MarkFuccio

@markfuccio

High tech background (servers/workstations, EDA/semiconductors, networking, storage) turned investor. I post things interesting or funny to me.

Silicon Valley

Joined January 2009

459 Following

560 Followers

9.8K Posts

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 16 hours ago

When a senator or Congressman says “ I’m reclaiming my time” it shorthand that the witness is spoiling their hoped for “ got cha” sound bite. It really means “shut the fuck up I want to talk”.

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

3 days ago

Did @spencerpratt hire a team to sweep up and carry away detritus from @KarenBassLA aka “”Karen Basura” after he wins? Will they need #hazmat gear?

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

5 days ago

Go @SteveHiltonx A #Becerra vs #Steyer November election would be a battle between a fool and an idiot arguing about who is what. If that happen all Californians lose.

Steve Hilton

@SteveHiltonx

6 days ago

Unless we unite we'll get an all-Dem general election: Becerra vs Steyer. No change for California, disaster for every Republican running this year, Voter ID... ONE MAN can stop the Doomsday Scenario! Chad, the best time to drop out was two weeks ago. The second best is now...

957

24K

201

294K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

7 days ago

I heard this live. Add a new phrase to “Golden Goose of Capitalism” @Upticken’s bingo card “no base, no buy”.

James Roppel

@Upticken

9 days ago

I am Fired up🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Who to follow

DC Reels

@DCReels

I edit demo reels and other projects on a freelance basis. My day job is Senior Media Manager at ABC News.

I miss Chick Hearn.

@FITtorrent

Listen. Learn. Activate. Black Lives Matter. She/Her/Hers Mastadon: @[email protected]

Dave Hamilton

@DaveHamilton

Podcaster @MacGeekGab @BizBrainShow @GigGabPodcast; drummer @BitterPillBand; @BackBeatMedia. Former: @MacObserver co-founder.

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

9 days ago

#Satya #Nadella to $MSFT employees: The beatings will continue until moral improves. https://t.co/mBb23xqm0h

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

9 days ago

And it’s hard to find technicians with the eye/hand coordination skills to do this.

RossRadio @cqcqcqdx

9 days ago

This image depicts a complex soldering technique known as "dead bug" prototyping or "flying wiring".Dead Bug Prototyping: This technique involves placing a chip upside down—like a dead bug—and soldering wires directly to its pins to connect it to a circuit board.

cqcqcqdx's tweet photo. This image depicts a complex soldering technique known as "dead bug" prototyping or "flying wiring".Dead Bug Prototyping: This technique involves placing a chip upside down—like a dead bug—and soldering wires directly to its pins to connect it to a circuit board. https://t.co/nXomsRA8V3

628

172K

730

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

9 days ago

Today’s happy moment. Thanks @jcable12

Jeff Cable @jcable12

9 days ago

Some more photos of Black Bears in Northern Minnesota. This time with some interaction between mom and cubs. This is something special to see and photograph! (Canon R5 MKII, RF 100-300mm lens with 2x extender)

jcable12's tweet photo. Some more photos of Black Bears in Northern Minnesota. This time with some interaction between mom and cubs. This is something special to see and photograph!

(Canon R5 MKII, RF 100-300mm lens with 2x extender) https://t.co/uCx1FzWYd7

172

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

13 days ago

ICYMI.

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

13 days ago

Save the engines. AI power companies will use their turbans.

RT @RT_com

13 days ago

Excavator RIPS Spirit Airlines jet to pieces following shutdown

269

44K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

15 days ago

Classic!

James Woods

@RealJamesWoods

16 days ago

424

17K

630

257K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

24 days ago

A song for #LosAngeles #Mayoral candidate @spencerpratt telling him to take out the garbage. https://t.co/4K9FG3x3Vo

markfuccio retweeted

Ihtesham Ali

@ihtesham2005

29 days ago

An MIT mathematician sat down in 1950 and wrote a small, non-technical book aimed at the general public. He was not predicting the future. He was warning them. He said machines would eventually replace human work, optimize ruthlessly for the wrong goals, and quietly turn human beings into components inside systems they did not control. Almost nobody listened. 75 years later, every warning he made has come true. His name was Norbert Wiener. The book is called "The Human Use of Human Beings." The textbook story of AI ethics says the field began in the 2010s, when Stuart Russell, Nick Bostrom, and a small group of researchers started writing about the dangers of intelligent machines. That story is wrong. The first serious book about the ethics of AI was published in 1950, by a man who had personally invented the science that AI would eventually be built on, and who saw exactly what was coming with a clarity nobody else managed to match for the next 70 years. Here is the story almost nobody tells you. Norbert Wiener was a child prodigy. He graduated from Harvard at 14. He had a PhD in mathematics by 17. He became an MIT professor before he turned 30. During World War II he was assigned to work on anti-aircraft fire control systems. The problem was simple and impossible. How do you aim a gun at a fast-moving plane that will not be where it is by the time the shell arrives. His answer turned into a new science. He called it cybernetics, from the Greek word for steersman. In 1948 he published a technical book by that name. Cybernetics was the foundation of modern control theory, robotics, and almost everything that became artificial intelligence. The book was dense. Most readers could not get past the math. The ideas inside it were too important to leave trapped in equations. So in 1950 Wiener sat down and wrote a second book aimed at ordinary people. No equations. No jargon. Just consequences. He titled it The Human Use of Human Beings. It is barely 200 pages. It is one of the most prescient documents ever written about technology. The first thing he warned about was automation. He predicted, in 1950, that machines would replace human work across every industry. Not just factory work. Not just manual labor. Any task that could be reduced to a procedure would eventually be automated. He specifically said white-collar work would not be safe. Bookkeeping. Translation. Drafting. Calculation. Anything where a human was being paid to follow a defined process would eventually be done by a machine for a fraction of the cost. He was not celebrating this. He was warning about it. He said the social consequences would be enormous, that entire industries would collapse, that the value of human labor itself would be undermined for tasks where humans had been useful for centuries. He wrote this 75 years before ChatGPT made every white-collar professional check their job description twice. The second thing he warned about was the alignment problem. He did not call it that. The phrase did not exist. But he described it precisely. He said that machines optimize for the goal you give them. They do not optimize for what you meant. They optimize for what you wrote down. If the goal is poorly specified, the machine will pursue the literal version of it with terrifying efficiency, and the result will be a disaster the builders did not foresee. He used the metaphor of the magic monkey's paw from a horror story by W.W. Jacobs. A grieving father wishes his dead son alive again. The paw grants the wish. Something climbs back out of the grave that is technically the son. The wish was granted exactly as stated. The outcome is hell. Modern AI safety researchers use almost the same metaphor 75 years later. They call it specification gaming, reward hacking, mesa-optimization. The names are new. The problem Wiener described in 1950 is exactly the same. The third thing he warned about was the loss of human agency. He predicted that humans would gradually surrender their decision-making to systems they did not understand. Not because the systems would force them to. Because the systems would be more convenient, more accurate, and more profitable than human judgment. People would offload their navigation, their reading, their relationships, and eventually their thinking to optimization processes designed by companies whose interests were not aligned with their users. He said something in 1950 that I cannot stop thinking about. He said the more efficiently a society delegates its decisions to machines, the less able it becomes to make decisions at all. The atrophy is gradual. By the time anyone notices, the capacity to choose is gone, and what remains is people executing decisions that were made for them, by systems they did not build, in service of goals they were never asked about. Look at modern social media feeds, recommendation algorithms, dating apps, navigation systems, news aggregators, and you are looking at exactly what he described. The fourth thing he warned about was the easiest one to ignore at the time and the most disturbing now. He warned that authoritarian regimes would use the new computing technology to track, manipulate, and control populations at a scale never previously possible. Not in the future. Soon. He said the same techniques that made cybernetics useful for guiding missiles would be used to guide societies, and that the small, incremental decisions about what to optimize, who to surveil, and how to feed information back into the system would compound into a kind of soft control that did not need force to function. People would do what the system wanted because the system would shape what they wanted in the first place. He saw modern surveillance states 75 years before they existed. The strangest thing about reading the book in 2026 is realizing how few of these problems have been seriously addressed. Wiener was not anti-technology. He had personally helped build it. He was not nostalgic for a pre-machine age. He was warning that any tool powerful enough to amplify human capability is also powerful enough to amplify human stupidity, greed, and indifference, and that the dangers were not in the machines themselves but in the unwillingness of human institutions to ask hard questions about who the machines were being built for. He died in 1964. He never lived to see most of his predictions come true. He never used a personal computer. He never followed a hyperlink. He never saw a modern recommendation algorithm. He just wrote down, in 1950, in plain English, what the world would look like when the technology he had helped invent was built out by people who had not read his warnings. The book is around 200 pages. It is in print. Used copies are everywhere for under ten dollars. It reads like science fiction in which the author already knows how the story ends. The first serious book about the ethics of AI was published before there was any AI to be ethical about. Almost nobody who works on the problem today has read it. The warnings are the same. The author has been dead for 60 years. The book is one click away from anyone who wants to read it.

$ihtesham2005's tweet photo. An MIT mathematician sat down in 1950 and wrote a small, non-technical book aimed at the general public. He was not predicting the future. He was warning them. He said machines would eventually replace human work, optimize ruthlessly for the wrong goals, and quietly turn human beings into components inside systems they did not control. Almost nobody listened. 75 years later, every warning he made has come true. His name was Norbert Wiener. The book is called "The Human Use of Human Beings." The textbook story of AI ethics says the field began in the 2010s, when Stuart Russell, Nick Bostrom, and a small group of researchers started writing about the dangers of intelligent machines. That story is wrong. The first serious book about the ethics of AI was published in 1950, by a man who had personally invented the science that AI would eventually be built on, and who saw exactly what was coming with a clarity nobody else managed to match for the next 70 years. Here is the story almost nobody tells you. Norbert Wiener was a child prodigy. He graduated from Harvard at 14. He had a PhD in mathematics by 17. He became an MIT professor before he turned 30. During World War II he was assigned to work on anti-aircraft fire control systems. The problem was simple and impossible. How do you aim a gun at a fast-moving plane that will not be where it is by the time the shell arrives. His answer turned into a new science. He called it cybernetics, from the Greek word for steersman. In 1948 he published a technical book by that name. Cybernetics was the foundation of modern control theory, robotics, and almost everything that became artificial intelligence. The book was dense. Most readers could not get past the math. The ideas inside it were too important to leave trapped in equations. So in 1950 Wiener sat down and wrote a second book aimed at ordinary people. No equations. No jargon. Just consequences. He titled it The Human Use of Human Beings. It is barely 200 pages. It is one of the most prescient documents ever written about technology. The first thing he warned about was automation. He predicted, in 1950, that machines would replace human work across every industry. Not just factory work. Not just manual labor. Any task that could be reduced to a procedure would eventually be automated. He specifically said white-collar work would not be safe. Bookkeeping. Translation. Drafting. Calculation. Anything where a human was being paid to follow a defined process would eventually be done by a machine for a fraction of the cost. He was not celebrating this. He was warning about it. He said the social consequences would be enormous, that entire industries would collapse, that the value of human labor itself would be undermined for tasks where humans had been useful for centuries. He wrote this 75 years before ChatGPT made every white-collar professional check their job description twice. The second thing he warned about was the alignment problem. He did not call it that. The phrase did not exist. But he described it precisely. He said that machines optimize for the goal you give them. They do not optimize for what you meant. They optimize for what you wrote down. If the goal is poorly specified, the machine will pursue the literal version of it with terrifying efficiency, and the result will be a disaster the builders did not foresee. He used the metaphor of the magic monkey's paw from a horror story by W.W. Jacobs. A grieving father wishes his dead son alive again. The paw grants the wish. Something climbs back out of the grave that is technically the son. The wish was granted exactly as stated. The outcome is hell. Modern AI safety researchers use almost the same metaphor 75 years later. They call it specification gaming, reward hacking, mesa-optimization. The names are new. The problem Wiener described in 1950 is exactly the same. The third thing he warned about was the loss of human agency. He predicted that humans would gradually surrender their decision-making to systems they did not understand. Not because the systems would force them to. Because the systems would be more convenient, more accurate, and more profitable than human judgment. People would offload their navigation, their reading, their relationships, and eventually their thinking to optimization processes designed by companies whose interests were not aligned with their users. He said something in 1950 that I cannot stop thinking about. He said the more efficiently a society delegates its decisions to machines, the less able it becomes to make decisions at all. The atrophy is gradual. By the time anyone notices, the capacity to choose is gone, and what remains is people executing decisions that were made for them, by systems they did not build, in service of goals they were never asked about. Look at modern social media feeds, recommendation algorithms, dating apps, navigation systems, news aggregators, and you are looking at exactly what he described. The fourth thing he warned about was the easiest one to ignore at the time and the most disturbing now. He warned that authoritarian regimes would use the new computing technology to track, manipulate, and control populations at a scale never previously possible. Not in the future. Soon. He said the same techniques that made cybernetics useful for guiding missiles would be used to guide societies, and that the small, incremental decisions about what to optimize, who to surveil, and how to feed information back into the system would compound into a kind of soft control that did not need force to function. People would do what the system wanted because the system would shape what they wanted in the first place. He saw modern surveillance states 75 years before they existed. The strangest thing about reading the book in 2026 is realizing how few of these problems have been seriously addressed. Wiener was not anti-technology. He had personally helped build it. He was not nostalgic for a pre-machine age. He was warning that any tool powerful enough to amplify human capability is also powerful enough to amplify human stupidity, greed, and indifference, and that the dangers were not in the machines themselves but in the unwillingness of human institutions to ask hard questions about who the machines were being built for. He died in 1964. He never lived to see most of his predictions come true. He never used a personal computer. He never followed a hyperlink. He never saw a modern recommendation algorithm. He just wrote down, in 1950, in plain English, what the world would look like when the technology he had helped invent was built out by people who had not read his warnings. The book is around 200 pages. It is in print. Used copies are everywhere for under ten dollars. It reads like science fiction in which the author already knows how the story ends. The first serious book about the ethics of AI was published before there was any AI to be ethical about. Almost nobody who works on the problem today has read it. The warnings are the same. The author has been dead for 60 years. The book is one click away from anyone who wants to read it.$

509

130K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 1 month ago

Fascinating.

Physics In History

@PhysInHistory

about 1 month ago

The sum of the first 144 digits in the sequence of π equals 666, a figure often associated with "the number of the Beast". Interestingly, 144 = (6+6) x (6+6)

PhysInHistory's tweet photo. The sum of the first 144 digits in the sequence of π equals 666, a figure often associated with "the number of the Beast". Interestingly,

144 = (6+6) x (6+6) https://t.co/GLdsO9fURn

201

20K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 1 month ago

Have compassion, @Milajoy. #California gives responsible jobs to people with no skills. This band of brigands doesn’t have enough skills getting a job saying one line “Would you like fries with that?” Vote em out.

Mila Joy

@Milajoy

about 1 month ago

What's wrong with California, you ask? This ↓ Gavin Newsom - 30 years Nancy Pelosi - 40 years Kamala Harris - 24 years Maxine Waters - 50 years Adam Schiff - 30 years Karen Bass - 22 Years

671

26K

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 1 month ago

@Alinavisoo_life B

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 1 month ago

Yes. But your framing is too simple. Newsom aka #Newscum is a failure because his policies are wrong and have damaged California. As a person he is a dirt bag, but there are many of those who are not failures.

Ailany💍💁‍♀️

@ailanyus

about 1 month ago

107

MarkFuccio @markfuccio

about 1 month ago

Fascinating.

Neo

@Realneo101

about 1 month ago

🚨PRINCE REZA PAHLAVI JUST WENT FULL NUCLEAR ON THE ENTIRE EU PRESS & PARLIAMENT! 🔥🧨 I want to speak DIRECTLY to the people of Europe. In the past two weeks I held TWO MAJOR press conferences — one in Stockholm, one in Berlin. Over 150 JOURNALISTS showed up. We spent MORE THAN TWO HOURS with them… And guess what? NOT ONE SINGLE of those 150 journalists asked about the 40,000 IRANIANS SLAUGHTERED on the streets of my country on January 8th and 9th! NOT ONE asked about the 19 political prisoners EXECUTED in the last two weeks. When I told them 20 more are currently sentenced to death — CRICKETS. Not a damn question. I stood right next to a grieving mother and father who lost their sons in that massacre and begged them to listen to their stories… NOT A SINGLE ONE of those 150 journalists asked them a thing. Let that sink in. My 40,000 BRAVE INNOCENT COMPATRIOTS who were butchered fighting for liberty? They don’t give a damn. They are too busy criticizing America and Israel for taking out the dictator who’s been slaughtering our people for 47 YEARS — instead of going after the regime that’s actually doing the killing! They’d rather dig up Iran’s history than talk about what’s happening RIGHT NOW or the free democratic Iran we’re fighting for. One EU parliament member even had the nerve to say Iranians aren’t ready for democracy. To that coward and to every fake journalist in the room I say this: Iranians aren’t just “ready” for democracy… 40,000 of them just DIED for it! And I will NOT let their blood be in vain. SO HEAR ME LOUD AND CLEAR: Whether Europe stands with us or not… Whether your journalists do their damn jobs or not… Whether your politicians grow a spine or not… I WILL FIGHT FOR MY PEOPLE AND MY COUNTRY. Even if we have to do this ALONE — we are fighting until IRAN IS FREE! 🇮🇷💪 #RezaPahlavi‌ForIran @PahlaviReza