What facts? Clinton basically became being less popular than cancer by the time the public remembered hearing her talk. She lost to a black dude with a Muslim sounding name and then had to rig a primary to beat an angry, disheveled Jew. The fact is that Clinton was basically the worst choice for a candidate, and she made many horrible decisions, allowing her to lose the right parts of the country to bungling orange moron.
It IS common and accepted, at least from oligarchs from this country and our allies. If they ACTUALLY wanted to take Trump down, they could do it with his Saudi connections, but they won't, because they suck dick for the Saudis every single day.
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
Did I say I was surprised? No, I said it was petty bullshit, because it is. There are two major approaches to Brexit: 1) make it as awkward and painful as possible in order to dissuade further members leaving. 2) work on minimizing the damage of Brexit, creating a series of treaties and agreements that mean that the UK basically remains in in most of the useful ways, with a little window dressing of greater autonomy.
1) is about preserving the EU as an institution. 2) is about preserving the trade agreements and such that make sure that Europeans don't start another world war.
What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?" The EU ostensibly exists for the convenience of its members states, and those states exist for the convenience and welfare of their citizens.
Petty bullshit to prevent leaving is a completely backwards understanding of the purpose of a government. Your viewpoint became obsolete around the same time as the divine right of kings.
You are however, ignoring the potential advantages that a human-free environment can provide. You can make sure that an environment is very sanitary if you regularly flood it with high levels of UV that human workers wouldn't care for.
"situation where money earned is more or less proportional to work done" and "have some people earning a hundred times as much as other people" are mutually exclusive.
More to the point, college kids are in an environment where there are enough people that will be making large amounts of money that the economic class issues that are at a root cause of most other issues are sidelined to focus on the symptoms, often in a way that further reinforces those class issues.
Because humans are animals, and animals will instinctually defend themselves if they feel threatened. It's cheaper to give them income than to loose tons of angry, desperate people on the public.
The first would slow needed productivity growth, employed or not; [UBI] would reduce worker opportunity.
I think there are few opportunities for workers more valuable than the ability to freely tell employers to go fuck themselves, which a UBI would enable. Plus, if an employee can spend years looking for jobs, they can be much more selective.
The real downside to a UBI is that it reduces the power of employers, including the ones that fund the ITIF.
Of course they don't address the systematic causes. They are mostly college students, particularly at prestigious universities. The wealth and privilege that come from that level of education make them blind or at least less perceptive of greater class issues.
Pretty sure most European countries have lower GINI coefficients than the US, with the most socialist ones (i.e. Scandinavian) having the lowest coefficient. Similar trends exist for social mobility
Those are far more meaningful measure than lottery winners or banking empire families.
I think you are on the right path. Matching DNA to diet probably does work. The problem is the idiots running the study were trying to match diet to the DNA of the meatsack instead of the DNA of the biome.
You don't need to get rid of greed (in the sense of self-interest) in order to reach a post-jobs society. The thing is we need to be better at being greedy, mostly through more abstraction. The reason capitalism is as functional as it is is because most of the time, everyone is acting in their self-interest, which allocates resources relatively efficiently.
For example. we know that happiness caps out at around $70-$100k a year. A rational greedy person has no interest in income substantially past that, and would instead focus any money past that on removing problems from their environment, such as poverty, as that would do more to increase your quality of life.
What matters most in this context is the framing. Jobs are a bullshit necessary evil, and technology will eliminate a number of jobs. We have to be working towards changes that allow us to move away from needing jobs without our society collapsing.
At this point, selective enforcement of antitrust law is better than non-enforcement of antitrust law. This would be a much better debate if it wasn't so clear that the clear policy choice would be to break both of those companies into a million pieces and to choke slam all of their CxOs.
Because you can be a "nerd" without being involved in "relevant" development, or even development at all. Fuck off, you needlessly elitist piece of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
What facts? Clinton basically became being less popular than cancer by the time the public remembered hearing her talk. She lost to a black dude with a Muslim sounding name and then had to rig a primary to beat an angry, disheveled Jew. The fact is that Clinton was basically the worst choice for a candidate, and she made many horrible decisions, allowing her to lose the right parts of the country to bungling orange moron.
It IS common and accepted, at least from oligarchs from this country and our allies. If they ACTUALLY wanted to take Trump down, they could do it with his Saudi connections, but they won't, because they suck dick for the Saudis every single day.
Even worse, it could be stored in America.
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
Which do you think has been more effective: the EU itself, or the positive ties that it brought between European nations?
Also, just to remind you, a major factor in causing the last World War was strong punitive actions against a major European power.
Did I say I was surprised? No, I said it was petty bullshit, because it is. There are two major approaches to Brexit: 1) make it as awkward and painful as possible in order to dissuade further members leaving. 2) work on minimizing the damage of Brexit, creating a series of treaties and agreements that mean that the UK basically remains in in most of the useful ways, with a little window dressing of greater autonomy.
1) is about preserving the EU as an institution. 2) is about preserving the trade agreements and such that make sure that Europeans don't start another world war.
Even with plenty of advance notice, this is remarkably stupid.
What kind of fucking moron cares about the "EU's best interest?" The EU ostensibly exists for the convenience of its members states, and those states exist for the convenience and welfare of their citizens.
Petty bullshit to prevent leaving is a completely backwards understanding of the purpose of a government. Your viewpoint became obsolete around the same time as the divine right of kings.
Genome differences are substantially different with down syndrome, seeing as it's an extra chromosome (with the same set of genes)
Hey, the marketing team worked very hard to make changing to VBR seem like a major accomplishment only possible through an enormous expenditure.
You are however, ignoring the potential advantages that a human-free environment can provide. You can make sure that an environment is very sanitary if you regularly flood it with high levels of UV that human workers wouldn't care for.
For the strict definition of "pedophilia," it'd be before puberty, so around 10-11 or younger.
No, the parties are "far-right" and "center-right with identity politics."
"situation where money earned is more or less proportional to work done" and "have some people earning a hundred times as much as other people" are mutually exclusive.
More to the point, college kids are in an environment where there are enough people that will be making large amounts of money that the economic class issues that are at a root cause of most other issues are sidelined to focus on the symptoms, often in a way that further reinforces those class issues.
You're going to praise Trump for following the politician's syllogism?
Because humans are animals, and animals will instinctually defend themselves if they feel threatened. It's cheaper to give them income than to loose tons of angry, desperate people on the public.
I think there are few opportunities for workers more valuable than the ability to freely tell employers to go fuck themselves, which a UBI would enable. Plus, if an employee can spend years looking for jobs, they can be much more selective.
The real downside to a UBI is that it reduces the power of employers, including the ones that fund the ITIF.
Of course they don't address the systematic causes. They are mostly college students, particularly at prestigious universities. The wealth and privilege that come from that level of education make them blind or at least less perceptive of greater class issues.
Pretty sure most European countries have lower GINI coefficients than the US, with the most socialist ones (i.e. Scandinavian) having the lowest coefficient. Similar trends exist for social mobility
Those are far more meaningful measure than lottery winners or banking empire families.
I think you are on the right path. Matching DNA to diet probably does work. The problem is the idiots running the study were trying to match diet to the DNA of the meatsack instead of the DNA of the biome.
You don't need to get rid of greed (in the sense of self-interest) in order to reach a post-jobs society. The thing is we need to be better at being greedy, mostly through more abstraction. The reason capitalism is as functional as it is is because most of the time, everyone is acting in their self-interest, which allocates resources relatively efficiently.
For example. we know that happiness caps out at around $70-$100k a year. A rational greedy person has no interest in income substantially past that, and would instead focus any money past that on removing problems from their environment, such as poverty, as that would do more to increase your quality of life.
What matters most in this context is the framing. Jobs are a bullshit necessary evil, and technology will eliminate a number of jobs. We have to be working towards changes that allow us to move away from needing jobs without our society collapsing.
At this point, selective enforcement of antitrust law is better than non-enforcement of antitrust law. This would be a much better debate if it wasn't so clear that the clear policy choice would be to break both of those companies into a million pieces and to choke slam all of their CxOs.
Because you can be a "nerd" without being involved in "relevant" development, or even development at all. Fuck off, you needlessly elitist piece of shit.
I'd prefer that NOBODY bribes our politicians.