Somehow I think they really want accuracy and precision, instead.

If I want portability, I have my rooted Kindle. That can fit 10,000 books into my satchel with very little complaint.

And this is before the horrifically bad security that is inherent in these connected devices… like, for many of them security was only an afterthought, and for some of them it wasn’t even on the list aside from some performative fluff. Many IoT devices come with blisteringly bad zero-day exploits, and manufacturers love to wash their hands of responsibility by “obsoleting” the devices (no more updates/patches) long before production actually ends.

I’m currently doing a multi-year gut of my house to bring it up from 1970s expected electrical loads to modern ones (each floor has 80+% of all wall sockets and wired-in devices on a single 15a circuit… which is not going to fly in 2026), and while I am adding many features and conveniences, most of them will be built using 50s to 90s tech. In particular: they will all be near-trivially repairable by someone with only a pedestrian knowledge of electronics, electricity, and networking. And I do mean repairable, and not just replaceable.

So, so much of this is either wholesale mis-application of examples that transfer badly, if at all, or outright blatant falsehoods.

> Many men join the military specifically because they crave following orders; they want to be able to ditch accountability because they were “just doing their job.”

This is the horrifically biased and deeply bigoted example that made me stop in my tracks.

Take any thoroughly socialist country that generously supports its citizenry, and look at their military: it’s struggling to attract members. And a good chunk of applicants are women as well. Just look at Norway: as of 2024, ⅓ (≈33%) of its service members are women.

Now take a look at America, and ask applicants why they are joining. The vast majority of entry-level recruits going into basic training cite economic and educational concerns.

The enhanced and specialized training have more focused recruits, yes. They have gone into specializations such as marines or rangers because they want to be there; because those disciplines provide challenges and brotherhood and a sense of purpose that has been eviscerated out of modern life through pervasive misandry.

But the masses of initial applicants, of whom men make up nearly everyone? They’re trying to escape poverty and economic inequality, because no woman will look twice at a poor man, much less give him the time of day.

Most basic recruits will cite the GI bill and its free post-secondary education as their primary reasoning. It’s why army recruitment is always within the poorest communities in America.

And on top of it all, the military - aside from a few structural differences - is no different than a job, especially a remote-worksite job. You have responsibilities and accountabilities as soon as you enter, your responsibilities and accountabilities only increase as your rank goes up, and the military has an extra cherry on top of those responsibilities and accountabilities: the responsibility to ignore an illegal order. So important is that responsibility to everyone from the lowest foot soldier on up, that particularly heinous orders can even trigger the death penalty if obeyed.

That is one hell of an accountability inherent in the military.

At this point, I am sorely tempted to treat this entire article like the bullshit that is seeping out of its woodwork. It stinks of anti-male gender bigotry something bad.

Patching? Conservatively yes. The problem is threefold:

1. The technological advancements needed to untangle the rat’s nest of dependencies that exist in the average, idealized brain, much less those developmental dependencies in any one individual brain. We have decades - if not centuries - of work ahead of us just with genetic diseases, and those are exceedingly simple in comparison. Reworking genetic expressions in neurological development is a whole different ballgame.

2. The best foundational/genetic-rewiring option moving forward is not to backport, but to work on new versions only. However, without a strictly regulated and socialist-like system that benefits everyone equally, the risk is virtually 100% that the wealthy clients will try to leverage this into establishing speciation between the haves (fantastic cognitive abilities) and the have-nots (legacy functionality only) in order to engineer a permanent economic and social stratification. And in no part of human history has this ever been a Good Thing in any fashion whatsoever.

3. Will we still be recognizably “human” after this is done, or will our ways of thinking make us completely alien to pre-mod humanity? What will we lose with these efficiencies? What “benefits” are really downsides in disguise? Will humanity look back at these modifications with regret, especially if we haven’t ensured a series of restore points to roll back to?

Elections will likely still be held, but they will become strictly performative; a thin veneer of legitimacy over a foregone and pre-engineered conclusion.