What can we learn from this complex history of unfolding polycrises? We can start by observing how climate change (regardless of its source), pandemics, mass migrations, the hollowing out of the money supply, over-extended military commitments, the rise of new threats, declines in harvests and grain supplies, the hubris of ruling elites and extremes of wealth-power inequality all feed off of and reinforce each other. Put another way, polycrisis is endemic to complex, interconnected systems. If the problems were limited to 1+1+1+1+1=5, the empire could maintain its coherence and adapt in ways to resolve the multiple overlapping crises. But emergent systems--that is, complex, interconnected systems--are not just a collection of dynamics; the resulting polycrisis has its own dynamics and unique features that are distinct from the features of the five sub-crises. In other words, 1+1+1+1+1=15, and the system / empire is overwhelmed and collapses. This is why polycrises are different from existential crises: the system could handle one, two or even three crises with its existing resources and structures, but a fourth anf fifth crises changes the nature of the threat.
Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a common form of dysautonomia.
The term "malfeasance" refers to wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official. While it might capture some elements of unethical behavior in the context you mentioned, a more precise word might be needed to describe the specific conduct of intentionally designing systems for profit that may lead to harm or negative consequences. Here are some alternatives: 1. **Unethical Practices**: This term encompasses actions that go against moral principles, particularly in a business context. 2. **Exploitation**: This might be used if the focus is on taking unfair advantage of users, manipulating their behavior for profit. 3. **Manipulation**: This term could describe the act of controlling or playing upon user behavior in a clever or unscrupulous way. 4. **Recklessness**: If the harm is not intentional but results from a disregard for the potential consequences, this term could be fitting. 5. **Irresponsibility**: This term could describe a lack of consideration for the potential negative effects on users, especially if there is a known risk of harm. 6. **Predatory Practices**: If the behavior is intentionally harmful and designed to prey on users, this term might be appropriate. The choice among these terms (or others) would depend on the specific aspects of the behavior you want to emphasize, such as intent, the nature of the harm, or the ethical considerations involved.
The same agencies (FBI, DHS/CISA, GEC) invite the same β€œexperts” (Thomas Rid, Alex Stamos), funded by the same foundations (Newmark, Omidyar, Knight) trailed by the same reporters (Margaret Sullivan, Molly McKew, Brandy Zadrozny) seemingly to every conference, every panel. The #TwitterFiles show the principals of this incestuous self-appointed truth squad moving from law enforcement/intelligence to the private sector and back, claiming a special right to do what they say is bad practice for everyone else: be fact-checked only by themselves. While Twitter sometimes pushed back on technical analyses from NGOs about who is and isn't a β€œbot,” on subject matter questions like vaccines or elections they instantly defer to sites like Politifact, funded by the same names that fund the NGOs: Koch, Newmark, Knight.