Far left? What are you talking about. The bias is for the establishment left, which tends to be economically center-right. They do tend to play up the identity politics side of thing to try and compensate, or to sabotage the actual left ("a.k.a.. those sexist 'Bernie bros'")
Why should I be any more concerned about foreign agents than corporations, who openly use traditional media for their propaganda? The greatest threats always come from within, and all the Russia scaremongering in the world isn't going to change that.
Price per day is a bit of a poor metric, though. What you are paying for is the acts you want to see/the drugs you want to take. Generally speaking, the longer the festival, the more the festival is full of acts you don't give two shits about. As for the drugs, those would also likely reach diminishing returns quickly after 3 days.
Yeah, I can't imagine why people would badmouth an obvious scam artist, while the rest of us are forced to be productive members of society for substantially less. You can't simply handwave such criticisms as merely "class envy," because those feelings are justified.
That's a problem with a technologically easy solution. Why not have the cars read a digital stop sign instead of relying on a physical indication? Granted, full integration will take a while, but I think that adding some NFC-ish chips to stop signs can outpace vandalism.
That's why you need to sell the idea in Milton Friedman's terms, basically as a welfare system with less overhead. In fact, you can just bash everyone over the head with his name. You are correct that the Dems can screw it up by trying to exclude the rich, but including them in the UBI has no real effect on their viability, so it's only a real threat from the center-right Dems that love to sabotage the actual left.
Jobs don't matter. Jobs have never mattered. There are, and will always be, a means to an end. That end being not starving to death. In the past, jobs were a means of divvying up the limited resources for that goal, but as the resources become less limited, something like a UBI will become necessary.
This should be a good thing, but we've got such pig-headed ideas about economics that we're taking the blessing of not needing labor and turning it into a curse.
No, my point is specifically that it's custom made, and that because robot labor has little cost, "if you have to ask how much it costs, then you can't afford it" no longer applies. Poor to middle class people will be to buy clothes that actually fit them properly, making such comforts no longer exclusive to the wealthy.
The real value of this tech is that it will allow for bespoke clothing to become a lot more accessible. Whether or not this iteration is capable of it, that future is inevitable.
You do have to be part of the keto circle jerk to say "glucose is actually poisonous."
I agree 100% that our diets are generally too rich in carbs, and especially refined sugar. I'm not debating that. I'm debating the ketosis cult who thinks that running in emergency mode 100% of the time is the only sane option. But in TFA, it says:
the best diets will include a balance of carbohydrates and fats, approximately 50 to 55 percent carbohydrates and around 35 percent total fat, including both saturated and unsaturated fats.
That still leaves carbs as the primary energy source by a comfortable margin.
Except you just said that the brain needs glucose, and if the body has access to fat, carbs, and protein, it goes with carbs.
You cite that the brain needs glucose, but then call it outright poisonous, despite the fact that it's in the blood of 99.9% of the population 99.9% of the time, and we evolved from primates with largely fruit-based diets. It is, at worst, the second best dietary source of energy, but for anyone not in a keto circlejerk, it's the best.
I'm not saying that sugar can't be harmful, I'm saying that when you scream SUGAR IS A POISON, you are hurting the discussion on proper nutrition. If he said "poisonous levels of sugar," I'd probably have far fewer objections.
I also have neckbeard in my name, so perhaps you should not take my/. handle so seriously, you silly coward. I also likely eat more greens than you (lacto-ovo-vegetarian out of personal preference), and my health is excellent by every measurement, to the extent that people tend to think I'm considerably younger than I actually am.
I've seen people posting that fruit is poison. Now, are all discussions to that extreme? No, but when you hyperbolic ally refer to sugar as "poison," you are contributing to that kind of ridiculous mindset.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
This whole epidemic is the result of trying to simplify the complexities of nutrition into a short sentence like "fats good, carbs bad." There's no need to repeat that mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they are already being compensated with free heating.
Critical success doesn't equal commercial success, but if your movie fails commercially, blaming rotten tomatoes makes for a convenient scapegoat.
Far left? What are you talking about. The bias is for the establishment left, which tends to be economically center-right. They do tend to play up the identity politics side of thing to try and compensate, or to sabotage the actual left ("a.k.a.. those sexist 'Bernie bros'")
Only if, by "qualified labor" you mean people willing to work for very low wages if they want their job to remain domestic.
I can't possibly foresee any drawbacks of plan based upon "Swarms Of Flying Robot Bees."
Why should I be any more concerned about foreign agents than corporations, who openly use traditional media for their propaganda? The greatest threats always come from within, and all the Russia scaremongering in the world isn't going to change that.
Price per day is a bit of a poor metric, though. What you are paying for is the acts you want to see/the drugs you want to take. Generally speaking, the longer the festival, the more the festival is full of acts you don't give two shits about. As for the drugs, those would also likely reach diminishing returns quickly after 3 days.
Yeah, I can't imagine why people would badmouth an obvious scam artist, while the rest of us are forced to be productive members of society for substantially less. You can't simply handwave such criticisms as merely "class envy," because those feelings are justified.
That's a problem with a technologically easy solution. Why not have the cars read a digital stop sign instead of relying on a physical indication? Granted, full integration will take a while, but I think that adding some NFC-ish chips to stop signs can outpace vandalism.
I would agree that CEOs are among the most replaceable. Many of them would be outperformed by a coin flip.
That's why you need to sell the idea in Milton Friedman's terms, basically as a welfare system with less overhead. In fact, you can just bash everyone over the head with his name. You are correct that the Dems can screw it up by trying to exclude the rich, but including them in the UBI has no real effect on their viability, so it's only a real threat from the center-right Dems that love to sabotage the actual left.
Why is a job guarantee better? If there is not enough useful work, then it's just busy work, which is wasteful and insulting.
Jobs don't matter. Jobs have never mattered. There are, and will always be, a means to an end. That end being not starving to death. In the past, jobs were a means of divvying up the limited resources for that goal, but as the resources become less limited, something like a UBI will become necessary.
This should be a good thing, but we've got such pig-headed ideas about economics that we're taking the blessing of not needing labor and turning it into a curse.
Good, when robots are doing all the work for us, we won't have to.
Okay...last time I checked, bus adverts were not a particularly reliable source of information.
Why do you equate "used marijuana within the last weeK" with "drug addict"? Are your opinions based on Reefer Madness?
Okay, we'll stop bombing random brown people and call it even.
No, my point is specifically that it's custom made, and that because robot labor has little cost, "if you have to ask how much it costs, then you can't afford it" no longer applies. Poor to middle class people will be to buy clothes that actually fit them properly, making such comforts no longer exclusive to the wealthy.
The real value of this tech is that it will allow for bespoke clothing to become a lot more accessible. Whether or not this iteration is capable of it, that future is inevitable.
You do have to be part of the keto circle jerk to say "glucose is actually poisonous."
I agree 100% that our diets are generally too rich in carbs, and especially refined sugar. I'm not debating that. I'm debating the ketosis cult who thinks that running in emergency mode 100% of the time is the only sane option. But in TFA, it says:
That still leaves carbs as the primary energy source by a comfortable margin.
Except you just said that the brain needs glucose, and if the body has access to fat, carbs, and protein, it goes with carbs.
You cite that the brain needs glucose, but then call it outright poisonous, despite the fact that it's in the blood of 99.9% of the population 99.9% of the time, and we evolved from primates with largely fruit-based diets. It is, at worst, the second best dietary source of energy, but for anyone not in a keto circlejerk, it's the best.
I'm not saying that sugar can't be harmful, I'm saying that when you scream SUGAR IS A POISON, you are hurting the discussion on proper nutrition. If he said "poisonous levels of sugar," I'd probably have far fewer objections.
I also have neckbeard in my name, so perhaps you should not take my /. handle so seriously, you silly coward. I also likely eat more greens than you (lacto-ovo-vegetarian out of personal preference), and my health is excellent by every measurement, to the extent that people tend to think I'm considerably younger than I actually am.
I've seen people posting that fruit is poison. Now, are all discussions to that extreme? No, but when you hyperbolic ally refer to sugar as "poison," you are contributing to that kind of ridiculous mindset.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
This whole epidemic is the result of trying to simplify the complexities of nutrition into a short sentence like "fats good, carbs bad." There's no need to repeat that mistake.