>>52225
(2/2)

A true believer, Beniger not only took society but all of life to be an information pro-cessing system (1986: 32-34, 179-84, 106-18). He saw all physical systems as controlled through three dimensions: existence, experience, and evolution:

>Existence or being, the problem of maintaining organization – even in the absence of external change – counter to entropy
>Experience of behaving, the problem of adapting goal-directed processes to varia-tion and change in external conditions
>Evolution or becoming, the problem of reprogramming less successful goals and procedures while at the same time preserving more successful ones (1986: 65-68).

He thus equated control with programming, which is to say, any act of physical encoding (1986: 41). Once rid of “consciousness, planning, purpose, or any other anthropo-morphic qualities to aggregate levels,” Beniger wrote, programming was free to take over life, culture, bureaucracy, and technology, giving way to genetic, cultural, organiza-tion, and mechanical programming (1986: 39-42, 103, Table 32). The ultimate triumph of the control revolution: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand now reached deep inside all life, or at least that which can be rendered computable by decision (1986: 41, 49).4
In sum, cybernetics sought to replace metaphysics.5 Its political vision of control, no less utopian than Henri Saint-Simon’s industrialized dream of replacing the government of soul with the administration of things. Now finally possible with a new aesthetic re-gime of observation, interfaces, and targets, and a generalized epistemology of commu-nication and perception managed in the aggregate.

>>52225
Those utterly random hyphens are not making my headache better. Lack of paragraphing doesn't help either. I'll finish reading this later but I do agree with the idea, iirc read here, that people are backporting ideas of computers and technology onto themselves in ways that are false, to make them more like computers than other way around. I have long railed against cybernetics and many aspects of technology in spite of being a borderline techno-fetishist myself specifically because I am opposed to the social control, and to the way the tech will fit in the economic, geopolitical, and social order. For example you will likely have an implant that it is illegal to modify your own part's firmware, effectively becoming property of the corporation.

It is a more totality of turning man into slave than has ever before been proposed, with each grafted part not adding to the organism, but rather losing more of yourself, both physically, legally, and spiritually, to the extent that due to neoliberalism and globalism aka international Capitalism, rather than freeing us it will enslave us, just as due to the nature of our society automation and robots will impoverish rather than enrich us. There is no way around this because it is the nature of our awful flawed system itself. Were it another system, having an entire underclass of automatons would provide a life of leisure and scholarly pursuit, freed energy, enhanced production, abundance for everybody, as certain Marxists once proposed, as did the Venus Project; but instead, because of Capitalism all it means is a cyberpunk dystopia with massively burgeoning underclass and unemoloyment and homelessness, itself a self created problem necessitating a vast expansion of the police state and authoritarian powers. They will need even more dystopian methods of control, from blanket surveillance, to brutality, to camps, to something right out of the game Syndicate
https://www.wired.com/story/billionaires-use-vr-avoid-social-change/

The problem is the nature of our system, and in turn cybernetics would do nothing but make Man himself more closely mirroring the mindless automatons, and being treated as such; indeed, you will become less than human in more ways than one. It is the natural progression from the idea that tinkering with what should be your own property becomes punishable as a crime, because it is not your property, until you yourself become the property as is all hardware installed to your body
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/1537125771.shtml

It is the logical conclusion of legal precedence--there is no other plausible outcome. You will become effectively owned by the company, because the company will own at least the firmware of your cybernetics.

I have addressed this and some other issues in writing about all the problems inherent in the new Eidos games, and specifically why Deus Ex HR and MD unwittingly became extensions of Picus, and themselves almost an audacious tongue in cheek reference to its own state as a piece of ideological propaganda, diverting your attention away from systemic critique and boxed in within the framework Eidos' propaganda had imposed on you, namely, the ideas that cybernetics are "evolution"; that it's more like XMen mutations empowering you, while blatantly showing the corporate logo of Sarif boldly printed on all your corporate owned hardware now replacing your own parts; on depicting those skeptical of corporate patented cybernetics as being akin either to religious fanatics, racist bigots, or authoritarian fascists, who moreover are motivated by the shadowy global conspiracy to suppress, rather than promote, this technology; and to frame it all, the entire problem of class, as merely being about insufficient access to consumer goods. It is in that very real regard a savvy establishmentarian propaganda piece, carefully constructed to portray itself as legitimate resistance to shadowy cabals, while itself directly promoting the interests of those cabals in the real world.

There is a certain extent to which a majority of our media takes an inverted approach compared to the Soviet system, where nobody trusted the propaganda because they knew it was propaganda, but rather positions itself here as resistance, opposition, or counterculture--in fact the implication was embedded in your very post. They seem rather to take the approach of pushing their message and interests by posing as the legitimate resistance or counterculture, while formulating those very ideas in deeply establishment think tanks and organizations like DARPA and the RAND corporation; indeed, that very thing has long been insinuated to have been the origins of 60s counterculture, in an effort to capture, coop, and redirect the anticipated inevitable resistance and skepticism that would come from the public.

Indeed, any videogame treats corporatism as a foregone conclusion, not just in present reality, nor just projected into the future, but in all realities; this should not be surprising given that such business entities have nearly monopolized all such content creation. It is reminiscent of Soviet levels of propaganda and information control. The true extent of this dystopia is revealed upon any cursory examination of the content, like the outright lies of Call of Duty rewriting history to have the Highway of Death atrocity in Iraq rewritten to having been done by the Russians, to even Stardock and Amplitude depicting all empires as having the alleged inevitability of becoming corporate, even the ones using Communist motifs, to games like Imagine Earth and Invisible Inc.; all such realities are redepicted as corporate ones. This becomes an even more amusing anachronism in waiting given that it's ultimately Wectern corporate wishful thinking and denialism in the face of an ascendant pseudo-Communist China.

The aim of all this, of course, is always the same in our system because the system itself remains unchanged, namely financial exploitation and social control. To them such things as cybernetics are merely a more powerful tool to that end, and will ceaselessly promote the tools of mass enslavement as the means to our liberation and salvation. They have been doing so for decades now, while devising new ways of promoting it, just as groups like VeriChip failed to promote implanted RFID chips for something as trivial as buying a drink, as though the surveillance and tracking enabled by credit transactions were no longer enough. The obvious subtext of all this, of course, is they themselves view mass social upheaval, unrest, and revolutionary musings as an inevitability when people come face to face with what they are doing, which is precisely why they promote these tools of enslavement as consumer goods instead, be it Alexa, iPhones, built in always online XBOX webcams, RFID chips, or cybernetics.

None of this is to say the tech itself is bad in and of itself, but rather that the outcome is a foregone conclusion due to the nature of the system in which it propagates.

>>52241

>random hyphens/ Lack of paragraphing

I c/p ofc, paragraphing is like the original, just no empty line inbetween them (but the orginal doesn't have them neither).

Cybernetics proposes solutions by treating things like systems, by treating things digital (discretization) which means as distinct countable data that allow for mathematical operation, computation. Therefore cybernetics is perfect as operative tool.
The 60s counterculture was driven by visions of non-hierachical (anti authoritarian spirit of '68) socities (Fred Turner, 2006), the grass root network seemed the perfect political counter to topdown planning (also communist!), Turner anecdotically puts a quote from Steward Brands diary as kid or teen where he articulates his red scare, propelled by US propaganda we can suppose. Which brings us to the sacred image of individuality with these people.
Dieter Mersch, a German scholar said there are two camps in cybernetics: cybernetics as control tool for stability (of a system) or as bearers of emergence, of novelity (creative camp, counter culture strand).
What is introduced by cybernetics is very interesting as it also deals with question of the real and the symbolic. To this day I'm fascinated by it's operative rigor that we can see and also by the question what is a system, do we know if it is a system or do these people just treat is as system (and somehow successfully), what does this mean in general for humans, how much "truth" is in cybernetics and where are the limits of it as epistemology and its operative execution?

The article I was quoting https://coilsoftheserpent.org/2020/07/deleuze-beyond-deleuze-thought-outside-cybernetics/ from is about Deleuzes short text "Postcript in Societies of control" where Deluze writes that the dividual, pretty much a datafied individual in a sense, what you pointed out by consumer gadgets etc collecting data is creating dividuals, I lately read an article in online advertisement and dividuality, quite interesting.

But in the end, and you pointed to that issue already, it's a question of politics and sociality which is not solely a question of technology and definitely not solved by technology. What might going on is a depolitization: technology as replacement for politics...technology will solve the problem. Evgeny Morozow termed that ideology solutionism.

>>52114
Eh what is it and what are you using it for? What use cases are you expecting? Because if you were planning on solid gaming forget about it. As a mostly shitposting machine sure. Personally in 2021 that's what I would expect of a really cheap laptop. I mean CPU itself is fine, it isn't great, but it's fine. I don't know what kind of capacities we are talking about here or RAM speed or what, but it sounds to me like just a really basic interneting and schoolwork PC that you could probably get a few really older games to run on. Man, I remember those days, back when you could just expect of an Intel machine to play vidya from integrated graphics just well enough, to where 30fps was standard and we just called everything lag from frame tearing to bad ping and mp latency to massively dropped frames, it all was just "lag" whenever it couldn't do what we were trying to make it do.

It really all boils down to use cases. Because that's an integrated graphics chipset it will work for watching high definition videos and stuff like that but to play any vaguely recent game requires a dedicated GPU. It's not a very strong workhorse CPU which can't turbo for shit but at least its baseclocks are fine and frankly with sufficient rendering power you can still play a hell of a lot of games on even far older and slower CPUs. Apparently its iGPU is Vega 6, so idk how that translates but should probably let you play old stuff, although I have no clue why that chip is stuck on PCIe gen3 when the whole nice thing about even Zen2 was gen4 and lots of lanes.

All that being stated it's still an iGPU chip that's like the whole 4000 series explicitly designed to be a laptop CPU, in fact I'm actually a bit baffled as to why it's even available on desktop to begin with except to have a really cheap OEM and businessmachine CPU for some reason, which at just 4 cores isn't good at all anymore. I mean it'll still be fine now for the average person, but it's a quadcore.

The reason this baffles me in particular is because you can buy the widely available 6-core 3600 CPU instead which is just as fast by boost clocks and 3.6ghz to 3.8ghz base clocks, and have PCIe4.0. It's really just a completely baffling design decision to me why the chip evej exists on desktop except to I guess provide people looking for the cheapest bargain PC possible without directly needing a graphics card.

As for the RAM that is likewise just barely to play older games and do some web browsing. Even in some years old games I have on win10 it's not unusual to go well past 8gb of physical RAM. Considering everything else about that machine my guess is it's probably something like 2667ghz, which isn't terrible I mean I was still gaming on 8gb of 1600mhz RAM not even that long ago, but still. You'll certainly want a RAM upgrade at some point for anything beyond shitposts and videos.

Tl;dr it depends on use case aka what you hope to use it for and certain other things about the PC, which if it's desktop includes quality of power supply, board, etc. This is more relevant in the future if you just absolutely need a new PC now in this godawful market and might upgrade parts two years later. So if it's not for gaming, yes, probably. Especially if just for school. Building a $500 machine that's better is doable, but would be difficult if not impossible especially right now.

Here to give you an idea what it'll look like if you try and game on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=404&v=t1a0Ion1ZF4

>>52115
>>52116
The main reasons I consider a new PC is that my 12 years old core2 duo computer doesn't support 64bit guests in virtual machines and VGA passthrough, so I can neither install modern Linux distros guest OS (or other 64bit OS), nor play an old but demanding game on let's say
Windows XP 32bit guest OS.
What makes matters worse is that I'm forced to use Xrender/nouveau driver on the native OS because the newer Linux kernels don't support nvidia-304 legavy drivers anymore. If I try to use plasma-desktop with openGL instead xrender
I get ugly glitches with the noeveau driver, so I'd say my computer reached the end of his useful lifespan pretty much. I can still stream video, play some old PC games (either native, or on guest OS), listen music, shitpost with it, use gimp etc. but thats about it.

Watching some similar yt videos like the one you posted convinced me that the ryzen 4350g pro would cover my ocassional gaming needs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNbr-CKIqi8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgmxvoMQdnY

My usage pattern would be mostly the same as described above with my current PC, I just want it to be capable of VGA passtrough, 64 bit virtual machine OS guests and be able to use proprietary drivers and OPenGL with the recent Linux Kernels for the next 10 years.

Other than you I believe that consumer grafic cards will become more and more obsolete tech in the nearer future (not in the nearest maybe) and see no reason to invest in one outreagous expensive card when I can get almost the same experience with a single APU chip.

My question is basically if there is something
on the market that has better specs and longer live expectancy for less invested bucks than a Ryzen 4350g Pro based PC for 450-500€.