Slashdot Mirror


Sundar Pichai of Google: 'Technology Doesn't Solve Humanity's Problems' (nytimes.com)

In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has addressed some of the recent tensions within the company and those that the entire industry appears to be grappling with. From the story: Question: An estimated 20,000 Googlers participated in a sexual harassment protest this month. What's your message to employees right now?
Pichai: People are walking out because they want us to improve and they want us to show we can do better. We're acknowledging and understanding we clearly got some things wrong. And we have been running the company very differently for a while now. But going through a process like that, you learn a lot. For example, we have established channels by which people can report issues. But those processes are much harder on the people going through it than we had realized.

Question: Do you worry that Silicon Valley is suffering from groupthink and losing its edge?
Pichai: There is nothing inherent that says Silicon Valley will always be the most innovative place in the world. There is no God-given right to be that way. But I feel confident that right now, as we speak, there are quietly people in the Valley working on some stuff which we will later look back on in 10 years and feel was very profound. We feel we're on the cusp of technologies, just like the internet before.

Question: Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?
Pichai: There's still that optimism. But the optimism is tempered by a sense of deliberation. Things have changed quite a bit. You know, we deliberate about things a lot more, and we are more thoughtful about what we do. But there's a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems. It was always naive to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity's problems. I think we're both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too.
Further reading: After Paying Off Men Accused of Sexual Harassment, Google Says It Will Meet Many of the Protesters' Demands.

137 comments

  1. Huh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Technology doesn't guarantee a solution, and it does solve all problems, but I'm pretty sure it has solved some problems, i.e. we're not all starving due to advances in agricultural productivity made possible by... technology.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      It's a fundamental understanding of technology.

      You use a rock to crush up bits of sticks so they're easier to ignite as tinder. One day, you realize that striking in a different manner better separates the fibers, allowing you to produce 50% more tinder in the same time with the same tools.

      That's technology. You've just invented a new, more-efficient method of manufacturing tinder from sticks using the same tools. You can make the same tinder with less labor and apply other labor to do other things like hunt more meat. Your society can now enjoy more meat. Arbitrate between these two activities and you can have more tinder and more meat, and so you can have more cooked meat per person, all at the same cost.

    2. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you come back and in 1000 years you have world wars, 72 genders and sexual orientations, and a bunch of cry babys taking over society.

      I think I'd rather stick to the slow rock hitting tinder methods, thanks.

    3. Re: Huh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Luddite!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Huh? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      I think he meant Google Technology. Prolly forgot the Google part since he is a part of it.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology: the cause of, and solution to, all of our problems.
      The food supply has vastly increased because of technology, causing a massive ongoing population boom, with some countries having birth rates of over 5 children/woman.
      And so now technology prevents us from starving.

    6. Re:Huh? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1 million insightful

      But you will be modded down because "people have the right to have children" and other idiots who think about themselves before looking at the overall picture. This is why we're doomed as a species: overpopulation, famine, war. In that order.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re: Huh? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      And no Polio
      Malaria is disappearing and is almost completely gone.
      The internet was a great idea before marketers found it
      A lot more food available for the world.
      Electricity.
      Having a really good chance of living thru childhood and having your children doing the same.
      MEDICINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      A lot less violence as a whole
      Slavery is almost not a thing.
      No more small pox
      This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Seems worth a bunch of weirdos
      You can have your shitty backwards world.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    8. Re:Huh? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Technology can solve all problems, including the existence of humans... Reference: The Matrix, Terminator...

    9. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And then you come back and in 1000 years you have world wars, 72 genders and sexual orientations

      I'm curious, what is it about multiple "genders and sexual orientations" that you find to be comparable to world wars? Is it that they confuse you, or is there some way that someone else's preferences or gender harms you? Is it a religious thing where you believe homosexuality or transexuality is causing God's wrath upon mankind?

      I honestly want to know.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology doesn't guarantee a solution, and it does solve all problems, but I'm pretty sure it has solved some problems, i.e. we're not all starving due to advances in agricultural productivity made possible by... technology.

      We can praise technology all you want, but technology will always be a double-edged sword, ever capable of helping and harming.

      And I'm not sure agriculture is the best example here. Ironically it's now safer eating food that was raised in the absence of modern technology. Much like CAFO, Monsanto is now a four-letter word.

    11. Re:Huh? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      They don't really grasp the concept of "technology" outside of computer crap.

    12. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Technology" is a broad term, far bigger than the "techie" definition we've put to it lately. Facebook and Google aren't making more agricultural productivity possible. John Deere if anything is crippling agriculture with DRM.

      Monsanto has killed off half of our pollenators with "technology" and "clean coal" sure isn't keeping much coal ash out of the waterways. "Technology" is a shovel, it's what you USE it for that matters.

    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology is NOT the cause of all our problems. That is patently ridiculous.

      If you exist, you gotta eat. That problem is not caused by technology.

      Not only do you need food, but so does everything else, so you must labor and compete to get it. That creates conflict. That whole set of problems is there for animals with zero technology for god's sake.

      All the problems of survival are pre-technological. And most of our problems are just emergent from that basic set.

    14. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you will be modded down because "people have the right to have children" and other idiots who think about themselves before looking at the overall picture.

      The overall picture is that it's not the birth rate but the infant survival rate that's drastically changed the world population. There's a time of correction** where people move from having lots of children of which most die in infancy to one where people move to having few children who survive to adulthood. The economics of it* invariably reinforce this.

      This is why we're doomed as a species: overpopulation, famine, war. In that order.

      The biggest doom is environmental degradation that may result in famine and war. Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem.

      * This presumes that fewer children translates into adults having more resources put on each individual which greatly increases the chances of each individual working some career rather than trying to eke out enough food on a subplot of a subplot from some extended family member.

      ** The only reason China enforced a one child policy is because the government enacted the correction through a combination of money manipulation, massive government spending to move the rural poor into cities, and widespread infant/child inoculations and the like. If China hadn't done the last bit, people would have paid for it and there would have been a massive population spike which the cities would be there to absorb. If China didn't do the first two, but the latter was readily available, then in a few generations there would have been a mass exodus from overpopulated rural areas to cities for work. The point is, the move from poor to developed is part technology and part social.

    15. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, weâ(TM)re all sick of the crybabies. Always going on about caravans, and 72 genders, and the âoewar on Christmasâ, and âoebuild the wallâ, and tariffs, and âoeCanadians setting up their dairy market so that our heavily subsidized dairy doesnâ(TM)t get a product dumping advantage over their local, unsubsidized dairy is SO unfair!!â, and âoeChina product dumping their heavily subsidized steel in our markets to compete against our less subsidized steel is SO unfair!!â, and âoeMueller and the 13 angry Democrats investigating Trump and associates for all that apparent collusion with Russia on the election interference, and all that lying under oath and money laundering and blatant obstruction of justice is SO unfair!!!â, and the horror, oh the horror of white privilege dwindling until white people are treated the same as everyone else! Etc. etc. etc.

    16. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first line was a punchy reference to the Simpsons, where someone named alcohol as the cause of and solution to man's problems.
      I stand by the rest of what I said about food supply. Industrialisation allowed the human population to explode.
      I didn't think that was a bad thing for me personally because I live in Canada where the population density and birthrates are very low and I didn't expect that to change significantly in my lifetime.
      Now politicians and thinkers in our country aren't happy with mere organic growth, and want to change this and expand Canada's population to 100M by 2100 through immigration because by their sort of thinking, a country is like a tree: if it's not growing, it's dying. It's called the century initiative for anyone who's curious.

    17. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Population growth from births is currently negative in most developed countries. The having five+ children per woman thing is actually an arrifact or a time with lower technology. Medical technology and reduced need for child labor in the household is one of the drivers of lower birth rates.

    18. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you can't do any of the above, since it is all locked up in IP.

    19. Re: Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Not sure they're trying to say that those things are similar. I think they're just trying to point out that things are simpler when there are 2 sexes, regarding laws and organizing things in general. In the same way that things are simpler when there are no wars.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    20. Re:Huh? by Negatif · · Score: 1

      He's using a very narrow definition of technology - the computer and information technology. Most of the rest of us understand technology in the broad sense that covers all the aspects of the process that transforms matter, energy and information.

    21. Re:Huh? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The 1970s wants its alarmism back.

      The rates of famine and war have decreased exponentially (literally exponentially) over the last 500 years or so. The population is currently fairly high, but the rate of increase is tapering off and all reasonable forecasts predict topping out then a decrease. The first world is already in the decrease phase.

      Famine is caused by unreliable food production or distribution. War is caused by economic forces. Educating females (by having a high enough standard of living that lets everyone get an education) is the best method of population control. All these are enabled by technology.

    22. Re:Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your point. The parent pointed out that today we're able to feed so many people due to advances in technology. But then you say he'll be modded DOWN by people that think we should be able to have as many babies as we wish? Seems like people that would argue against the OPs post, would LIKE a post about our ability to have as many babies as they wish, because agricultural advances allow us to.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    23. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tech is great but if I have to hear another speech about COBOL and how the sun never sets on mainframe assembly I will lose it

    24. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but think if his answers were different, the message would be very different!

      Question: An estimated 20,000 Googlers participated in a sexual harassment protest this month. What's your message to employees right now?
      Pichai: We had an old system for reporting sexual harassment, but it didn't work that well. We are working on improving it.

      If he had said it that way, I'd think people would be like: "WTF? WHY DID YOU NOT GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME AROUND?"

      His messages were very carefully constructed. You might even say... artificially constructed. Is Google run by an AI?

    25. Re: Huh? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I think they're just trying to point out that things are simpler when there are 2 sexes, regarding laws and organizing things in general.

      Which is an silly thing to believe. Technology didn't cause transgender people to exist. Humanity existed for millenia without laws to require people to use a particular toilet, and there is no reason we need such laws now.

      In the same way that things are simpler when there are no wars.

      Wars are far, far LESS common that they were in the past. Why? Answer: Technology. A century ago, millions of soldiers were 97 days into the hundred days offensive (it ended at 11am on Nov 11th) in one of the dumbest and most pointless wars ever fought. It started because of gross misjudgements of the intentions and motivations of both allies and enemies. That is much more unlikely today, when everyone is just a cell call away.

    26. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      . I think they're just trying to point out that things are simpler when there are 2 sexes, regarding laws and organizing things in general. In the same way that things are simpler when there are no wars.

      1) Did you know that there were more than 2 genders as long as 4000 years ago? Middle Egyptian actually has words to describe them and in the 18th Egyptian dynasty, the pharaoh Hatshepsut was transgender? So, my question is when were there only "2 sexes"?

      2)When have their been no wars?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) when King Solomon didn't have to kill anyone because King David had already killed everybody.

    28. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit harms me ... gaffot spew harms me ... "gender" harms me. Any questions Bosco ?

    29. Re:Huh? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I think my original post was caused by a lack of technology called morning coffee.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    30. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a better chance at being raped and killed by bubba with the rebel flag and truck nuts then do ever even meeting someone from these caravans.

    31. Re: Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      Did you know that there were more than 2 genders as long as 4000 years ago?

      *Citation needed*

      So, my question is when were there only "2 sexes"?

      Right now.

      When have their been no wars?

      Never. It's sad.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    32. Re:Huh? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      We get to run off the cliff faster and in more comfort.

    33. Re: Huh? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No, that is not technology. But keep rubbing "sticks" with your blow-buddy. Just stop posting stupid shit on Slashdot

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    34. Re: Huh? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      -10 million .... You are a fucking moron. Any loser that thinks people don't have the right to have children proves only that it would have been better if their parents didn't take advantage of that right.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    35. Re: Huh? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You probably missed the post from the idiot that thinks technology means "anything we do" that involves any kind of physical item.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    36. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      *Citation needed*

      I would think by now you guys would know better than to challenge me.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "Inscribed pottery shards from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1800 BCE), found near ancient Thebes (now Luxor, Egypt), list three human genders: tai (male), st ("sekhet") and hmt (female).

      "In ancient Assyria, there were homosexual and transgender cult prostitutes, who took part in public processions, singing, dancing, wearing costumes, sometimes wearing women's clothes and carrying female symbols, even at times performing the act of giving birth.[9]

      In ancient India, Hijra are a caste of third-gender, or transgender group who live a feminine role. Hijra may be born male or intersex, and some may have been born female.[10] Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period.

      In Persia, poets such as Sa'di, Hafiz, and Jami wrote poems replete with homoerotic allusions, including sex with transgender young women or males enacting transgender roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás, and Sufi spiritual practices."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true, but I think he wasn't talking about "material" problems of humanity, like prosperity, health etc. I think he was referring to moral, ethical, spiritual problems and the sort. And I tend to agree there. Facebook will never be fundamentally different from previous ways people used to interact and exchange information and opinions.

    38. Re: Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I know better than to challenge anyone. But, my friend, in regard to the sex of a being, there is only male or female. Maybe a male FEELS like a female, and maybe a female FEELS like a male. And in that case, please do dress however you feel comfortable. But to purport that you're the opposite of your physical gender is just a lie. Just like a short person purporting to be tall, or visa versa.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    39. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moran.

    40. Re: Huh? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's partly due to individualism reaching such retarded proportions that we've reached "i want to play dress up and you must play along, else you're a bigot"

      Or that moral relativism permeating society is akin to water seeping into the foundation of a building. Over time it eventually brings the entire thing crashing down.

      Hard to say.

    41. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's partly due to individualism reaching such retarded proportions that we've reached "i want to play dress up and you must play along, else you're a bigot"

      Have there been transgender people demanding that you "play along"? Please elaborate.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    42. Re: Huh? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      What are preferred pronouns?

    43. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But thatâ(TM)s notv rally medically accurate. The common understanding is that double X chromosomes means female and XY means male, but the actual medical reality is that hormones during early development determine the physical gender of a human baby. Intersex babies are born all the time, and their parents often are asked to choose male or female, then doctors typically perform some surgery and prescribe hormones. The result is generally a lot of gender confusion later in life thatâ(TM)s seriously exacerbated by people like you who basically insist that itâ(TM)s all really simple.

      The fact is, both males and females have the same structures in their bodies, but different parts of those structures end up more/less developed in n males versus females. In men, what would be the ovaries in a female become the testicles. The uterus and vagina basically turn into a little blind duct off the urethra. The female clitoris is basically a stubby penis. The labia in a female turn into the scrotum in a male. Obviously both men and women have breasts that are capable of producing milk in the right circumstances, etc., etc.

      Of course, humans have a long and proud (it really is proud, which is weird, but humans are good at taking pride in shameful things) history of declaring things that personally squick them out as immoral. They would rather that inconvenient teutha would just go away. Hence your attitude.

    44. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if that IS COBOLs legacy?!

    45. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What are preferred pronouns?

      This isn't Jeopardy. What are you trying to say? Have there been transgender people demanding that you "play along"? Give us examples of this happening to you. Use your words.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... You hope that my family is raped and killed. I wonder, are you the poster who wrote above about their hand-wringing concerns that âoemoral relativismâ is seeping into society and destroying its foundations due, apparently, to the existence of anyone not heterosexual. Should we, maybe, analyze your comment in the context of moral relativism?

    47. Re: Huh? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You must not live in the south west.

    48. Re: Huh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Gender is a continuum, not a binary either/or. And a small percentage of the population are born true hermaphrodites, which the doctors usually "solve" by lopping the male parts off rather than waiting to determine their true gender identity.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    49. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I know better than to challenge anyone.

      Clearly not, as Citation Needed is most definitely a challenge (and a request) for conformation on a point of dispuit.

      But, my friend, in regard to the sex of a being, there is only male or female.

      Ah, of course. Intersex people don't exist. Eunuchs aren't a thing. Clearly people as far back as 4000 years ago were just morons because genetic biological sex is the gold standard above phenotype or any other variation that does not present something as cleanly as a binary. Of course, that leads to..

      And in that case, please do dress however you feel comfortable.

      Dress? *Dress*? Are you born with clothes? We're all naked underneath our clothes, and clearly putting on clothes for more than necessary environmental protection under some mindset of modesty is a mental illness. If you truly were a follower of the natural world as a basis for action--and not some reactionary person who tries to, whenever it's convenient, turn to nature to justify your actions--you wouldn't invoke "dress" as any state of sex or anything to do with nature.

      But to purport that you're the opposite of your physical gender is just a lie.

      If you lack a penis and a vagina, what's your physical gender? Is everything contingent on a genetic test, even if you're a human chimera that gives different results depending on where you check? Then there's the issue that some people have underreactive or overractive reaction to certain hormones so their XX/XY sex doesn't match their physical appearance. It's certainly very bizarre to hear you talking about other people and their medical condition to dictate to them what gender they are when you clearly have so little grasp that I seriously wonder, have you had genetic tests done to prove your own gender?

      Just like a short person purporting to be tall, or visa versa.

      Get back to me when you understand the difference between phenotype and genotype. There's plenty of short people with a tall genotype and vice versa. If gender is contingent in large part on hormones, there's really no way to be certain of a person's gender based on their genitals.

    50. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking about eunuchs. Castrated male servants. They are not a 3rd gender

    51. Re: Huh? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Scientifically, we are a binary sex species. The abnormalities of XXY, XXX, XYY Chromosomes are similar to having other Chromosome deformations like Downs Syndrome. That is to say, they are no less HUMAN, but they are exceptions, not the rule (binary sex).

      There are even rare cases of Hermaphroditism, where there appears (or actually are) two sets of genitalia. These are also rare cases, similar to people born with six fingers/toes. It does happen. We say we have ten fingers and toes, because MOST people conform to that. We don't make gloves that have six fingers in them just in case someone MIGHT have six fingers. That is stupid. But we can and will make accommodations where it is possible.

      The Political left wants to conflate the various terms(gender, sex etc), often using them interchangeably to the point of full destruction of any basis for having a conversation about how to deal with people suffering mental problems. All so they can feel superior to everyone else who thinks there are two sexes.

      For instance, I suggested that if gender is based on male vs female cultural traits, that there are 7.1 Billion Genders, as everyone has a unique mix of male and female traits, and that really upset the transgendered people I was having a discussion with. They want to define the terms using arbitrary and fluid terminology with the end result being confusion. One cannot have a conversation based on fluid definitions that conflate sex, gender, and societal roles into a soup of uncertainty that ONLY they can decode (and when convenient for their goals).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    52. Re: Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Sex is as sex does, sir. The rest is a label.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    53. Re:Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Perfectly excusable. Cheers!

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    54. Re:Huh? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm trying not to be!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    55. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weasel word here is "humanity". What are "humanity's problems", exactly? - as opposed to your problems, or mine, or some country's or government's or pressure group's problems?

      When you start to think about it, it's self-evident that each solution gives rise to new problems - if only because it enables progress past a previous sticking point, allowing us to encounter a new obstacle. So nothing can ever solve all problems, merely overcome past ones and reveal new ones. So which of all the current problems in the world do you ascribe to "humanity"? Once you answer that question, the meaning will probably become clear.

    56. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how crossdressing has transformed into "transgender".

      Are you a man that likes to wear skirts? You must now want to be a woman!
      Because gender roles (which we reject) clearly state that only women wear women's clothing, so if a man wants to wear women's clothing, he must actually want to be a woman. QED.

    57. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about WHO GIVES A SHIT! A person can feel however they want about their sexuality. But what percentage of people fall the gender confusion or preferred gender acceptance category? I will be generous and estimate 1% of the total population on the planet. So why do the advocates for this very relatively small group of people think it is one of today's most pressing problem? Gender and sexual preferences are not world ending, drop everything, and but the ever living shit out people who have better things to worry about? You can't get rid of hatred and bigotry by legislation. Throwing your gender and sexuality insecurities into peoples faces and expecting them to suddenly see the light and embrace your particular viewpoint will not get you very far. There are more than enough discrimination laws which include a whole plethora discriminatory actions that fall under the nations hate law classifications.

    58. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What hermaphridite babies are born all the time? This drugging of gender confused children is a result of the political movement, not the cause of it.

    59. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you truly believed that, you wouldn't be obsessed with labeling people as binary male or female.

    60. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't have a right to have children. People have an ability to have children. Also some people lack personal responsibility and have children that are then raised by the social safety net, regardless of the extend that it exists. But it's certainly not a right

    61. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to know what it is about categorizing things as completely orthogonal things leads you to describe them as comparable.

      Is it a religious thing, where any of your NPC views can only be challenged as a holistic CNN-validated set?

    62. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology tends to solve problems that 1) can be solved and 2) aren't what are commonly called "first world problems".

    63. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, what is it about multiple "genders and sexual orientations" that you find to be comparable to world wars?

      They are both great examples of what happens when you stop thinking but don't stop doing.

    64. Re: Huh? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir/ma'am. VERY well said.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    65. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take Leftist policy for $400, Alex.

    66. Re:Huh? by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      If we keep going the way we are, famine will be caused by irrecoverable erosion of soil and depletion and permanent settlement of aquifers, all courtesy of the green revolution. Bonus, the resulting famine will be orders of magnitude larger than any in history.

    67. Re:Huh? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yup, there's always more catastrophe that technology can save us from.

    68. Re: Huh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Technology ("science of craft", from Greek , techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -, -logia) is the collection of techniques, skills, methods, and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation.

      In economics, we call the advancement of technology (and its measurable effects on productivity) "technical progress".

      An assembly line is technology. So is cellular manufacture. These are techniques, not tools--although a tool is a type of technique.

    69. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is is a process. If weâ(TM)re scientifically a two gendered species, then what is the specific hypothesis, and what is the experiment to prove it? And, specifically, how can it be falsified?

      Because, it sounds like, unless you start with a convoluted hypothesis and set of definitions that founded in an assumption about the conclusion, any reasonable hypothesis can be falsified quite easily. Intersex babies exist, male/female chimeras exist, phenotypic variations in sexual characteristics exist. So, youâ(TM)re not talking about science per se, but rather about classification. Classification systems often oversimplify.

      It really is the same with six fingered gloves. People with six fingers probably wish that they didnâ(TM)t have to pay for custom gloves. And what about all the left-handed people? I bet theyâ(TM)re tired of products that are designed for them being unavailable, and being burned alive as witches... Oh, wait, we donâ(TM)t do that anymore. Somewhere along the line, we figured out that there wasnâ(TM)t just one âoerightâ hand representing affiliation with God, and we realized that they arenâ(TM)t automatically evil. We realized that they were just an aberration that needed to be corrected through strict training... Then we later realized (mostly) that was wrong too, and stopped forcing left handed kids to use their right hands (mostly). They still get largely ignored in product design of course, even though theyâ(TM)re 10% of the population.

      The point of that is that you canâ(TM)t use the fact that we typically whitewash over these differences as evidence that they exist, or that theyâ(TM)re just exceptions to the rule and that, somehow, being exceptions negates their actual existence.

      Certainly, most of the human race conforms pretty well to a 2 gender model, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean that you can say that everyone has to fit in a 2 gender classification system. Some people donâ(TM)t fit. What specific criteria do you use? It canâ(TM)t just be based on reproductive capability, for example, otherwise where do you classify the infertile? It canâ(TM)t be strictly based on DNA because the XY/XX split clearly doesnâ(TM)t hold up to observed reality. So, what do you base it on?? Ultimately, it looks like the logical solution is to add some more categories or accept some soft transitions between categories.

    70. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think heâ(TM)s just talking about basic politeness and common decency. He really, really chafes at having to participate in those. He thinks that he should be allowed to be as rude and vulgar and abusive as he likes. Also, he thinks itâ(TM)s incredibly unfair that anyone is allowed to criticize him or say bad things about him for doing so.

    71. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Technology didn't cause transgender people to exist."

      Huh?

      Ladyboys are MANUFACTURED, not born. Without advanced medical technology and deranged butcher "doctors", ladyboys simply would not exist. Yes, some people would still feel emotionally confused about gender roles. But those poor confused people would NOT be mutilated into "trans" flesh golems.

    72. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More FAKE SCIENCE from our surly local nazi asshole.

      Sorry nazi broham, no one believes your lies anymore. Go home. We don't want what you're selling.

    73. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who love to talk about "consent" are ALL rapists. Not "date rape" / fake rape - real rape. Every last one of them. That's why they're so fixated.

  2. Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if it can be effectively used against government authority, then by all means, we should go *balls to the wall* in pushing forward hard and fast. First we have to develop a communications medium that can't be censored or blocked in any way.

    1. Re:Maybe not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      First we have to develop a communications medium that can't be censored or blocked in any way.

      You already have that. It's called "speech", as in, "open your mouth and say what you want". Or, if the cat has your tongue, you can write it down on a sheet of paper and pass it along.

      Can you give an example of something you wish to say but are being "censored or blocked" from saying?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you can lose you job, get arrested or killed for speaking, happens to lots of people, all the time. It's too easy for the ISP to block access to what they don't like. We need a way around the ISP and a way of hiding the source while securing free access. We need a way to ensure nobody can be involuntarily cut off or displaced in any other fashion. We have to remind the authorities that content is none of their business. Their only obligation is to ensure universal access. When they fail, we need technology they can't stop. Cat and mouse forever, I suppose, but we gotta try, and ignore, put down all the naysayers. We must trample the tyrants with technology!

    3. Re:Maybe not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Nope, you can lose you job, get arrested or killed for speaking, happens to lots of people, all the time.

      You still haven't answered my main question:

      Can you give an example of something you wish to say but are being "censored or blocked" from saying?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Maybe not by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      Go to Germany and say "the holocost never happened".

    5. Re:Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gab fiasco is perfect example, mitigated only by the fact there are still alternatives... for now. ISPs are cutting people off for using bittorrent. As long as they monopolize access to the internet and there is no way to circumvent them, it is blatant censorship.

      You're like those fat, bald, white guys who say there is no racism in the US.

    6. Re:Maybe not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Can you give an example of something you wish to say but are being "censored or blocked" from saying?

      You seem to be purposely misunderstanding my question. Here it is again:

      Can you give an example of something you wish to say but are being "censored or blocked" from saying?

      Are you saying that you wish to say, "the holocaust never happened" but are being "censored and blocked" from saying it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Maybe not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      The gab fiasco is perfect example

      Being able to say something is not the same as having a mass media platform to say something. The first is guaranteed, the second is not.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give an example of something you wish to say but are being "censored or blocked" from saying?

      Avttref

    9. Re:Maybe not by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yes you are put in jail. That is censoring.

    10. Re:Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the 1st does guarantee (for what it's worth) your right to operate a mass media service, you're not allowed to shut it down or sanction it in any way if you don't like the content. That would definitely be a violation of the 1st amendment. And yes if there is only one platform, it must be subject to constitutional restraints, or an alternative must be permitted, one or the other. The service providers must be regulated as common carriers, and the market must be pried open, at least until we can route around them. There is no right to silence anybody, except through heavy weaponry. Censorship is tyranny, but with the strong desire for it, only through technology is there hope of ending it, by any means possible. Arguing over it is stupid and wasteful.

    11. Re: Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi assholes sure do want to deny a lot of people the right to speak on the de facto public square.

  3. What. The. Fuck?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? This guy runs Google?

    How many people does he think could survive on Earth without technology?

    Keeping literally billions of people from dying sure seems like "solving problems".

    1. Re:What. The. Fuck?!?! by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously? This guy runs Google?

      How many people does he think could survive on Earth without technology?

      Keeping literally billions of people from dying sure seems like "solving problems".

      I think the whole point is that technology is not a panacea. It helps solve problems, but deep down a lot of problems like hunger or poverty have underlying causes beyond the remedy of technology. A lot of it is simply getting past the human element: greed, corruption, stubbornness, mistrust, etc. Then you have natural causes such as simple physics, ecology, geography, etc that technology can mitigate but not effectively or realistically fully overcome. A lot of people in Silicon Valley (and tech in general) have grand ideas about changing or saving the world, and those dreams just simply aren't realistic or feasible. Limited or localized change and improvement is certainly possible and is a laudable achievement, but expectations must be realistic. And in quite a few instances, but trying to solve problems you end up only creating more.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:What. The. Fuck?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So on the one hand you are right - hunger and poverty have human causes. But, technology could conceivably fix them. For example some hunger is basically because certain dictators / warlords / etc. take the food and also steal the relief shipments other groups send in. A drone that killed off that person would likely solve that. Of course you would eventually get Skynet. But for a short time it would be solved.

    3. Re:What. The. Fuck?!?! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      So on the one hand you are right - hunger and poverty have human causes. But, technology could conceivably fix them. For example some hunger is basically because certain dictators / warlords / etc. take the food and also steal the relief shipments other groups send in. A drone that killed off that person would likely solve that. Of course you would eventually get Skynet. But for a short time it would be solved.

      That's not solving the problem. As recent events in ME/NA show, forcibly removing a strong-arm ruler often just causes more problems as the state descends into chaos and anarchy at worst, civil war at best. So instead of a state (relatively) peacefully starving, you have a state starving and at war with itself.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:What. The. Fuck?!?! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So on the one hand you are right - hunger and poverty have human causes.

      Hunger and poverty are the natural state of life. They aren't caused by humanity, they are solved by humanity — except during disasters or when someone gets in the way.

  4. What Silicon Valley is missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Jesus.

    1. Re:What Silicon Valley is missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is Jesus.

      No, I'm sure quite a few companies in Silicon Valley have Jesus. He and his friends clean the floors or take care of the landscaping.

    2. Re:What Silicon Valley is missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's racist.

    3. Re:What Silicon Valley is missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to pay slave wages to illegal immigrants than to pay the wages demanded by law to Americans. Because "won't pay market rates for American work" equates to "no American will do these jobs". At least we can expect proper protections to those illegals that Americans enjoy. Oops maybe not. But at least there are no poor Americans that could use a better job that those employers aren't willing to pay because they have a slave workforce.

  5. For the Mystery of Lawlessness is already working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is Winter Sunlight?

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

  6. Technology can solve Google harassment by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Just buy up thousands of sexbots that are more fun to harass than actual coworkers, and sprinkle them liberally around campus... problem solved! (As long as the sexbots are programmed not to sue.)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Technology can solve Google harassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just buy up thousands of sexbots that are more fun to harass than actual coworkers, and sprinkle them liberally around campus... problem solved! (As long as the sexbots are programmed not to sue.)

      Punching bags with breasts would be cheaper.

  7. It does solve ONE problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making a few people very, very, very, VERY rich..

  8. Bologna by Doc+Right · · Score: 0

    Technology is the ONLY thing that CAN solve humanity's problems. Your hurt feelings and thin skin are not a problem for humanity, they're YOUR problem. Suck it up and move forward, or just stay away from people.

  9. Hammer... nails... whack... repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems fairly obvious looking at history that technology is just a tool, not a solution. And like any other tool it has to be used correctly or it causes more harm (potentially) than good.And for it to be widely adopted it has to fill a need. And it needs to be understandable -- the old truism that people would rather live with a problem they cannot solve than accept a solution they do not understand still applies. A perfect example was the explosive adoption of the automobile in rural america -- horses were widely used but had their own issues and side effects. And the coming of an inexpensive car that was owner-maintainable was a revelation. And no matter how much marketing is thrown at me, the latest phone from vendor X does not fill me with the burning desire to dump last years model and buy the new one. I have no need. Silicon Valley, like any other innovation center, is in danger of believing its own marketing and so fall into decline. Sounds like Sundar understands that -- whether that impacts what his company does is, as always, another matter.

    1. Re:Hammer... nails... whack... repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It seems fairly obvious looking at history that technology is just a tool, not a solution.

      We could also look at the etymology.

  10. He's right by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    What he doesn't tell you is that, being obnoxious like Google (Don't Be Evil) actually makes humanity's problems worse. Thanks, Pichai.

    1. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not gonna lie, but it does feel like Pichai has led Google down a dark path, it's definitely become far more evil under him, and would be much better without him.

      Google now feels like Microsoft of the Gates/Ballmer era, yet ironically Microsoft now under Nadella feels like Google under the Brin/Page era.

      It's a complete turnaround, and people need to realise that if they still need to hate a tech company then Google or Facebook are certainly the most evil.

      I used to be fairly anti-Apple, but fair play to Cook, he's a much better steward of Apple from an ethical sense than Jobs was even if he doesn't have Jobs incredible ability to generate hype and innovation in equal parts.

      So we're in a weird situation now where the old giants, Apple and Microsoft have become the ethical ones, and the new guys, Google and Facebook are very clearly the evil ones.

      Perhaps this is just how tech companies evolve, and in another 10 years time Facebook and Google will ethical again, but right now if nothing else Pichai is clearly a terrible leader, and clearly a horrible person whose only ideas for company growth involve fucking over human beings, by say, cooperating with the Chinese authorities to get dissidents killed. Meanwhile Nadella has realised the whole evil thing wasn't working out too well for Microsoft and has turned it into one of the most important open source contributors.

    2. Re: He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly was Eric Schmidt less evil or simply less able?

    3. Re: He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft under Balmar was great. Now it's in the gutter under Nutella

  11. Can't solve a problem which isn't defined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Technology doesn’t solve humanity’s problems. It was always naïve to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity’s problems. I think we’re both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too."

    Of course a vague term like "humanity's problems" can't be solved by technology, because we don't know what you're trying to solve. I'm more concerned with resource allocation and the profit system interfering with the technology that could be built to solve any number of problems we face, rather than being worried about an over-reliance on technology.

    1. Re:Can't solve a problem which isn't defined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course a vague term like "humanity's problems" can't be solved by technology, because we don't know what you're trying to solve.

      This is easy. When I hear "humanity's problems" I know that they are referring to me not personally being a billionaire. That would without a doubt solve my problems, and from my point of view I am humanity. I don't care about the rest of you.

  12. Two Leight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The milk has gone sour.
    The well has run dry.
    The youth have been poisoned.

    The wind has been sown

    Now reap the storm

    Ye infidels
    whores of satan
    Worshippers of shit

    captcha, recall

  13. First world problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn you've been had!

  14. He's trapped in a bubble by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he's only thinking about Information Tech. Most of society's problems are economic. Food, shelter, healthcare. Look at every major societal in human history it's always been traceable to money. WWI and II were land grabs by nations looking for more wealth. 9/11 was due to US meddling in the middle east to secure cheap oil. The only other problem to solve is disease, and we're doing pretty good there. No more small pox. We kept bird flu in check.

    Bio tech changes everything. People don't realize how much we've changed farming in the last 100 years. We use oil byproducts to recondition land so that we need fewer or no crop rotation cycles. We used genetic modification to massively increase yields and make pest resistant crops. We can feed everyone on the plant now.

    Yeah, tech moved faster than our society at fixing problems, but our society wouldn't even get a chance to fix them without tech.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: He's trapped in a bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's only thinking about Information Tech.

      Well duh, what other business is Google in?

    2. Re: He's trapped in a bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right... Agriculture IS high tech. Yeah, dirt and water... and deep bioscience high tech

  15. Just the other day... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...on twitter I saw some post about how those retailer not getting involved with AI will be their demise. Reminded me that the tech industry, as Bill Gates indirectly said in saying its not like other markets. Obviously it is an entrapment market. Many of the readers here are familiar with the upgrade trap of wanting to upgrade one thing only to find they have to upgrade other things to do so. And sometime my system response experience is worse than what I recall of a Commodore 64, so where did all the upgrades in power and resources go? A: into tech industry pockets of course.

    So the solution being sought is that of how to extract more money out of the users.... where what is really being proposed is programmers are gods, bow to the gods and their creations, otherwise you will die. If you buy our software you will be able to out compete your competition, until we sell it to everyone and then you can buy our upgraded software and out compete the competition, rinse and repeat. Today its a AI will solve your need to wipe your A$$

    The basic sales pitch is always the same. Does it really deliver. Buy our Robots to do the work and save tons of money from not hiring people and all the overhead of so doing? Wonderful..... until there is no-one left to buy your product cause they have no income..

    The tech Industry is a very self serving industry and has a long running ethics violation it supports for this. Don't let the users do for themselves what they should be able to do, make them tell us what they want so we can determine if there are enough wanting such to warrant us doing it and selling it back to them.

    Where is the third standard primary, easy to use, user interface of the side door (IPC) port to applications, libraries and device that allow the users to automate, even across applications, libraries & devices for themselves functionality the programmers provide the users to do manually via GUI and command line type interfaces?

    This third primary standard user interface doesn't exist. If you want to become wealthy make people need you ~ Bill Gates.

    Did you hear about the AI/Robot who was given Citizenship? Sophia. When we are not even near AGI.

  16. Goggle sure doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready for anti trust Google. Censorship is very very bad.

    You scumbags have gone too far. Biggly

    BREAK THEM UP

  17. Idealism? No. by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    - Grievance-obsession is not idealism.
    - Making up stories about bad things that might happen is not idealism.
    - Beefing about people or condescending to people or looking down on people in other states who aren't like you is not idealism.
    - Bigotry against religion is not idealism.
    - Name-calling is not idealism.
    - Self-obsession is not idealism.
    - Wanting to spend money other people earned is not idealism.
    - Choosing to side with one group over another group is not idealism.
    - Rejection of science in favor of storytelling about diversity is not idealism.

    Idealism rejects all of these things. Idealism tells the truth and treats everyone with goodwill. You guys at Google should try it.

  18. Social problems are not humanity problems. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    Starvation, lack of a home, those are real problems. Even then humanity goes on, until it doesn't.

    1. Re: Social problems are not humanity problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't problems but symptoms - they are caused by overpopulation , which is itself also a symptom. The real problem is we no longer have natural predators and competition

  19. Not all, not yet. by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there's a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems. It was always naive to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity's problems. I think we're both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too.

    It won't solve all our problems. But we've made the blind see, the lame walk, fed the world, cured a lot of cancer, fought off a lot of diseases, empowered billions, and unless we have some sort of additional advances things look pretty damn grim when it comes to global warming.

    You are working on self-driving cars. "1.3 million people die in road crashes each year. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled". This is a problem. You are working on solving it. That justifies the investment, all the work, and your fucking stock price.

    You want non-discriminatory hiring practices that truly adhere to being an equal opportunity employer? Automate it. Remove discriminatory factors and strive for a meritocracy that's blind to race, religion, or creed. If the process for raising complaints is painful, fix it. Streamlining and automating HR sounds like something you could sell.

    You are a technology company. Act like it.

    Technology doesn't solve ALL of humanity's problems. Yet.

    1. Re: Not all, not yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology does not solve problems. People solve problems. Technology gives you tools and tools can be misused or abused. Only autistic tech-heads with no understanding of the human condition are blind to that. They seek technical solution when the solution are mostly sociological. That's why politician need to get their act together and put a much-needed and heavy-handed stop to the tech madness.

    2. Re:Not all, not yet. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      You want non-discriminatory hiring practices that truly adhere to being an equal opportunity employer? Automate it. Remove discriminatory factors and strive for a meritocracy that's blind to race, religion, or creed...

      In Tech you'd wind up with a 40-30-30 mix of white, asian, and desi males between 25 and 45.

      They aren't bleating about a meritocracy or equality in opportunity; it's equality of outcome or nothing.

  20. Technology evolves faster than humans by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Our technology has evolved many orders of magnitude faster than our species evolves, especially the hardwiring in our brains. In many ways we'd benefit from slowing down our technological progress (and even backing it up) until the human species can catch up to it. Unfortunately nature may do that for us and in the harshest way possible.

  21. Sundar Pichai doesn’t solve Google’s p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were all thinking it.

  22. Self-fulfilling by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems

    It does, technology has solved many of the world's biggest problems. However, once it solves a problem then there is no longer a problem, so it doesn't appear that technology has done anything.

    But take mass transportation as an example. The inability to move millions of people and millions of tons of goods never seemed like a problem before it was possible. Nobody ever thought "Hmmmm, I wish there was a way to get 50 million people a year to visit other countries" or "I wonder how we could possibly move a quarter of a million tons of crude oil across the world?" . Not until the means to do so was delivered. Then after that, the problem disappeared.

    So it is a rather dumb statement. Just like we don't have a "problem" now on how to get 10,000 people a year to The Moon and back. It will become possible - and then easy - to do. And once it does, that will be because technology enabled the solution. But right now, no-one considers our inability to do that to be a "problem".

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  23. Re:Idealism? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of what you say is not idealism

    You're just way too negative.

    sourly

  24. So you are saying.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....Thanos did nothing wrong?

  25. Google is Doomed. by AftanGustur · · Score: 2
    The moment Google caved in to the first demands of the SJW, the company was doomed.

    Once you have let that Genie out of the bottle, the is no turning back.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  26. I am confused. by Dusanyu · · Score: 1

    The articles related to this protest walkout all say "accused" i would hope that a mere accusation is not enough to make action against a person that could cause them to loose there livelihood and cause the cascade that comes with it loss of home starvation etc. We had this thing for ages and it mostly worked called the presumption of innocence until the accusation can be proven. Did I miss a memo someplace that stated we now run on guilty until proven innocent? because that is some hard core spooky Totalitarian type stuff why don't we just bring back stretching on the rack while were at it.

  27. Anime on the brain: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Whenever I see the name Sundar Pichai, my mind changes it to Tsundere Pikachu.

    1. Re: Anime on the brain: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice me Senpichai!

  28. Re:Idealism? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you and the Republicans should probably stop doing that shit.

  29. And thank God for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen.

  30. Maximum cuckoldry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not children, they're fodder for the capitalist machine.
    People who "lack personal responsibility" are actually more redpilled than you, because they're putting the least into creating new workers to be exploited.

    People like you who "responsibility" raise your kids are the most cucked.
    THANKS you just wasted decades of your life making us more free workers.