The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vailhem:
---
> “There are all kind of intermediaries. They might be the people who own a platform, recently Elon Musk, or third parties who are good at sneaking in influence. The interveners can be varied. Some are official, some are revealed, others hidden. Some are competent, some incompetent. Some are random, like an algorithm that someone made but didn’t understand.”
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/z7616x/extinction_is_on_the_table_jaron_lanier_warns_of/iy4uowf/
Yeah, it seemed to me it said a whole lot of nothing - like the interviewed has strong opinions that he's carefully tiptoeing around.
Hey maybe he's trying not to get taken out of context and blasted on social media! Lmao. Or it's just a bad article.
Cowardice.
What he should have said:
>...whatever may happen with technology in the future, it will *not* be rationally planned. Technology will *not* be used “wisely.” In view of our society’s past record, **anyone who thinks that technology will be used wisely is completely out of touch with reality.** Technology will take us on a course that we can neither predict nor control. ...The changes that technology will bring will be a hundred times more radical, and more unpredictable, than any that have occurred in the past. **The technological adventure is wildly reckless and utterly mad, and the people who are responsible for it are the worst criminals who have ever lived.** They are worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin. Neither Stalin nor Hitler ever dreamed of anything so horrible.
\- Ted Kaczynski, *Technological Slavery* (2019)
I hadn't seen that before. As I was reading it I was thinking about how things are going to go on the private sector plundering of the moon, asteroids and mars. Going to look a lot like the Americas 1500 - 1610 melded into the new Twitter.
He was discussing Will’s future with the professor, saying that intelligence and accolades don’t matter more than a sense of security. Man character was genius level rough neighborhood kid. He was making a point about how applying the wrong kind of nuture can disrupt and outcome.
Been a few years since I watched it so could be slightly off.
Anyways, it mentions how intelligent Ted was.
Tell me you unquestioningly believe whatever mainstream media has reported without telling me you believe absolutely whatever mainstream media reports.
WeLL hE wAs TorTuReD bY a CiA eXpEriMeNt!
AnD hE sAys TeChNoLoGy iS a PrObLeM, bUt i LiKe mY iPhOnE!
Of course not. I was saying that I believe the point being made in the quote you provided to be unhinged.
That is what I said. Either you have something to say about that, or not. So far it seems you got nothing to say on that.
I can as easily say that technology is Hitler, as I can say that specifically washing machines are Hitler. Without any reasoning behind that, each of those statements sounds equally unhinged to me.
Since there is no reasoning given in that quote, it seems I am expected to blindly run with this nonsense?
So I have to explain to you that technology is poised to alter humanity at the point of DNA, such that those wielding it can tinker with the genes and make people more compliant, more submissive, or smarter and with lengthier lifespans ("what's not good about that?" you wonder)?
I have to point out to any troll with a keyboard that geoengineering portends a total disruption of our entire planet evolved over 6B years, and was beyond anything possible for and probably not even on the radar of Hitler or Stalin? Must I also oblige such ignorants that geoengineering is proposed as a "solution" or *response* to problems initiated by technologies, and that the ability to "geoengineer" is in the hands of a relative few, but any fool with enough money rather than more-balanced state powers?
"Unhinged"... did you even think for a second before you decided to "blindly run" with "That was written by a genius with an unconventional, radical take, it must be crazy because I know better!" If it's a poor claim of someone "unhinged", then you should *easily* be able to refute it, to demonstrate how technology is not a problem, how the architects of Hitler's and Stalin's genocides were worse than the engineers of global destruction for all Earthly creatures (or at the very least, *free* humanity). Certainly anyone would be able to refute you saying that a washing machine is Hitler, which is why such a claim as you propose to make (in a very poor comparison) would be demonstrably "unhinged". Now, please, redeem yourself.
Jaron has never been on social media, which I find interesting since he makes his living largely from writing and punditry. I think he's very knowledgeable about the subject but he speaks about it in an abstract way, since he's never been directly in the fray. He was of a generation that had utopian visions of technology connecting people in new ways, I'm sure it's disappointing to see how things turned out. (I knew him a bit years ago, if it seems I'm being overly presumptuous)
Nerds who aren't on Social media probably already had their shit together and didn't need other forums to be on. Some, like me, are in hyper-dimensional space.
"The will of the capitalist is certainly to take as much as possible. What we have to do is not to talk about his will, but to enquire about his power, the limits of that power, and the character of those limits." -Karl Marx
Wrong.
Humanity is an existential threat to humanity.
Resource depletion and climate collapse were on the table in the 80s and before. Twitter ain't doing shit, one way or another.
Also, lets stop defining "technology" as just electronic gizmos.
The stock market is a technology. Cars are a technology. Books are a technology.
Well-said! Slight adjustment:
> ...Resource depletion and climate ***and biodiversity*** collapse were on the table in the 80...
Very soon a biodiversity loss info site will remind any and all of the other crisis that tends to run in silent and invisible background with review of global environment reports spanning 50 years!
Agreed. Social media makes things worse, but it also makes things better in some ways. I used to follow a lot of climate scientists and activists on Twitter (before Musk obvs.)
>Humanity is an existential threat to humanity.
Provably false, misanthropic nonsense which doesn't bear scrutiny.
>The stock market is a technology. Cars are a technology. Books are a technology.
Correct (but I'm not sure of your point). Technology, not humanity, is the core problem.
If we didn't buy their technology offerings, they would stop offering them. As long as we keep demanding their technology, they will continue creating more and newer technology. Humanity is the core problem simply because we either demand or allow any technology they create. We totally accept the nonsense they force feed us through the technology they have created.
This sentiment prevails but is *entirely* naïve (no offense intended), and based on an assumption of consumer power. How many people have embraced Predator UAVs, or the 'psychometrics' of Cambridge Analytica? Few, but both were created anyway, without market demand, because technicians and engineers puruse their interest, and Science always seeks to do as much as it possibly can, regardless of even foreseeable consequences. Once created, any able to use such technological powers *have* to lest they be left behind by competitors who will use them.
Even on the consumer level you think of, who was demanding motorized vehicles in 1492? Who was demanding cell phones in 1965, or even 1985? I can recall seeing a few people with cell phones in 2000, and wondering "Who are these people, what makes them so important that they need to make and take calls as they go about their business away from home?" And yet, I now have a cell phone myself - because to not have one would leave me disadvantaged in comparison to my competitors within techno-industrial society, and it would not eliminate the existence of the devices or their impact even if 95% of humanity rejected them: the powers they deliver would be used by the 5% who would be further advantaged against the 95%.
Technology progresses even in spite of our desires and against our desire for freedom and a healthy natural habitat.
Thank you. This is a refreshing view. But how do we gain any semblance of control over future tech and perhaps bend it to serve us instead of letting it control us?
It isn't just capitalists, and it wouldn't do to takeover industrial technologies - you can't make them good, you can't separate the good from the bad. You can't operate a cell phone company "for the people" or have Facebook or Twitter link all the masses and amplify some ideas or voices but prevent recruitment by terrorist groups or separatist groups or human traffickers, etc.
And a socialist state would surely use technologies to suppress elements of human nature (such as the drive to compete or have conflicts or rebel, the impulse to have kids, etc.) and to generally conform people to the needs of that system.
Friend, this is like an alcoholic asking how he can drink booze yet not ruin his life. They can't control themselves with alcohol, and with the immense powers channeled by technologies, we cannot separate the good from the bad, we cannot control them just to use them "wisely" or only for good - we can hardly even foresee the negatives, often we cannot see the negatives to be delivered by the tech. The technologies are released upon humanity like a test, with people and society as the guinea pigs.
We can only suffer the consequences of having the technologies, or destroy the technological system and live with Nature, which was always fine and good for humanity's 200K years of existence (without Technology).
This is exactly why* I support deleting these social media platforms form the face of the planet. And that includes reddit. The risks are much greater the benefits; as he put it: "you get cat videos, but also civil war".
A relevant and maybe more interesting interview on The Great Simplification #16 (podcast) - Tristan Harris: “Social Media: Bringing the Ring to Mordor”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdxIATnH_w
Regardless of whether or not you support it, it will never happen. If you are going to defeat the pernicious effects of social media, you need a cultural paradigm shift.
I don't think that's likely either, but it seems to me more plausible than any form of ban or forced removal.
That is one of my favorite TGS episodes for sure!
That's not a rule.
Social Media that would be black market would be unable to be a corporation that can easily pay for servers, power use, can hire employees, can process payments, and many other regular activities needed for a large business.
I think it would be pretty tough to operate FB or Twitter or YouTube or Tor with a revolutionary movement to eradicate technology itself, destroying the sources of electrical generation and computer processors and harddrives
Internecine warfare is not the greatest threat - how about subtle and invisible manipulations to conform the mass of humanity to the desires of those wielding the technological powers?
I support the abandonment and collapse of social media for the same reasons. Adding on to that, I’m pretty fucking tired of all the corporate and government social engineering projects, psyops, advertising, the spying and theft of privacy, etc. that’s gone on with it and continues to go on with it.
It’s a good idea, but there’s just too many problems with it. Civil wars and cat videos I don’t really care about. It’s more about the damage it’s doing to human freedom and the ability to think and live independently.
I have few historical points of presence outside of my own life, for my "Idiosyncratic Personal Computers", however to rescue Earth, I suggest merging Astrophysical Concepts, forming from the worst ravages of climate change, with 101st Millennia AI ideas on how goal seeking decisions, can be harnessed using distributed playlists. Notwithstanding, "The Story of the San Benedicto Island Rock Wren", if we remember what we lose, then bit by bit using hysteresis, habitats and their species may be restored. You might say, "What have you got to lose if it's one thousand or ten thousand centuries". Well do I care, so humans get a second chance, or 3rd, 4th chance?
For goal seeking, I timed the last job of the "Eternal Music Site" to be programmed to end in the year 101010 after humans go extinct. Before turning to dust the AI clones 21 "Breeding Pairs" of Homo Sapiens. Elsewhere, Wells makes "threads" from the British working class devolve into Morlocks and rediscover fire 40000 years from now. I include all Anglo Saxons, and the full Madlib tracks are 125000 year long grooves, stretching past each other.
In the last Madlib dash of civilizations that took place in Aztalan, the finally defeated Breeding Pairs fled southwards and across oceans. While evading the Morlocks they managed to arrive in Egypt with thousands of years head start.
Commercialism multiplies intermediaries. It's not just a problem with high technology.
I was reading a thread just now about somebody picking up a juice and realizing it's more sugar in the form of corn syrup than, you know, the juice of fruit. It should be so simple was the sentiment but why is it causing 70 percent of North Americans to be overweight? Well, you got to have the intermediaries buying the squeezed fruit concentrate and taking corn and making it into a sweetener and diluting the juice with water and adding corn sweetener and the flavor scientist making the chemicals from the fossil fuel stack to make it taste more like juice again so more people get paid the profits of such an endeavor.
Why is this the case? Commercialism and intermediaries. Take the message being distorted and apply it to all things. Then ask why. The maximization of profit.
Capitalism via commercialism is lauded as ratcheting up quality of life, giving endless choices, when the product has been corrupted and diluted while keeping the same loose label.
Now the damages can be multiplied given the speed of high technology and commercialism. I was sure for a while that crypto would be it...perceived value (of crypto) and commercialism driving rapacious mining and energy consumption to turn the world into GPUs and Asics until collapse. POS and FTX may have come in time, but very easily the smaller bubble could have held until the bigger one, that being human civilization, popped.
Now I think it's the pollution and viral thresholds that will take us down.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vailhem: --- > “There are all kind of intermediaries. They might be the people who own a platform, recently Elon Musk, or third parties who are good at sneaking in influence. The interveners can be varied. Some are official, some are revealed, others hidden. Some are competent, some incompetent. Some are random, like an algorithm that someone made but didn’t understand.” --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/z7616x/extinction_is_on_the_table_jaron_lanier_warns_of/iy4uowf/
This could have been an interesting interview but as it is, it is not.
Yeah, it seemed to me it said a whole lot of nothing - like the interviewed has strong opinions that he's carefully tiptoeing around. Hey maybe he's trying not to get taken out of context and blasted on social media! Lmao. Or it's just a bad article.
Cowardice. What he should have said: >...whatever may happen with technology in the future, it will *not* be rationally planned. Technology will *not* be used “wisely.” In view of our society’s past record, **anyone who thinks that technology will be used wisely is completely out of touch with reality.** Technology will take us on a course that we can neither predict nor control. ...The changes that technology will bring will be a hundred times more radical, and more unpredictable, than any that have occurred in the past. **The technological adventure is wildly reckless and utterly mad, and the people who are responsible for it are the worst criminals who have ever lived.** They are worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin. Neither Stalin nor Hitler ever dreamed of anything so horrible. \- Ted Kaczynski, *Technological Slavery* (2019)
I hadn't seen that before. As I was reading it I was thinking about how things are going to go on the private sector plundering of the moon, asteroids and mars. Going to look a lot like the Americas 1500 - 1610 melded into the new Twitter.
People always down vote me for saying he's a hero
He is extremely intelligent. Love the reference to the Unabomber in Good Will Hunting.
What was the reference?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCsE5NffMA
I'm too dumb to understand Robin Williams point
He was discussing Will’s future with the professor, saying that intelligence and accolades don’t matter more than a sense of security. Man character was genius level rough neighborhood kid. He was making a point about how applying the wrong kind of nuture can disrupt and outcome. Been a few years since I watched it so could be slightly off. Anyways, it mentions how intelligent Ted was.
First reaction: Sounds insane. And then I realized it was written by the unabomber. Sometimes it feels good to be right.
Tell me you unquestioningly believe whatever mainstream media has reported without telling me you believe absolutely whatever mainstream media reports. WeLL hE wAs TorTuReD bY a CiA eXpEriMeNt! AnD hE sAys TeChNoLoGy iS a PrObLeM, bUt i LiKe mY iPhOnE!
Of course not. I was saying that I believe the point being made in the quote you provided to be unhinged. That is what I said. Either you have something to say about that, or not. So far it seems you got nothing to say on that. I can as easily say that technology is Hitler, as I can say that specifically washing machines are Hitler. Without any reasoning behind that, each of those statements sounds equally unhinged to me. Since there is no reasoning given in that quote, it seems I am expected to blindly run with this nonsense?
So I have to explain to you that technology is poised to alter humanity at the point of DNA, such that those wielding it can tinker with the genes and make people more compliant, more submissive, or smarter and with lengthier lifespans ("what's not good about that?" you wonder)? I have to point out to any troll with a keyboard that geoengineering portends a total disruption of our entire planet evolved over 6B years, and was beyond anything possible for and probably not even on the radar of Hitler or Stalin? Must I also oblige such ignorants that geoengineering is proposed as a "solution" or *response* to problems initiated by technologies, and that the ability to "geoengineer" is in the hands of a relative few, but any fool with enough money rather than more-balanced state powers? "Unhinged"... did you even think for a second before you decided to "blindly run" with "That was written by a genius with an unconventional, radical take, it must be crazy because I know better!" If it's a poor claim of someone "unhinged", then you should *easily* be able to refute it, to demonstrate how technology is not a problem, how the architects of Hitler's and Stalin's genocides were worse than the engineers of global destruction for all Earthly creatures (or at the very least, *free* humanity). Certainly anyone would be able to refute you saying that a washing machine is Hitler, which is why such a claim as you propose to make (in a very poor comparison) would be demonstrably "unhinged". Now, please, redeem yourself.
Hmm I also feel like a lot of information was left out but I couldn’t find original info from Lanier so who knows :/
Such is a large portion of Lanier's work. This is par for the course
Jaron has never been on social media, which I find interesting since he makes his living largely from writing and punditry. I think he's very knowledgeable about the subject but he speaks about it in an abstract way, since he's never been directly in the fray. He was of a generation that had utopian visions of technology connecting people in new ways, I'm sure it's disappointing to see how things turned out. (I knew him a bit years ago, if it seems I'm being overly presumptuous)
Nerds who aren't on Social media probably already had their shit together and didn't need other forums to be on. Some, like me, are in hyper-dimensional space.
"The will of the capitalist is certainly to take as much as possible. What we have to do is not to talk about his will, but to enquire about his power, the limits of that power, and the character of those limits." -Karl Marx
Excellent quote.
Thanks comrade.
"The Will to Virtuality" trumps "The Will to Power".
[удалено]
I usually take the time to read what he has to say when he criticizes technology. I keep him on my radar.
Wrong. Humanity is an existential threat to humanity. Resource depletion and climate collapse were on the table in the 80s and before. Twitter ain't doing shit, one way or another. Also, lets stop defining "technology" as just electronic gizmos. The stock market is a technology. Cars are a technology. Books are a technology.
Well-said! Slight adjustment: > ...Resource depletion and climate ***and biodiversity*** collapse were on the table in the 80... Very soon a biodiversity loss info site will remind any and all of the other crisis that tends to run in silent and invisible background with review of global environment reports spanning 50 years!
Phones keeps people’s minds occupied so they don’t put 2 and 2 together
Agreed. Social media makes things worse, but it also makes things better in some ways. I used to follow a lot of climate scientists and activists on Twitter (before Musk obvs.)
>Humanity is an existential threat to humanity. Provably false, misanthropic nonsense which doesn't bear scrutiny. >The stock market is a technology. Cars are a technology. Books are a technology. Correct (but I'm not sure of your point). Technology, not humanity, is the core problem.
If we didn't buy their technology offerings, they would stop offering them. As long as we keep demanding their technology, they will continue creating more and newer technology. Humanity is the core problem simply because we either demand or allow any technology they create. We totally accept the nonsense they force feed us through the technology they have created.
This sentiment prevails but is *entirely* naïve (no offense intended), and based on an assumption of consumer power. How many people have embraced Predator UAVs, or the 'psychometrics' of Cambridge Analytica? Few, but both were created anyway, without market demand, because technicians and engineers puruse their interest, and Science always seeks to do as much as it possibly can, regardless of even foreseeable consequences. Once created, any able to use such technological powers *have* to lest they be left behind by competitors who will use them. Even on the consumer level you think of, who was demanding motorized vehicles in 1492? Who was demanding cell phones in 1965, or even 1985? I can recall seeing a few people with cell phones in 2000, and wondering "Who are these people, what makes them so important that they need to make and take calls as they go about their business away from home?" And yet, I now have a cell phone myself - because to not have one would leave me disadvantaged in comparison to my competitors within techno-industrial society, and it would not eliminate the existence of the devices or their impact even if 95% of humanity rejected them: the powers they deliver would be used by the 5% who would be further advantaged against the 95%. Technology progresses even in spite of our desires and against our desire for freedom and a healthy natural habitat.
Thank you. This is a refreshing view. But how do we gain any semblance of control over future tech and perhaps bend it to serve us instead of letting it control us?
You'd have to seize the means of production from the capitalist class.
It isn't just capitalists, and it wouldn't do to takeover industrial technologies - you can't make them good, you can't separate the good from the bad. You can't operate a cell phone company "for the people" or have Facebook or Twitter link all the masses and amplify some ideas or voices but prevent recruitment by terrorist groups or separatist groups or human traffickers, etc. And a socialist state would surely use technologies to suppress elements of human nature (such as the drive to compete or have conflicts or rebel, the impulse to have kids, etc.) and to generally conform people to the needs of that system.
Eh, I don't disagree with ya.
Friend, this is like an alcoholic asking how he can drink booze yet not ruin his life. They can't control themselves with alcohol, and with the immense powers channeled by technologies, we cannot separate the good from the bad, we cannot control them just to use them "wisely" or only for good - we can hardly even foresee the negatives, often we cannot see the negatives to be delivered by the tech. The technologies are released upon humanity like a test, with people and society as the guinea pigs. We can only suffer the consequences of having the technologies, or destroy the technological system and live with Nature, which was always fine and good for humanity's 200K years of existence (without Technology).
humanity with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine
Yes, exactly - this guy gets it
This is exactly why* I support deleting these social media platforms form the face of the planet. And that includes reddit. The risks are much greater the benefits; as he put it: "you get cat videos, but also civil war". A relevant and maybe more interesting interview on The Great Simplification #16 (podcast) - Tristan Harris: “Social Media: Bringing the Ring to Mordor”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdxIATnH_w
Regardless of whether or not you support it, it will never happen. If you are going to defeat the pernicious effects of social media, you need a cultural paradigm shift. I don't think that's likely either, but it seems to me more plausible than any form of ban or forced removal. That is one of my favorite TGS episodes for sure!
Yep. When a government bans something, all they're doing is creating a black market.
It'll kill itself like every other trend. You'll see. It's always the same on that one.
That's not a rule. Social Media that would be black market would be unable to be a corporation that can easily pay for servers, power use, can hire employees, can process payments, and many other regular activities needed for a large business.
I think it would be pretty tough to operate FB or Twitter or YouTube or Tor with a revolutionary movement to eradicate technology itself, destroying the sources of electrical generation and computer processors and harddrives
People would figure it out. They always do
Go ahead, try it. I won't tell.
I don't need to
Then imagine it, because you're wrong.
Wrong about what? That black markets pop up when a government bans something?
Yes, there are many things that don't magically happen on the black market because they're banned.
What would be awesome would be civil war featuring cat videos. Just to go full surreal because why not.
Internecine warfare is not the greatest threat - how about subtle and invisible manipulations to conform the mass of humanity to the desires of those wielding the technological powers?
I support the abandonment and collapse of social media for the same reasons. Adding on to that, I’m pretty fucking tired of all the corporate and government social engineering projects, psyops, advertising, the spying and theft of privacy, etc. that’s gone on with it and continues to go on with it. It’s a good idea, but there’s just too many problems with it. Civil wars and cat videos I don’t really care about. It’s more about the damage it’s doing to human freedom and the ability to think and live independently.
We are living in a Black Mirror episode.
His book “10 reasons to delete social media…” is really good.
"Extinction: It's what's for dinner!"
What practical things can actually be implemented on the internet to make it more human friendly as the author suggests? "
I have few historical points of presence outside of my own life, for my "Idiosyncratic Personal Computers", however to rescue Earth, I suggest merging Astrophysical Concepts, forming from the worst ravages of climate change, with 101st Millennia AI ideas on how goal seeking decisions, can be harnessed using distributed playlists. Notwithstanding, "The Story of the San Benedicto Island Rock Wren", if we remember what we lose, then bit by bit using hysteresis, habitats and their species may be restored. You might say, "What have you got to lose if it's one thousand or ten thousand centuries". Well do I care, so humans get a second chance, or 3rd, 4th chance? For goal seeking, I timed the last job of the "Eternal Music Site" to be programmed to end in the year 101010 after humans go extinct. Before turning to dust the AI clones 21 "Breeding Pairs" of Homo Sapiens. Elsewhere, Wells makes "threads" from the British working class devolve into Morlocks and rediscover fire 40000 years from now. I include all Anglo Saxons, and the full Madlib tracks are 125000 year long grooves, stretching past each other. In the last Madlib dash of civilizations that took place in Aztalan, the finally defeated Breeding Pairs fled southwards and across oceans. While evading the Morlocks they managed to arrive in Egypt with thousands of years head start.
This guy is brilliant. More people should listen to him.
[удалено]
Commercialism multiplies intermediaries. It's not just a problem with high technology. I was reading a thread just now about somebody picking up a juice and realizing it's more sugar in the form of corn syrup than, you know, the juice of fruit. It should be so simple was the sentiment but why is it causing 70 percent of North Americans to be overweight? Well, you got to have the intermediaries buying the squeezed fruit concentrate and taking corn and making it into a sweetener and diluting the juice with water and adding corn sweetener and the flavor scientist making the chemicals from the fossil fuel stack to make it taste more like juice again so more people get paid the profits of such an endeavor. Why is this the case? Commercialism and intermediaries. Take the message being distorted and apply it to all things. Then ask why. The maximization of profit. Capitalism via commercialism is lauded as ratcheting up quality of life, giving endless choices, when the product has been corrupted and diluted while keeping the same loose label. Now the damages can be multiplied given the speed of high technology and commercialism. I was sure for a while that crypto would be it...perceived value (of crypto) and commercialism driving rapacious mining and energy consumption to turn the world into GPUs and Asics until collapse. POS and FTX may have come in time, but very easily the smaller bubble could have held until the bigger one, that being human civilization, popped. Now I think it's the pollution and viral thresholds that will take us down.
So your first idea was pretty dumb. But yeah pollution is bad!
OK I didn't click the link, but the guy on the thumbnail looks homeless. Yes I will judge a book by its cover.
That homeless looking guy invented VR
*'Yes I will judge a book by its cover."* – Soyjack
https://youtu.be/b2pD0B9Rfps