If you're in finance, you earn enough to live in NYC
> imagine what happens to NYC when all the people doing the menial work keeping the city alive (have to) move away? Whoops, now everyone is going to drown in trash and feces!
That's not a "the poor middle class folks in NYC need help" story, that's a "the rich folks of NYC need folks to serve them" story. They're welcome to strategize however they like to incentivize people working there. Manipulative heartstring tug are not welcome however.
With Microsoft they tell you years in advance when the product will reach EOL, so you have plenty of time to prepare
On top of that, most of their products are software running on your desktop and will still keep working after EOL
And if you're a government or enterprise with spectacularly big wallets, you can choose to pay Microsoft big $$ to keep shipping you additional security patches
The challenge with books like The God Delusion is that it's barely one step above strawman arguments.
It attacks claims made by some simple lay people, based on their half-baked understanding of their own faiths (which they never really dug into). However, people well versed in the religion don't actually make any such claims.
The arguments being debunked are ones that religious scholars themselves would have disagreed with. Such misrepresentations don't guide anyone
No need to make every person categorize/rank their own content. But let them choose which of the 3rd party ranking algorithms they'd like to have serving them their feed today.
Good point. It doesn't necessarily have to be a paid membership, but it would need some type of reputation formation. Ability to pay money is one way to grant you a "prob not a bot" reputation.
There's many other ways to set reputation thought:
- I've seen private online communities where you need one or two members to "vouch" for you
- StackOverflow has it's own reputation model based on how helpful you've been in the past
- Bitcoin et-all use proof-of-work as a reputation model.
I'm sure there are many more just waiting to be discovered
The tools for a community to self-moderate is the key here, along with communities being able to define their own boundaries.
Reddit communities with active moderators are often great places to have respectful conversations. Twitter, on the other extreme, has virtually zero moderation tools for any group. You get to live with whatever rules Twitter sets for the entire platform (and die by the group that's able to hack them)
Trust-less information was the norm for most of history.
The past century has really been an anomaly when it came to trusting news, with photos and videos seeming to be reliable proof. Before that, societies had to be structured very differently to account for the lack of proof.
You'd hear people from out of town talking about what they saw in a neighboring city.
You'd need to judge how trustworthy the person was.
People would expect a chain of narration, to understand how _that_ person came to learn a bit of information (or if they claimed to witness it first hand).
As AI generated content becomes more popular, I predict we as a society are going to go back to relying more and more on the reputation of the speakers in question.
Who might you consider reputable? People you've met personally, people who your community respects, and of course, influencers who you follow who's persuasive words match your pre-existing world views. Perhaps something else will emerge
> imagine what happens to NYC when all the people doing the menial work keeping the city alive (have to) move away? Whoops, now everyone is going to drown in trash and feces!
That's not a "the poor middle class folks in NYC need help" story, that's a "the rich folks of NYC need folks to serve them" story. They're welcome to strategize however they like to incentivize people working there. Manipulative heartstring tug are not welcome however.