>Why are industries dominated by large unprofitable companies?
The logic is quite simple: by undercutting your competition, you aim to quickly drive others out of business and secure a monopoly. Once in such a position, making a profit becomes much easier.
I would argue that there is a significant difference between Ted Kaczynski and the numerous conspiracy theorists out there. A quick read through his works, most notably his latest piece, "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How," will quickly reveal the careful, rational approach he applies to his arguments.
Conspiracy theorists often fail to comprehend that secret agencies can naturally emerge in modern societies. A society without such agencies would be at the mercy of those societies that do have them.
What if, for instance, China successfully develops a mind control program and your country does not?
Asserting that the CIA is "bad", without considering larger societal trends and developments, is overly simplistic.
In primitive cultures, reaching old age could be seen as an achievement, given the difficulty of surviving without a healthcare system. In most modern societies, however, aging isn't as challenging and elderly individuals are often "locked away" in retirement homes. In other words, they essentially disappear, living a life of a ghost. Moreover, what kind of wisdom would you expect from someone who spent their years merely waiting for the day of their retirement?
I think how easy life is has little to do with psychological wellbeing. If life is very hard but you are doing great relative to others you will feel good. Furthermore, a more demanding life often generates a deeper sense of purpose and meaning.
I suspect it has less to do with specific parameters of modern society and more with the general experience of living in it. It's a rat race that, for many, lacks any meaning. another point to consider is the psychological difference between being a big fish in a small pond as opposed to being a small fish in a very large one. With the Internet, we now have the means to compare ourselves with everyone else, and our minds can quickly reach the conclusion that who we are and what we have is simply not good enough. From there, it's an easy slide into a downward spiral.
>it's really underdiscussed how averse people seem to just contemplation.
Another observation I've made is that the more time people spend consuming information, the more they feel compelled to talk. It's as if humans are programmed to share the information they've gathered. I'm certain that in the past, people eagerly listened if you had new information, but these days, everyone is constantly collecting new information. It seems like everyone wants to share/talk, yet no one wants to listen.
>the EU has a history of crippling their native tech industry to the general detriment of the EU. It is quite possible that this will end up being one more nail in the coffin.
The primary factor is brain drain. As many experts in geopolitics suggest, the European Union, in collaboration with Russia, could potentially rival, if not surpass, the United States in terms of power. However, it appears they are content to be pawns on the larger chessboard.
This assumes that human lives will be more valuable than war robots. However, humans may be used as cannon fodder to distract enemy robots from targeting valuable equipment.
I'm not sure whether the number of parameters serves as a reliable measure of quality. I believe that these models have a lot of redundant computation and could be a lot smaller without losing quality.
The whole thing is not as clear-cut as you are portraying it here. Furthermore, not even the best-equipped amateur astronomer can verify it. And also:
"Therefore either all retroreflectors have degraded such that their return signals fit to the scattered return from the lunar soil or the measurements were indeed taken to the lunar surface only."
If a large corporation steals your idea, you can try to sue if you have taken measures to protect your idea, and in rare cases, even succeed. However, it won't really get you any further.
If you are generous with your friend from highschool who has a dead-end job and no useful qualifications, he may still be able to help you in one way or another. For example, he may have a very inspiring mindset and encourage you in your endeavors. He may even be more helpful than the not so generous rich guy who doesn't share anything with you or the guy who always calculates if his investments are worth it.
Generosity is an aspect of success and wealth, as it increases the likelihood of building a strong network of people willing to help you achieve your ambitions.
People tend to nurture plants that give something back, enriching their own lives in one way or another. Generosity shows others that you are such a plant.
Understanding the importance of having a good network may be key to know whether a wealthy individual is generous or not. I believe that a wealthy entrepreneur is more likely to be generous than a wealthy engineer.
Saying one time that it is part of a well-known conspiracy theory may be okay, but honestly, constantly reminding me to disregard the information at every turn (and in some cases not even providing it) is, in my opinion, unacceptable if ChatGPT is meant to be just a tool. It is manipulative.
I'm certain that if you ask ChatGPT to interpret the symbolism of another movie with a different and benign underlying theory, it will even come up with some ideas on its own. However, it will refuse to do so for The Shining and the moon landing.
The logic is quite simple: by undercutting your competition, you aim to quickly drive others out of business and secure a monopoly. Once in such a position, making a profit becomes much easier.