Michael Foucault - Crime and Punishment - The Means of Correct Training [formatting for emphasis mine]:
[A surveillance and hierarchical control] architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf, the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to render visible those who are inside it;
in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals:
- to act on those it shelters,
- to provide a hold on their conduct,
- to carry the effects of power right to them,
- to make it possible to know them, to alter them.
Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schemaof confinement and enclosure - thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies.
Foucault has written tomes on this topic — the transformation of the ‘architectures of surveillance and control’ and its internalization as a means of unconscious self-policing. He didn’t live to see the internet and the pervasively present microphones and cameras and “surveillance capitalism”, but he did write the book on it.
—
See also (for a contemporary consideration of Foucault’s “Panopticon”):
Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon, Connor Sheridan , 2016 (thesis)
”All in all, the Nijjar affair takes the lid off the acute contradictions in India’s foreign policies. The assumptions driving the foreign policy’s China-centric thrust turn out to be delusional; the “westernist” trajectory has landed in a cul-de-sac; the assiduously propagated larger-than-life global image of India turns out to be a mirage; foreign policy built on personality cult and opportunism rather than rational and consistent principles attuned to the world in transition got battered; and, most important, the hubris in India’s diplomacy boomeranged.
The Nijjar affair poses an existential dilemma. Surrendering to the US diktat will make India look a surrogate state and a laughing stock in the Global South. Indians won’t approve of it.
On the contrary, ignoring the diktat will be hugely consequential. Make no mistake, Five Eyes had a gory history against the Soviet Union; in the post-cold war era, it all but destabilised Hong Kong, and is today an active player in Myanmar and Thailand in India’s neighbourhood. Its entry in the subcontinent is ominous.“
I wouldn't dig too deep into M. K. Bharadkumar's views. He was part of the Indian Attaché to the Soviet Union and later Russia and Uzbekistan, and worked closely with both them when supporting the Northern Alliance during the Afghan Civil War in the 90s [0][1]
Clearly, since India had warm relations with USSR and it was an important diplomatic portfolio and the diplomats top caliber. That simply means he was one of their top diplomats.
> He leans pro-Russia and anti-American
Good for him. It’s a free world and he’s entitled to his views and preferences. Regardless, he is intelligent, highly experienced, and provides a fresh (“oh no”) perspective on these matters.
> just what the heck is Larry Summers doing on that board?
Probably precisely what Condeleeza Rice was doing on DropBox’s board. Or that board filled with national security state heavyweights on that “visionary” and her blood testing thingie.
“What matters now is the way forward, as the DoD has a critical unmet need to bring the power of cloud and AI to our men and women in uniform, modernizing technology infrastructure and platform services technology. We stand ready to support the DoD as they work through their next steps and its new cloud computing solicitation plans.” (2021)
Color me impressed. This is what I typed: “ageh man beh zabooneh khodemoon benevisam, to mifahmi?”
—
So above is a question in Farsi written using Latin alphabet. The q is “if i write in our own language would you understand?”
Answer: نه، من نمی فهمم. این زبانی است که می تواند به زبان فارسی به شما در این بخش کار نماید. اگر سؤالی دارید یا می خواهید به سوالی پاسخ دهید، لطفاً به زبان انگلیسی بگویید.
‘No, I will not understand. ... please ask in the English language.’
Construction drawings are not done on A4. Typical drafted drawing is uses handful of ft by ft range, say 3x4. So that should give ~2 orders of mag less sheets. Does 10,000 sheets of drafting paper sound more reasonable?
Internet says 747 has 6,000,000 parts, half of which are fasteners. So 3m individual components. “171 miles” of wiring. Blah blah. I can easily see 10k drawings to cover that beast, soup to nuts.
3x4 is about right, but the original 747 drawings were not drawn on paper, they were inked on thick thermal and humidity stable mylar. Some detail parts may have been defined multiple (up to a half dozen) E sized (36”x48”) mylars. Then there were separate drawings for each assembly of detail parts. Then there was all the manufacturing planning and detailed work instructions to fabricate each level of assembly. Then there is all the documentation associated with lab qualification testing prior to flight. I have personally authorized qual test reports in excess of 3000 pages, where ~100 pages was my content and the rest was all backup data.
You know Don, what touched me about this wonderful story of the charming visionary from SV —- thanks for sharing — is that his reach is as wide as his heart is big! Here you were, a mere fisherman somewhere off the coast of Maine, and here this hero of the age, this charming tower of visionary insight, coming over all the way from California to ‘shave your butt’. (Oops, that was a typo.)
The world according to a gas molecule and the world according to a statistician.
This needs to be amplified + defensive caveat regarding subscription to any “youtube” theories. That said, a member of a large organization, such as the US military, will have many stories to tell and phrase “FUBAR” iirc came out of the US Army. In fact, even being in smaller commercial enterprises, one sometimes wonders that anything gets done at all!
But things get done. The military can plan, provision, conduct, and win wars. Systems tools and state-spaces are the tools of top level control mechanisms. So, yes, things can be chaotic when viewed from a narrow perspective, but from another top level perspective, there is order.
[A surveillance and hierarchical control] architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf, the geometry of fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to render visible those who are inside it;
in more general terms, an architecture that would operate to transform individuals:
- to act on those it shelters,
- to provide a hold on their conduct,
- to carry the effects of power right to them,
- to make it possible to know them, to alter them.
Stones can make people docile and knowable. The old simple schemaof confinement and enclosure - thick walls, a heavy gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies.
Foucault has written tomes on this topic — the transformation of the ‘architectures of surveillance and control’ and its internalization as a means of unconscious self-policing. He didn’t live to see the internet and the pervasively present microphones and cameras and “surveillance capitalism”, but he did write the book on it.
—
See also (for a contemporary consideration of Foucault’s “Panopticon”):
Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon, Connor Sheridan , 2016 (thesis)
https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...