Yeah, it's funny how we little people can't get a few more dollars per hour on our minimum wage, but our capitalist neo-royalty hands out tenths of a billion dollars to each other every day like candy on Halloween. You'd think for paying the guy enough to buy multiple high-end fighter jets, you could get him to program some keyboard support worth a shit into Android.
No shit most people can't afford hundreds of dollars in VR gear on top of the high-end gaming PC required to use it. If companies don't like it, they should try paying their employees more, it worked for the Ford Model T...
Fair point. After reading his comments, I'd say he's a straightforward libertarian like the others in the circle-jerk. A terribly destructive ideology for sure, but at least not an openly inhumane one. Certainly preferable to the nationalist protofascism of Jair Bolsonaro.
If you don't like identity politics, you REALLY won't like the modern right with their constant appeals to the straight white male persecution complex/privilege loss anxiety.
And I think this is less likely the end of leftism than it is the violent, desperate death throes of the right as a mainstream political force. Leftism hasn't become any less common or made any sudden moves in the last few years. It's the right that has taken off its gloves and mask, taking the complacent left by surprise, even as it has become less common. Leftism appears to be losing right now because it's still marching in formation against an enemy that's suddenly started using ISIS-level guerilla tactics.
He's suggesting that we'd be less horrified if he were a liberal rather than something resembling a fascist, which I can't argue with. Far-right ideologies have proven to be harmful every time they've been tried, so we should be horrified by them.
...and continue to make wildly wrong predictions vs. mainstream climate science. News at 11.
Seriously though, climate denialism (or more accurately, climate conspiracism) is the most dangerous form of denialism/conspiracism known to man. Anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, they're horribly offensive and can cause greater short-term harm, but in the medium/long term they're mildly annoying pissants compared to the planet-baking, civilization-ruining potential of climate denialism. Nobody holds as much potential to sabotage humanity's future as these assholes. And when you get down to it, they're doing it solely out of partisan tribalism these days - even their arguments about economic harm have become a fully laughable farce as renewable energy has become the cheaper and and more domestically sourced form of energy, and the bills for global warming have begun to show up in the form of frequent powerful storms hitting the US and refugee crises around the world.
All they're accomplishing is keeping fossil company CEOs in the money instead of renewable company CEOs under the presumption that the fossil company CEOs will be more conservative. Which might be correct as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since they've made themselves the enemies of renewable energy - even if a renewable energy CEO is a Randroid who would benefit from wealth transfers to the 1% and the general cyberpunkification of the world that conservatism brings, he's not going to donate to the party that wants his business dead.
Because this idea that you can't really tax a corporation is a fallacy based on the false assumption that there is perfectly inelastic demand for all products.
I agree that the invention of agriculture was inevitable...but perhaps its adoption wasn't? What if societies had property laws that forbade agriculture? It's unlikely that any society would be clever enough to know why they should do that ahead of time. but that's one way a society could exist without agriculture.
No, but it would be much better to if humans were still hunter-gatherers. This is compatible with every form of advancement we've enjoyed since humans invented agriculture and more - in general the only thing agriculture enables us to do is support a large population, which we don't need, and never would've had if not for agriculture. Plus we never would have been burdened with any form of royalty, from early tribal royalty to today's capitalist hyper-royalty.
In practice the invention of agriculture was probably unavoidable, but I imagine a hypothetical world without agriculture would produce a relatively small and very equal society that's gentle on the environment, where people have far more free time and some people's jobs are to be hunters and gatherers. Giving people more free time would vastly accelerate scientific, technological, and social progress.
Is there anything it can't make worse? Mind you I don't think this will make the DRM harder to crack, just pointlessly inefficient. There's no distributed trust problem to solve here so it makes no sense to use a blockchain. A centralized database would be just as trustworthy and more efficient by an astronmical degree.
What has blockchain done for humanity so far? Empowered our criminal ownership class and driven another knife into our planet's back.
Beat me to it. Agriculture is probably humanity's worst invention. It created a shitload of terrible problems that have plagued humanity for millennia and the few problems it fixed were also problems that it created.
You would have to about double the tax rate on the top 10% of income earners to cover this benefit, taking them to more than 42% in just Federal income taxes alone (and pushing close to 63% effective tax rate in some States like California).
That's it? I don't think you meant to highlight how awesome sharply progressive income taxes could be.
If the rich want to flee, let them. Most are just bluffing and for those who aren't, many less exploitative people would be lined up to take their places.
This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market. They exchange one thing of value (in the case of Uber, transportation services) for another thing of value (money). Or with their drivers, they trade money for use of the contractor's time and car wear and tear.
Both their customers and their contractors are better off after their interaction with Uber because they all exchange something they value less for something they'd rather have.
Wrong. Companies certainly can and do extract value. In Uber's example, they extract it from their contractors because their contractos are fallible humans and not borg-like beings with perfect knowledge of the market. They make human errors like math errors or incomplete consideration the the facts that lead them to believe that Uber pays at least enough to cover the operation of their car when it doesn't.
An Uber contractor is not really doing labor for profit, they're doing labor to extract some value from their vehicle and give a piece of it to Uber. It's sort of like a reverse mortgage on a car that you have to work for.
You can see why Google is doing this now. Now that the US has its own authoritarian regime that doesn't care too much for human rights, it's easier to collaborate with China's government than ever before, and it likely won't be this easy ever again.
Really? Can you point to even one example of someone being banned for calling for limited government or supply-side eceonomics? Because it seems that such a thing has never happened.
Or would you like to classify what most non-US governments would call hate speech, or outright abuse from someone on the right as "conservative stuff?"
It's also about as progressive as the military-industrial complex judging by the incident I linked to (or Twitter historically handling rule violators who also happen to be conservative nutballs with kid gloves).
Slashdot Mirror
People got bored of mass genocide against brown people in the early days of the Syrian civil war. The story isn't new either.
Yeah, it's funny how we little people can't get a few more dollars per hour on our minimum wage, but our capitalist neo-royalty hands out tenths of a billion dollars to each other every day like candy on Halloween. You'd think for paying the guy enough to buy multiple high-end fighter jets, you could get him to program some keyboard support worth a shit into Android.
No shit most people can't afford hundreds of dollars in VR gear on top of the high-end gaming PC required to use it. If companies don't like it, they should try paying their employees more, it worked for the Ford Model T...
Oracle is a silver bullet if your wallet is made from werewolf fur!
Fair point. After reading his comments, I'd say he's a straightforward libertarian like the others in the circle-jerk. A terribly destructive ideology for sure, but at least not an openly inhumane one. Certainly preferable to the nationalist protofascism of Jair Bolsonaro.
If you don't like identity politics, you REALLY won't like the modern right with their constant appeals to the straight white male persecution complex/privilege loss anxiety.
And I think this is less likely the end of leftism than it is the violent, desperate death throes of the right as a mainstream political force. Leftism hasn't become any less common or made any sudden moves in the last few years. It's the right that has taken off its gloves and mask, taking the complacent left by surprise, even as it has become less common. Leftism appears to be losing right now because it's still marching in formation against an enemy that's suddenly started using ISIS-level guerilla tactics.
He's suggesting that we'd be less horrified if he were a liberal rather than something resembling a fascist, which I can't argue with. Far-right ideologies have proven to be harmful every time they've been tried, so we should be horrified by them.
It's been done before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...and continue to make wildly wrong predictions vs. mainstream climate science. News at 11.
Seriously though, climate denialism (or more accurately, climate conspiracism) is the most dangerous form of denialism/conspiracism known to man. Anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, they're horribly offensive and can cause greater short-term harm, but in the medium/long term they're mildly annoying pissants compared to the planet-baking, civilization-ruining potential of climate denialism. Nobody holds as much potential to sabotage humanity's future as these assholes. And when you get down to it, they're doing it solely out of partisan tribalism these days - even their arguments about economic harm have become a fully laughable farce as renewable energy has become the cheaper and and more domestically sourced form of energy, and the bills for global warming have begun to show up in the form of frequent powerful storms hitting the US and refugee crises around the world.
All they're accomplishing is keeping fossil company CEOs in the money instead of renewable company CEOs under the presumption that the fossil company CEOs will be more conservative. Which might be correct as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since they've made themselves the enemies of renewable energy - even if a renewable energy CEO is a Randroid who would benefit from wealth transfers to the 1% and the general cyberpunkification of the world that conservatism brings, he's not going to donate to the party that wants his business dead.
Because this idea that you can't really tax a corporation is a fallacy based on the false assumption that there is perfectly inelastic demand for all products.
Typical 1%er not wearing a seatbelt, they're especially prone to doing it when they're being driven by someone else.
High-end go-karts with their incredible grip and half-height seats can actually crack a driver's ribs just from cornering forces though.
I agree that the invention of agriculture was inevitable...but perhaps its adoption wasn't? What if societies had property laws that forbade agriculture? It's unlikely that any society would be clever enough to know why they should do that ahead of time. but that's one way a society could exist without agriculture.
I don't expect it to do anything, I use it as a form of protest.
No, but it would be much better to if humans were still hunter-gatherers. This is compatible with every form of advancement we've enjoyed since humans invented agriculture and more - in general the only thing agriculture enables us to do is support a large population, which we don't need, and never would've had if not for agriculture. Plus we never would have been burdened with any form of royalty, from early tribal royalty to today's capitalist hyper-royalty.
In practice the invention of agriculture was probably unavoidable, but I imagine a hypothetical world without agriculture would produce a relatively small and very equal society that's gentle on the environment, where people have far more free time and some people's jobs are to be hunters and gatherers. Giving people more free time would vastly accelerate scientific, technological, and social progress.
Is there anything it can't make worse? Mind you I don't think this will make the DRM harder to crack, just pointlessly inefficient. There's no distributed trust problem to solve here so it makes no sense to use a blockchain. A centralized database would be just as trustworthy and more efficient by an astronmical degree.
What has blockchain done for humanity so far? Empowered our criminal ownership class and driven another knife into our planet's back.
Beat me to it. Agriculture is probably humanity's worst invention. It created a shitload of terrible problems that have plagued humanity for millennia and the few problems it fixed were also problems that it created.
1. Rename it DeploraSearch
2. Drown in money while the world burns
You would have to about double the tax rate on the top 10% of income earners to cover this benefit, taking them to more than 42% in just Federal income taxes alone (and pushing close to 63% effective tax rate in some States like California).
That's it? I don't think you meant to highlight how awesome sharply progressive income taxes could be.
If the rich want to flee, let them. Most are just bluffing and for those who aren't, many less exploitative people would be lined up to take their places.
This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market. They exchange one thing of value (in the case of Uber, transportation services) for another thing of value (money). Or with their drivers, they trade money for use of the contractor's time and car wear and tear.
Both their customers and their contractors are better off after their interaction with Uber because they all exchange something they value less for something they'd rather have.
Wrong. Companies certainly can and do extract value. In Uber's example, they extract it from their contractors because their contractos are fallible humans and not borg-like beings with perfect knowledge of the market. They make human errors like math errors or incomplete consideration the the facts that lead them to believe that Uber pays at least enough to cover the operation of their car when it doesn't.
An Uber contractor is not really doing labor for profit, they're doing labor to extract some value from their vehicle and give a piece of it to Uber. It's sort of like a reverse mortgage on a car that you have to work for.
You can see why Google is doing this now. Now that the US has its own authoritarian regime that doesn't care too much for human rights, it's easier to collaborate with China's government than ever before, and it likely won't be this easy ever again.
Thank you for linking to this informative video.
Yeah, conservative stuff is banned constantly,
Really? Can you point to even one example of someone being banned for calling for limited government or supply-side eceonomics? Because it seems that such a thing has never happened.
Or would you like to classify what most non-US governments would call hate speech, or outright abuse from someone on the right as "conservative stuff?"
Let's take a moment to remember that Cristobal Colon was a murderous moron who racked up a 6-digit death toll with his various crimes against humanity.
It's also about as progressive as the military-industrial complex judging by the incident I linked to (or Twitter historically handling rule violators who also happen to be conservative nutballs with kid gloves).
Maybe with a calculator like the one in the preceding link?