que les Big Tech invisibilisent ce travail sous-entend que celui-ci n’est pas très important – pourtant, il est essentiel. L’un des travailleurs que j’ai rencontré au Kenya m’a dit : « Il n’y a pas d’intelligence artificielle, seulement l’intelligence africaine. » Ça résume assez bien les choses.
Yes, there is an economic incentive to the election of Trump by those at the commanding heights of Silicon Valley power. But to reduce it purely to materialism is missing a strong part of the story, namely about AI's own operation as an ideological apparatus which encourages power consolidation.
Artificial intelligence is a threat to educational institutions – as deeply flawed as these may be – not because it's some incredible technological achievement that's more powerful that the human mind (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha); but because it is the manifestation of a series of reactionary political beliefs. AI is inextricably bound up in ideologies and practices that seek to undermine unions, exploit labor, re-inscribe racial and economic hierarchies, and centralize control – of knowledge and knowing ("intelligence" in all its various military and eugenicist histories) – in the hands of a few giant technology corporations. (Folks, that's fascism.)
What should we call a society in which a prominent Conservative party politician – that is to say, not a fascist oddball or some random talking head – calls for "violence against irregular migration", i.e. for shooting migrants at the EU's borders; in which up to 30% believe that it is perfectly ok to vote for a party that is "in parts certified right-wing extremist", for which, read: fascist; in which "climate protection" means protection against climate activists, and "climate adaptation" does not mean building higher dikes, but building higher walls against migrants; in which migrants who, for completely incomprehensible reasons, want to migrate to the parts of the world that are still inhabitable (whereby of course the vast majority migrate to their home or neighbouring countries), are demonised as "criminal gangs of human traffickers", in order to legitimise a "war on migration/migrants"? A society that Anna Becker sums up brutally and but aptly on Bluesky: "First we exploit countries, then we destroy a large part of global livelihoods, and instead of saving people from the consequences of our actions, we seal ourselves off by force and let them die in the Mediterranean. And the voters love it."
Precisely: an asshole-society.
La semaine de quatre jours a séduit l'Allemagne. 73% des entreprises ayant participé à une étude pilote refusent de revenir à la semaine de cinq jours. Productivité maintenue, bien-être accru : le modèle "100-80-100" fait ses preuves et ouvre la voie à une nouvelle organisation du travail.
Jezz Bezos and Elon Musk emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average human does in their entire life. That’s according to a new report from Oxfam International, a British NGO that fights poverty.
Voters face an easy but tectonic choice in the race for the White House.
Will they choose the first woman or the oldest man to be the next president?
Will they choose the prosecutor or the convict?
What too many of us don’t know now is that the rise of Nazi Germany and the lead-up to the Holocaust was a slow play fertilized by denialism about what was happening in plain view—not the Final Solution out of the gate. Non-targeted Germans continued their daily lives, even as their kids trained to be hardened and hateful Nazis, and believed the bigoted lies that it was “subhuman” people—which is not a thing—causing all their economic problems.
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.
Notre société "obsédée" par la croissance économique subit une crise de la santé mentale dans le monde, qui touche particulièrement les plus défavorisés, a déploré jeudi le rapporteur spécial de l'ONU sur les droits de l'Homme et l'extrême pauvreté.
Une étude qui circule depuis 2021 montre une surmortalité paradoxale des cyclistes casqués. Mais selon les hypothèses posées, plus que le casque, le type de pratique – sportive ou débutante – serait en cause, car elle est plus ou moins génératrice d’accidents.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
Studies from around the world show bike lanes ease congestion, reduce emissions and are a boon to businesses
The way to understand this doublethink: that we can avoid dangerous climate change while continuing to burn fossil fuels – is that it relies on the concept of overshoot. The promise is that we can overshoot past any amount of warming, with the deployment of planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal dragging temperatures back down by the end of the century.
This not only cripples any attempt to limit warming to 1.5°C, but risks catastrophic levels of climate change as it locks us in to energy and material-intensive solutions which for the most part exist only on paper.
What's going on here isn't especially confusing. Prior to Dobbs, calling yourself "pro-life" was a low-cost way for Republican voters to tell a story where they are morally upright heroes while casting feminists, urban liberals, college kids, and racial minorities as oversexed heathens. When abortion is legal, it's easy to condemn other people's abortions as a matter of "convenience" or say they're "using it for birth control" or employ other euphemisms for promiscuity, while quietly believing the abortions you and your friends get are justified.
Margarita Gingins estime que Javier Milei n'est pas responsable de la situation économique du pays. En revanche, "je pense qu'il doit donner une réponse à la situation sociale. On ne peut pas gouverner un pays avec seulement un projet économique. Sa responsabilité, c'est de ne pas avoir mis en place un filet social pour accompagner la population."
De même qu'on ne s'attend pas à ce que les frigos se réinventent chaque année en terme de fonctionnalités, le smartphone a atteint une certaine maturité et n'évolue plus que de manière anecdotique. Mais les fabricants doivent quand même satisfaire les actionnaires, et donc nous persuader qu'il est important d'un racheter un chaque année.
Le vrai risque des soit-disant "IA" : non pas une révolte des machine qui voudraient soudainement détruire l'humanité, mais l'automatisation de tâches administratives par des systèmes aveugles et inhumains, qui écrasent les individus et contre lesquels il est pratiquement impossible de faire appel. Le tout fondé sur la croyance (absolument fausse) qu'un algorithme est nécessairement neutre et objectif.
Les années 1980 représentent un seuil dans cette histoire et dans les années 1990, on peut parler d’un basculement et d’un délitement de tout l’héritage ouvrier du XXe siècle et de cette espèce de pilier syndical de l’État britannique d’après-guerre – il y avait quand même 13 200 000 syndiqués en 1980 ! Au gré de la désindustrialisation, de la montée du chômage de masse et des lois antisyndicales, il y a un reflux de cette construction sociale et politique gigantesque, centrale dans la culture politique britannique, et ce reflux devient une véritable relégation symbolique dans des médias appliqués à célébrer la nouveauté de la fin de la guerre froide et de la disparation des bastions du monde ouvrier le plus familier.
But moral outrage must be closely managed, or it can do more harm than good. Ganz, who eventually became a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School, has spent years teaching people how to use their anger to effect change. Stoking the emotion is easy. Learning how to channel it to useful ends, he told me, is harder. For anger to be productive, at some point, it must stop. Victory often demands compromise. “You have to know how to arouse passions to fuel the fight, and then how to cool everyone down so they’ll accept the deal on the table,” Ganz said.
Walz, with his cheerful goober dad persona, offers a view of masculinity that is far tougher than that displayed by even the most steroid-inflated men of the MAGA world. He's a guy who isn't afraid of basic empathy. A man who is confident enough not to run from those who are different. A man so sure of himself that he can let a woman be his boss without acting threatened by her power. That's what real strength looks like. No wonder a weak man like Trump thinks Walz is the apocalypse.
Companies may unintentionally hurt their sales by including the words “artificial intelligence” when describing their offerings that use the technology, according to a study led by Washington State University researchers.
Of course, generative AI is an impressive technology, and it provides tremendous opportunities for improving productivity in a number of tasks. But because the hype has gone so far ahead of reality, the setbacks of the technology in 2024 will be more memorable.
Heroism is overrated. It is always movements that lead to large-scale change, though our dominant cultural narrative of change focuses on individuals. It is not naive to think you can change the world, it is naive to think you could be in the world and not change it, but that change happens in community.
Rather than solving the problems raised by employers’ methods, however, the use of automated job-hunting only served to set off an AI arms race that has no obvious conclusion. ZipRecruiter’s quarterly New Hires Survey reported that in Q1 of this year, more than half of all applicants admitted using AI to assist their efforts. Hiring managers, flooded with more applications than ever before, took the next logical step of seeking out AI that can detect submissions forged by AI. Naturally, prospective employees responded by turning to AI that could defeat AI detectors. Employers moved on to AI that can conduct entire interviews. The applicants can cruise past this hurdle by using specialized AI assistants that provide souped-up answers to an interviewer’s questions in real time. Around and around we go, with no end in sight.
I work in tech. I think a lot of cool stuff is being built and a lot of good work is being done. But tech is a mature industry, and most of what is interesting these days has to do with bringing the things we learned from 2000-2015 about how to use software into places that have not yet modernized. We’re at the tail end of what’s interesting and good and novel. Software technology has very little left to change in a major way. And the entire ethos of a16z and the like has utterly failed to produce breakthroughs in computer hardware, biological sciences, energy, environment or any other major sector. The last decade of innovation has been entirely about reducing friction in commerce. That’s it. And it’s not that profitable and will end up with a very small number of winners.
You’ve heard this refrain before – giving money to homeless people is not the best way to help them because it might be squandered, or spent on harmful habits. But a new Canadian study makes a powerful case to the contrary.
97 travailleurs Kényans cosignent une lettre ouverte demandant au président des États-Unis, Joe Biden, de mettre fin « aux conditions de travail qui s'apparentent à de l'esclavage moderne » dans l'industrie du numérique.
But isn’t “weird” just making fun of people? Well … yes. And that’s good. It’s good to mock and make fun of people who are bad or want to do bad things. It’s also necessary politically. One of the challenges of the Trump era is that Trumpism is very threatening and dangerous. It aims to upend and destroy the foundations of our civic democracy. But in cataloguing these threats and pumping up outrage over every Trumpian transgression we can also build up the image of their power like inflating a vast flaccid balloon, a sort of collective psyching yourself out. Good thrusting mockery cuts right through that. Yes, they’re dangerous. But they’re also insecure, stunted degenerates. They’re weird. Normal people don’t want to be around them. They think this kind of talk is normal because it’s common parlance in the far-right podcast subculture they live in. That’s really the JD Vance story right there. In his world, raging at miserable cat ladies trying to rule our lives doesn’t seem strange.
Imposer aux gens qui s'expriment sur le web d'utiliser leur véritable identité ne résout aucun problème et en introduit de nouveaux, comme le montre l'exemple de la Corée du Sud : moins de 1% de diminution des commentaires malveillants, réduction de la liberté d'expression et de la sphère privée, augmentation massive des tentatives de piratage des sites qui doivent désormais stocker les données personnelles des gens, coûts importants pour les sites, application à deux vitesses de la loi, etc.
Violent video games are much more likely to be trotted out as an excuse, however, in certain situations. For a forthcoming study, Dr. Ivory and his colleagues studied 6,814 news accounts of mass shootings. They found that in coverage of mass school shootings specifically, video games were more than eight times as likely to be brought up when the shooter is white than when the shooter is black.
“We should think about when we are more comfortable looking for something else to blame,” he said, adding, “I haven’t heard any senators talk about video games when an immigrant commits a crime.”
Fascinante description du paysage politique américain et des différences fondamentales entre les deux principaux partis.
Over the past several decades, the parties have polarized, i.e., sorted themselves ideologically (that's what the GOP's "Southern strategy" was about). Racist conservative Democrats became Republicans and social liberals became Democrats. The process has now all but completed: The rightmost national Democrat is now to the left of the leftmost national Republican.
Crucially, however, the process of polarization has been asymmetrical. While almost all liberals have become Democrats and almost all conservatives have become Republicans, far more Republicans self-identify as conservative than Democrats do as liberal, and consequently the GOP has moved much further right than the Democratic Party has left.
En réponse, un article intéressant du prix Nobel d'économie Paul Krugman sur le mythe de la symétrie entre les deux principaux partis américains :
The behaviour of the British and wider European elite towards migrants is not simple inhumanity. It is strategic inhumanity. It is weaponised inhumanity designed to convince populations fracturing under hammer-blows of austerity and economic chaos that the enemy is out there, that there is an “us” that must be protected from “them”.
It’s hard to overstate the devastation to some people’s lives from having their names published as part of this hack: not only to their relationships with their spouses and children but to their careers, reputations, and – depending on where they live – possibly their liberty or even life. What appears on the internet is permanent and inescapable. All of the people whose names appear in this data base will now be permanently branded with a digital “A.” Whether they actually did what they are accused of will be irrelevant: digital lynch mobs offer no due process or appeals. And it seems certain that many of the people whose lives are harmed, or ruined, by this hack will have been guilty of nothing.
But the harmfulness of conspiracy theory arguably goes much deeper than this. It’s not just that conspiracy belief sometimes causes people to do terrible things. It’s that attachment to the conspiracy worldview violates important norms of trust and forbearance that are central to how we relate to each other and the wider world.
It's become known as the Aarhus Model, a programme designed in Denmark's second city to dissuade young people from going to fight for al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Thirty travelled to Syria in 2013 but only two so far this year - and only one in 2014. Ahmed is one young man who was convinced, a few years ago, to draw back from the first step on a path that could have ended in jihad.
“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”
The reason you should boycott bottled water is because it enables a bullshit, backwards vision for society.
Boycotting bottled water means you support the idea that public access to clean, safe water is not only a basic human right, but that it’s a goddamn technological triumph worth protecting. It means you believe that ensuring public access to this resource is the only way to guarantee it will be around in a few more years.
Clean, safe drinking water that flows freely out of our faucets is a feat of engineering that humans have been been perfecting for two millennia. It is a cornerstone of civilization. It is what our cities are built upon. And over the years the scientists and hydrologists and technicians who help get water to our houses have also become our environmental stewards, our infrastructural watchdogs, our urban visionaries. Drinking the water these people supply to our homes is the best possible way to protect future access to water worldwide.
[...]
Giving up bottled water also means thinking long-term about preserving water security. You may have reservoirs near you brimming over with fresh rainfall right now, but the truth is that the amount of potable water on this planet is growing more scarce every year. The bottled water industry is one of the fastest-growing on the planet. Last year it made $100 billion, an amount that is expected to double within five years. Now consider the fact that it actually takes the equivalent of three bottles of water to make a single water bottle. Every swig from a plastic blob in the name of convenience moves us closer to a world without any clean water at all.
Because like I said before, it’s not about this drought—it’s about every future drought.
Au final, que retenir de cet éditorial ? L'image d'une Europe condamnée aux « ajustements », refusant toute solidarité interne et en même temps toute différence, montant les peuples les uns contre les autres, établissant une démocratie sur la base de critères économiques. L'Europe dont rêve Arnaud Leparmentier n'est en fait qu'un immense gâchis.
In a world where profit is consistently put before both people and the planet, climate economics has everything to do with ethics and morality. Because if we agree that endangering life on earth is a moral crisis, then it is incumbent on us to act like it.
La sous-enchère salariale fait l’unanimité contre elle. Personne ne défend les conditions de travail abusives en vigueur sur certains chantiers, qui ne respectent pas les règles et les usages locaux.
Mais serions-nous plus tolérants si nous pouvions commander, via une application smartphone, des ouvriers étrangers demandant des salaires de misère sans cotisations sociales?
La problématique économique et sociale liée à Uber brillamment expliquée.
Les secteurs de l’hôtellerie et des taxis étant universellement détestés, le débat public s’est rapidement résumé à l’image d’audacieux précurseurs bousculant des rentiers poussifs et dépourvus d’imagination. Une présentation aussi biaisée masque un fait essentiel : ces courageux champions de l’« économie du partage » évoluent dans un univers mental caractéristique du XIXe siècle. Dans leur système, le travailleur, radicalement individualisé, ne bénéficie que d’une protection sociale symbolique ; il assume les risques qui pesaient auparavant sur les employeurs ; ses possibilités de négociation collective se réduisent à néant.
Un bon survol du racket scandaleux et destructeur pratiqué de manière routinière par les comités d'organisation des Jeux Olympiques et de la Coupe du monde de football.
Beau texte sur la représentation du handicap dans Mad Max: Fury Road.
I am turning 30 years old next week. I’ve been a fan of action film my entire life. And I have NEVER seen a physically disabled, kickass, female lead character in a Hollywood movie EVER – not once, until yesterday.
En démocratie, on ne condamne pas quelqu’un pour ses opinions, mais pour le passage à l’acte. La République française, à partir de 1881, part de la liberté individuelle et pas du contrôle étatique. Elle n’est pas robespierriste, il ne faudrait pas qu’elle le devienne. On oublie que la loi de 1905 sur la séparation des églises et de l’Etat garantit la liberté de pratique religieuse dans l’espace public. Elle impose la neutralité à l’Etat, pas à la société.
If you scoff at the parallels I’m drawing, you need to question why. Because the disparity here is directly related to gender, and being a girl is used as an insult more often than it’s celebrated. Look at the advert that caused a stir at this year’s Super Bowl, Always’ #LikeAGirl campaign, in which adults asked to “run like a girl” and “throw like a girl” did some floppy and flailing parody of those actions—and then young girls, not yet taught to doubt themselves and their bodies, ran and threw with graceful strength and confidence.
Que peut-être, quand on dit que le vrai truc important c’est l’égalité des salaires, et qu’il faut commencer par ça, peut-être que justement il faut commencer par l’autre bout des choses. Peut-être que le jour où on arrêtera d’apprendre à nos gosses qu’il y a des couleurs, des jeux, des métiers pour filles et des pour garçons, peut-être que quand on commencera à accepter les féminins de mots traditionnellement masculins, peut-être que quand on arrêtera de rire grassement à la blague d’un pote qui commente pas méchamment pour rire les cuisses d’une fille qui passe dans la rue, peut-être que quand on aura mené ces combats ô combien dérisoires, d’eux-mêmes, sans révolution, les gens se mettront à payer les femmes du même salaire que les hommes.
A kneejerk response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre would be familiar: crackdowns, monitoring and curbs on Muslim communities, including racial profiling; wild promises of “punishing” the attackers and taking decisive action to root out terrorists once and for all; ramping up military intervention in Iraq, Syria, Yemen or elsewhere to increase the heat on the terrorists at source, and teach them a lesson.
The problem is that these are tried, tested, and failed strategies that serve largely as useful recruiting sergeants for terrorist networks like IS and al-Qaeda. We are so obsessed with these strategies, despite their abject failure, that while getting rightly worked up at the horrifying atrocities against the West like that just committed in Paris, we are incapable of mustering a similar emotional response to the reports of dozens of civilian casualties due to US-led airstrikes.
Such so-called collateral damage, which includes the “mass destruction of civilian homes” by western bombs according to rebel eyewitnesses on the ground, is not even an accident, but a result of Obama’s deliberate loosening of "near certainty" standards previously adopted to minimise civilian deaths: and is already driving locals into the arms of IS.
We must not fall into the trap of the terrorists themselves – the inability to recognize the suffering of the Other, their wholesale demonization, the acceptance of their indiscriminate destruction as a necessary means to a "greater good." The only way forward is for people of all faith and none to stand together in rejecting the violence perpetrated in our name, whether by state or insurgent.
Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.
Personne ne veut voir que la plus grosse fabrique à soldats d'Al Qaeda sur notre territoire, c'est la PRISON. Personne n'a compris que la France n'a pas basculé en 2015, mais il y a dix ans déjà, lors des émeutes. Personne ne veut voir que nous vivons encore les conséquences lointaines de l'immense humiliation coloniale et post-coloniale, et que vos leçons de "civilisation" et de "liberté d'expression" sont de ce fait inaudibles pour certains de ceux qui l'ont subie et la subissent ENCORE.
This is a dangerous moment. Anti-Muslim prejudice is rampant in Europe. The favoured target of Europe’s far-right – like France’s Front National, which currently leads in the opinion polls – is Muslims. France is home to around 5 million Muslims, who disproportionately live in poverty and unemployment, often in ghettoised banlieues. This incident should rightfully horrify, but it will now undoubtedly fuel an already ascendant far-right.
The consequences? More anti-Muslim hatred, more disillusionment among already marginalised young Muslims, more potential recruits for extremist groups.
There is a choice, of course. Norway’s enlightened response could be a model elsewhere in Europe too. It would be the last thing the attackers would want us to do. That, in itself, should give us all pause to think.
Here's a theory. Terrorists aren't offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don't care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting.
Ils espèrent aussi que la colère et l’indignation qui emportent la nation trouvera chez certains son expression dans un rejet et une hostilité à l’égard de tous les musulmans de France. Ainsi se creuserait le fossé qu’ils rêvent d’ouvrir entre les musulmans et les autres citoyens.
Passionnant article au sujet de notre culture de la gratification immédiate.