The term "brainwashing" is so misleading and fear-baity here. Humans are gullible and can be convinced of falsehoods. You have just as much if not more "brainwashing" power than any chatbot. The only difference is that a chatbot can reach more people faster, but we can also inoculate ourselves to the effectiveness of AI by things like "media literacy" and "skepticism". If you know that an AI can be programmed to promote falsehoods (or otherwise fed falsehoods), you can perhaps double check sources that an AI uses to promote their claims. It's not brain control its just media baby
1. It's important to remember that having struggling poor people is expensive for the system. Emergency shelters, health issues that go untreated until they need emergency intervention, desperation crimes like theft (affecting policing and prisons), foster care, drug use intervention. These are all expenses that are reduced by a system like UBI. If you keep people healthy and fed, you can keep them peaceful and working and the program pays for itself.
2. I don't see the inflation effect as purely linear. Having $10 when things cost $10 is better than having $0 when things cost $5. There are thresholds that affect peoples ability to even engage with the market that you put your trust into. Also the market wants people to buy things, so it should welcome more people participating in it. And lets not forget that most of the price gouging over the past few years went straight to shareholder profits instead of increased supply costs, we can try to decentivize systems like that that profit off of economic crises.
> we should foster competition, incentivize innovation, and let markets do their thing
"letting markets do their thing" is contradictory to "fostering competition". Markets fundamentally drift towards consolidation. Source: the past sixty years. Markets do not fundamentally organically move towards progress. Often times the profitable thing is to pay workers shit wages and raise prices, and if you try to wait it out for a magical class of well financed competitors to come along and disrupt that status quo, millions of people will have been put into poverty in the interim.
Ah yes the old "banning things=bad" argument that doesn't offer alternatives to fixing the issues with AI. Just ignore the issues with environmental impact, plagiarism, CP and other non-consensual shit in the data sets, scamming capabilities! All the groups asking for regulation here have **funding** and that means they are evil but we are good for using this tool that is massively subsidized by megacorps that have a vested interest in this market.
In my lifetime school stopped being about teaching life skills and started being about college prep. I never had home ec, wood shop, auto shop, any life skill class. Hell even drivers ed was privatized in my town. I understand that these programs are expensive to keep running but that slack was not picked up by other community resources like community colleges. (theres also a lot to be said about the stigmatization of community college and adult education courses)
The decline in public funding of education and public transit in my lifetime have gotten us to this point
you know all this shit is connected right? the rich in America exploit labor to accumulate profit -> funnel that shit into investments to passively increase their income -> investment firms squeeze their controlled companies to generate more profit to increase shareholder value -> companies outsource labor to the 3rd world to reduce costs and give savings to shareholders -> those foreign businesses exploit their workers to a greater degree because there is less/none regulation -> people in other countries get paid $1 a day
Fighting corporate greed in the US is in effect fighting for the rights of laborers internationally that are negatively affected by American business interests. No one who fights for this kind of change does so for selfish reasons, it's for all of us.
if your opinion is that some people make millions a day and some people make $1 a day and thats just life and we shouldnt try to change that, I think you are fundamentally lost.
Also consider: where do the billionaires in the US get the resources to fuel their empires? Do they get their cobalt from slave labor mines in the Congo? Do you think maybe there is some kind of connection between corporate greed in America and people on the other side of the world making $1/day or less?
imagine if i told you that i think everyone deserves to make a wage that allows them to thrive and have stability.
Also consider that A) things are more expensive here and B) our economy is debt based and many people with homes and cars in the US have negative income after expenses, just because aesthetically our poverty looks different, it doesn't mean that it's good. It's not comparable.
idk what their profit structure or founding story is, but the poison pill for every company is investment capital. The second you take VC money you are beholden to someone other than your coworkers and clients. If you can get off the ground and become sustainable on sales alone, you are golden. Stability is possible but the problem is that most VCs demand 10x return, not 1.25x return.
> It implies you are not living in a communist society, and therefore allowed a measure of control over your own life
OK red scare calm down. I think you overestimate how much control capitalism gives you. Criticizing the economy does not make you a commie. If you wanna lay down and accept oligarchy because you are afraid of communism be my guest, but I would highly suggest you fight for slightly better circumstances for yourself and your neighbors.
> STOP GIVING THEM MONEY
If oligarchy was limited to Bezos, Zuck, and Musk that would be easy! But billionaires kind of own everything? Our food supply is controlled by a handful of megacorps, our communication network is administered by a few others, real estate is a game for giant investment groups, health care is a fucking joke... It's impossible to elect to not participate in the economy, or at least its impractical for everyone to live off the grid.
Listen I know you think that communism means the goberment controls everything (it doesnt), but at least I can vote for my gov reps. I don't get a fucking vote when Blue Cross Blue Shield is deciding where I can go to the hospital.
actually no, I don't think anyone should look at the wealth spread in the US and think that it's normal or good. It's objectively dangerous and undemocratic. If someone can earn millions a day from passive investment but someone who actually provides meaningful goods and services day-to-day barely makes 50k a year, I think we have totally misunderstood as a society what to value and how to distribute resources
You shouldn't just lazily lay down and accept the negatives of changes like this, you'll just create a techno-oligarchy. You should fight for change to be slow and deliberate to protect your neighbors instead of taking their floor.
If your income is $0 it doesn't matter if prices go down by 20%. When the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" economy is designed to be sink or swim people are gonna drown when shit like this happens. It's not about "luddites are forcing us to do manual labor", it's "corporate greed is destroying our communities". If you want automation you should be fighting for things like Universal Healthcare and a UBI so people can survive periods of change.
I agree with you that generally people who complain about assistive devices do not consider any form of disability in their analysis. But the way that the consumer tech industry is shaped makes selling assistive devices really hard. Investors only want to invest in things that will be the next iPhone which makes actual assistive tech a really tough industry because the market is too small. So companies broaden try to broaden their reach but in order to do that they sacrifice the resilience, durability, reliability that those under-served communities really need. Most abled people can handle the 80% accuracy of a voice assistant, but for someone who needs an assistive device, that 20% failure rate can be brutal. The bar is so much higher to help those communities, and most companies wont bother.
Basically, if you want to make a medical assistive device, you kind of have to be all in on it, instead of trying to convince everyone that your device is the future of human-computer interaction (because its probably not and you'll just forget and ignore those communities)
it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. those social norms affect men's ability to endure hardship, find community, and empathize with the struggles of others. The article is not just talking about written rights, it is talking about achievement and happiness, which are emergent from a combination of written policy and social norms.
I disagree with the headline that "the left needs to talk about it" because fundamentally we do every day. The problem is that men tense up when we talk about things like "patriarchy" and "feminism", despite every piece of literature that explains that patriarchy and traditional (toxic) masculinity are actively harmful for men too. So men aren't listening to leftist talk about these issues and need to be baby-fed them using different words.
Starfield is fine. It actually runs pretty smoothly, just not at 4k 120fps. A lot of AAA games these days require a DLSS-like solution to run well, which is kind of frustrating but we are already a few years into the roll out and its only a matter of time before it is ubiquitous. There is also a problem with tech IP lockout: Bethesda made a deal with AMD where they would support AMDs Super Resolution tech, the terms of which required them to not officially support NVidia DLSS. There are however Mods you can install to support DLSS.
An interesting sidebar there is that allegedly, a popular community modder was given advanced access to the game, allegedly so that DLSS support would be available near launch.
Anyway idk man, all these issues are manageable. Its janky but its fun jank.
I think you conveniently stopped reading before point 3.
> The government does, in fact, have the power to regulate some speech. When the rights and liberties of others are in serious jeopardy, speakers who provoke others into violence, wrongfully and recklessly injure reputations or incite others to engage in illegal activity may be silenced or punished.
The twitter files only showed that the government lobbied for changes, and that Twitter agreed to some changes. There is also evidence in those files that Twitter also refused some requests. we can hem and haw about the validity of the requests all day but I want to ask this: If you were a big enough media site that you become a potential public safety/national security risk (something like 90+M American users), what do you propose you should do when the government takes notice and starts contacting you?
Do you think Twitter should have just ignored all emails from the government about public safety threats? Do you think they should have had a policy of just throwing government correspondence in the big ole customer service heap and handled national security and public safety issues in 10-12 business days? when government agencies contact you about potential threats/issues would you take them seriously or laugh in their face? Did these government actors threaten Twitter with legal action or just request action be taken about certain content?
I don't want to be in the position of defending the FBI or a big corporation here, but I think if you have concerns about the conduct of Twitter or government here, the 1st amendment can't be your legal foundation here. You need to 1) contact your representatives about reducing FBI/DHS overreach and potentially restructure their responsibilities and funding. If you have an issue with the FBI we can do something about it together other than yelling about liberal bias at Twitter 2) actually have meaningful conversations about how you think social media should handle things like misinformation, extremism, and hatespeech. Because 0 moderation is not the answer and will never create healthy communities. And 3) think critically about what avenues government can and should use to make requests when it comes to issues of public health. Government is always going to want to keep tabs on what goes on in public forums and have concerns and it's the platforms decision as to whether or not to heed advice. I agree that we should be concerned about any legal threats are attached to requests, but I dont think you'll ever stop government from contacting major platforms that have a major affect on their constituents altogether.
Everyone here has provided some good advice about looking for what you are missing. In any part of your life, if your conclusion is "everyone here sucks but me": you are probably missing something. Understand that your equation of "more story points faster = better" is a philosophical decision you are making, that your team does not agree with. Your team may not capture all of their work on a jira board or may scale their tasks differently than you. You may value fast completion of tasks, and they may value slow but intentional design and testing. No one's value can be completely captured "on paper".
Also just chill out about perceived relative effort! If deadlines slip, if bad code is being shipped, then you should be concerned about your coworkers effort. If your team is meeting deadlines, then it is managements responsibility to fill the work queue, if you want more work ask for it. Your job isn't to manage your coworkers who all have their own lives and relationships to the work. If you are worried that you are doing more work for less money, do less work or ask for a raise.