The US numbers are DOWN. What do you want from us? Nuke China?
Either say you want to Nuke China or kindly hyperventiliate into your chicken little bag instead bombarding us with this garbage.
The economic consequences to the US for climate change are incredibly controversal. Every tropical storm, every forest fire, every winter frost, every rain storm, every drought, every sun burn, every flu outbreak is cited as climate change.
We are far beyond the point of the boy that cried wolf with this stuff. It is beyond absurd and well into obnoxiously stupid.
And on top of that, US NUMBERS FOR CO2 HAVE BEEN FALLING FOR MANY YEARS!!!!!!
So... Enough. Go whine to China or possibly Europe who's numbers UNLIKE US NUMBERS are not going down.
Look it up.
If US numbers were climbing then you could maybe argue the US should do its part to cut back. But US numbers are going down. We're doing our part. And that's before you account for all the carbon sink qualities of US territory. Some countries emit a lot of CO2, are increasing their CO2 emissions, and have such dramatic land exploitation that all the forests etc are just getting clear cut. Complain to them.
We've got green energy projects coming out of our ass, your emissions are falling year over year... Just enough.
This is like listening to the B12 deficient vegans at this point. I know... you're mad... so are the vegans... and that isn't the only thing you share in common.
I've seen it out of third second and third wave to some extent. And keep in mind that first wave was basically elite British ladies complaining that they were inheriting the family estate.
It was basically there from any relevant start because first wave is not worth crediting with any ideological seriousness.
Let us not presume offense in silly internet posts. If good faith is sincere then we can leave it at that and see where it goes. If it is not sincere then I suppose some false offense can be concocted and I'll know the good faith was not sincere.
Gentleman's bet accepted. We'll see where this goes. Till then.
As to hosting content not being the same thing... they cite themselves in court as communications companies. So, their own lawyers are contradicting you.
they outright deny service arbitrarily... imagine if Cox or ATT filtered content on their service the same way youtube or google search etc does... or facebook...
The point is that they deny and allow certain content which the traditional communications companies are obligated to not do. And yet google and facebook seek the same legal protection that the classic communications companies get... aka safe harbor.
Again, the net neutrality thing was bankrolled by Google and Netflix to trick stupid people into forcing the government to lower bandwidth costs for big dot com companies.
It was a scam. The internet was fine before NN. It only applies to the US and not the GLOBAL internet. And as everyone noticed after NN was retired... nothing changed.
The whole thing was a giant goat rope. And as usual, zillions of people just get excited about whatever they're told to without having any curiosity as to why some giant multi billion dollar companies are dumping PR money into it.
First, that is basically the law already in this matter.
Second, it would be just as bad for the advocates of intersectionalism if the court case were lost because the trans movement wouldn't accept it.
These are foils thrown at disorganized reactionary elements that are not well thought out. The idea is that you concoct some argument, a set piece reactionary rival is found, targeted, and triggered. This then gives you the desired political optics to undermine rivals whilst empowering allies.
The problem with this concept is that it only works when your rival is unaware, isolated, and responds only according to predicted script.
At some point, the Fabian strategy fails. Even Hanabal got through Fabian's own trap.
And how? By attaching lit brands to bull horns and stampeding his own food supply through the Roman lines at night to make a path for escape.
The arrogance of the Fabian strategy is that is presumes your rival will never innovate or ever do anything that you can't predicted.
What you find is that you grind up predictable unimaganitive men until all you have left are unpredictable creative men.
The policy if you don't shift out of it can only fail eventually. It is political passive aggressiveness.
And that works for awhile until people realize how to deal with passive aggressiveness.
In any case, the "court" and "legal" argument are immaterial. This is not a legal matter. It is an aspect of a sociopolitical moral crusade. To lose, the supporters of this notion need only be made to appear absurd.
Remember how the internet didn't exist until Obama put on the Wizarding hat, went to hogwarts, defeated the dread snake wizard, and made the world safe for porn downloads?
Nothing changed. Most of us have been around long enough to remember what the internet was like before and after... it was the same.
This is of primary interest to the likes of Netflix, Google, and some other big corporations that want to force the backbone providers to give them cheaper communications rates.
The fun thing with that is how hypocritical it is because Google, facebook, etc do not practice net neutrality themselves.
Here you would say "but they're not communications companies"... Well, that's not what they say in court all the time.
They cite themselves as communications companies all the time. They use a provision in the law that grants "safe harbor" to communications companies which permits them to not get sued if child porn gets posted on their networks or other things.
So actually, they have declared themselves as communications companies.
But do you notice how they don't actually practice net neutrality? Nope.
It is more private law desired by big corrupt corporations that want one set of laws for other people and another set of laws for themselves.
And really, if you want net neutrality anyway, then fine... Just apply it to all "communications companies" as the law would dictate and watch Google etc flip on whether it is a good idea.
why? Because the inter-sectional Marxists have swallowed a whole lot of contradictions and conflicting interest groups in their quest for power.
Opposing forces have behaved in a dumb "reactionary" pattern where they don't really change what they're doing but merely cite their disagreement with things. This is idiotic.
The point of intersectionalism is to conflate as many interest groups as possible with analogs of classical "class struggle".
The way to fight this is to not treat these various ploys separately and not appreciate the wider context but rather to hammer at the very glue that holds these groups together... which is generally a deceit that suggests that if you give X power then all these contradictory interest groups will get what they want.
So the black power groups will get what they want, the feminist groups will get what they want, the islamic organizations will get what they want, the hispanic groups will get what they want, the trans activists will get what they want.
It isn't possible to satisfy these agendas at the same time. Which is why in practice they're not satisfied at all. Look at Detroit. It went from being a mecca of blue collar success to a warren of endless crack dens. But the people that took power when that started are still in power.
Weird, huh? The only people that will ultimately get power are a few elites and some politicians and some political party here or there might pick up power. But the endless ranks of dupes that fuel this nonsense will get nothing.
Women will get nothing. name the racial group will get nothing. The various agitating ethnic religious factions will get nothing.
It is a big silly game.
And THAT is the weakness.
By declaring yourself a woman, you hammer on one of the more glaring incompatibilities in "intersectionalism" which is the conflict between Feminism and Trans-sexualism.
The Feminist movement holds that all gender norms are social constructs and that women should be advanced above men generally to address historic favoring of men.
The trans movement holds that gender is biological and that one can "feel" like a woman inside or a man or whatever indifferent to social constructs. And that one can shift between being "male" or "female" simply by citing yourself as one or the other. A medical procedure is not required, nor is changing your sexual partners, nor is changing your preferred clothing, etc. So a 55 year old guy in a suit can just say he's a woman according to the Trans sexual movement. He doesn't have to do anything besides that.
The feminists have predictably been giving ground to the Trans movement even though they make up at best something like.01 percent of the population or something. It is a pretty common tell with intersectionalism that individual interest groups will always subordinate their interests when they come into conflict with the collective intersectional power structure. This has already lead several feminist conventions to stop performing the vagina monologues. And quite a few of these things will have it openly cited that "not all women have vaginas".
This is the weakness of intersectionalism. The greediness of it to gather too many conflicting interests under one banner.
So don't attack any of the hydra heads. Attack the body that connects them. The hydra heads are endless. A giant waste of time to argue with any of these interest groups directly. Rather go after what gives them the national thrust they have... break up the alliances by forcing them into conflict with each other.
Short of that, intersectionalism will continue until the people primary interested in their own personal power have total control over everything... and then basically tyranny until systemic corruption and inefficiency destroys the society.
Either/or.
Here some zealot for the cause may tell me that a zillion contradictory interests can be satisfied at the same time. Not without divine intervention, bucko. Only one planet and one reality. The oppression pyramid is a pyramid scheme. Wise up.
You're right and wrong. The market is not the problem but the political system which allows politicians to bias the economy.
There are mechanisms to inflate the labor supply with suppresses price.
What you keep not appreciating is that it is SUPPLY and DEMAND.
Contrary to your suggested knowledge of the matter, it is by manipulating SUPPLY that employers lower price.
IF you want to be paid more, then you have to DECREASE SUPPLY. Just as that will increase the selling price of nickel or rubber... it will also increase the price of labor.
Control immigration, regulate the H1B visa system better... and labor prices will come up. It is fundamental and unstoppable. You can get around that as easily as you can get around the laws of thermodynamics. Many say they can dictate the market... hyper-inflating currencies and famines tend to be the reward of such people.
How then were labor prices suppressed? Well, look at a graph of WHEN US labor prices started to go down: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
We can see it started to crash in the 1970s. What happened in the 1970s? Globalism was an element. There were changes in trade, changes in labor, and that put pressure on US wages.
If you want to improve US wages, you don't do it by passing a law that says companies have to pay people more. You do it by increasing the value of US labor... which means shifting the supply/demand curve.
I can only assume by your comment that you don't realize how transparent your rhetoric is here.
First, you quite obviously are trying to waste my time because all I asked you to do was put in about five seconds here and there doing web searches. That apparently is over the line of what you're willing to invest which means you're at best a troll.
Second, you're claiming "you are not from a western country." Friendo, you're compounding stupid lies on top of stupid lies. I'm quite obviously "western." I'm just not "stupid." Your sad little ploys work on "stupid people." Try someone else with more lead in their diet, get better at your sophistry, or actually make the token commitment to actually pull some basic devil's advocate with your own nonsense.
Absent even competent deceit on your part... you're boring... absent making a token effort I'm not going to feel ethically obliged to take you seriously... and absent honesty there's no legitimate argument here.
I've been very flexible with you here. I didn't even demand you argue in good faith. But if you're going to argue in bad faith, then at least be an amusing liar. You're not even that.
Not Western? The fact that you would throw out such a patently absurd, transparent, and ignorant insult... Pitiful, sir.
Strive to be better at whatever you're attempting to do... perhaps a better liar... it is up to you. But if you are "western" and I assume you are... I weep for the civilization if THIS is what is considered competent deceit. You are by all measures the weakest of us whatever you're attempting to do here. Be better. Our civilization has no future if this witless drivel from you constitutes our measure. Be inspired. Be better. Hate me... be indifferent to me... I don't care... Be better. If you value Western civilization as you suggested you did... you're going to have to be better than that.
My understanding is that they cite themselves as being publishers under the law in some contexts and effectively communications companies in other...
and as is typical they change their identification depending on what is most convenient for them.
Publishers for example are responsible for their content and communications companies have "safe harbor".
Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.
So if Google is a publisher they are liable for all content on their service personally and cannot cite safe harbor.
If Google is a communications company then they cannot remove content from their services unless it violates the law.
Simply doing that would solve most of the current shit show.
Google would reflexively be forced to be a communications company because the publisher condition imposes too much overhead to be practical. That would remove the concern that google is biasing content. End of argument.
Literally just apply the law and don't let them change their identification. They can choose whichever they like. Totally their choice. And then then apply the law. Done.
If you are willing to go quid pro quo with effort then I'll do make an effort.
if you're just asking whether the Sun is in the sky to waste my time then we're done.
As to "how things work in the real"... in the real, we don't ask common knowledge questions. That sort of silliness is a sad internet rhetorical tactic.
So no. What you're doing is not how we do things in the real.
As to google products, their search engine is so ubiquitous that it actually has the ability to affect public perception. That is well beyond just a product. Indifferent to whether I stop using it or not, I have reason to be concerned.
Consider the "russian influence of the election" which was mostly a bunch of posts on facebook. If "that" is worth an FBI investigation, what is Google playing with search results worth? Or does it only matter when there's some alleged link to the Russians?
What if we just make a baseless claim that Google is doing this because of China... Guess we'll have to get a special investigation to kick down Google's doors, right?
Attempting to brush this off is a non-starter. You might as well tell me hard vacuum is good for toddlers.
"They haven't been doing it. Everyone knows." Well, the very article in question has them discussing it right there for one.
Let us not play the "I bet you don't know how a search engine works" game.
You either accept that I can find lots of links to substantiate my position... as I would hope you know I can... or you can waste my time by daring me to do it... and then try to claim the links aren't any good for some reason... Probably because they weren't notarized by Jesus or something.
All the while... you'll probably not be citing anything... doing any kind of work... or really doing anything to balance out the effort here.
So why don't we cut to the chase...
We do both know they were doing it. Your argument is blatant time wasting. And I'm not going to bother going through this process with you unless you agree to keep up your end so I don't feel like I'm just getting fucked with by a troll.
I loved google when they delivered search results relevant to my query. But increasingly they've been tweaking results. You can do the same search in google and then in other search results and there are certain things that should be in the google search that aren't.
Lots of things are still good about google... their translate service is pretty cool, their maps service is great, their image list thing is pretty good for finding random images that are similar to search results.
Lots of positive things. But... the company has abandoned their "don't be evil" motto.
Time to recognize that and pop over to DuckDuckGo or something.
Whatever your politics, if you put any stock in classical Western Liberalism, then you can't be okay with the search engine trying to bias your political opinions by biasing the search. They've been doing it. Everyone knows. Time to acknowledge it and move on.
The idea of a book is to store a man's knowledge so that someone else... possibly even another generation can absorb that knowledge. But books have no identity or personality... they're always slaved the mind that absorbs them. And whether the information is even retained is entirely dependent on someone else wanting to read the thing.
AI... or a persistent artificial personality will be fed knowledge by its creators and given a personality... a ethical and moral premise... objectives... things to avoid... whatever. And to the extent that initial input is stable the AI will continue to be "be" what the creators made it. You see... a step beyond the book.
The good or bad of the AI will be a matter of what you put into it. Fill it with craziness and you have a crazy AI. Fill it with wisdom and you have something that might be very useful to people.
well, briefly going over past paradigms to show the patterns... I'm going to be very general here... this is off the top of my head.
10,000 years ago we were pretty much all hunter gatherers. We were generally nomadic. We tended to worship animals. Our political systems were small and often based on family. Money was more a concept of social capital then it was little objects made by whomever. Trade between tribes happened.
5,000 years ago we started to see a lot of societies/civilizations/population groups shift to sedentary agrarian farmers. Most people started worshiping the weather. Land rights became a thing. Our political systems got larger but were still typically based on family. Populations increased dramatically and the social connections between each in the society became more formalized and less personal because people didn't know each other as well. Money happened to compensate for social capital not being able to function with that many people. Trade if anything decreased for a lot of people at least at the start. Roads were built ultimately. Sea trade started to become a thing. The political and economic inequality increased as the utility of every member to the society decreased. In a small hunter gatherer tribe a single person that participates in the hunt is a bigger stake holder than is a tenant farmer on a lord's land. This economic reality manifested itself politically in that the less of a stake holder you are the less agency you have in the society.
250ish years ago machines and new ideas started changing the way we do things. Labor moved from the farms to the cities. Economies of scale. Assembly lines. Rail hubs. Shipping ports. By this point weather worship basically doesn't exist and people start to worship "systems" that are relevant to the logistics of the new paradigm. You get people worshiping the "invisible hand" or some of the various ideas Karl Marx was pushing. It always gets metaphysical. The population concentrating has political consequences. The way we live. The way we think. All of it driven by logistical imperative. Do this or you don't eat... just like every other paradigm before. One of the big changes was the transition from peasant farmers to urban factory worker. The urban factory worker is a much bigger stake holder and has a much bigger influence just on a 1:1 basis than does the peasant farmer. Going with the pattern this resulted in an expansion of liberties and rights that in previous systems would not have happened because the man in question didn't have the leverage to demand it. Slavery goes away... not only because some find it morally wrong but also because it can't economically compete with the new industrial age.
Now-ish, going on what I said above, I will base my tea leaf reading on the logistics and extrapolate from there. Automation undermines economies of scale since economies of scale are primarily based on labor efficiency. There are many exceptions where bigger is better indifferent to labor but when it comes to factories... it is generally labor. This means the cities just like the fields of the past will lose some relevance. Using automation we could source factories at point of use more efficiently than concentrating them. Transport costs largely irrelevant at this point given how cheaply we move goods. A container ship can move 1 ton of goods across the seas on average at about 1000 miles per gallon of bunker fuel. So transport won't force people out of concentration but real estate prices, regulation, over standardization/lack of customization, etc probably will over time. I think we're going to have a more distributed industrial framework. Rather than a few big factories making everything... there's no reason why the thing that makes whatever couldn't be within a day's car drive of everyone. Micro factories. Combine this with the internet and you have an increasing agency of localities as they gain logistical independence. Look at big corporations competing with smaller corporations, big helps you do other things like manage
Slashdot Mirror
Enough with the tiresome political clickbait.
The US numbers are DOWN. What do you want from us? Nuke China?
Either say you want to Nuke China or kindly hyperventiliate into your chicken little bag instead bombarding us with this garbage.
The economic consequences to the US for climate change are incredibly controversal. Every tropical storm, every forest fire, every winter frost, every rain storm, every drought, every sun burn, every flu outbreak is cited as climate change.
We are far beyond the point of the boy that cried wolf with this stuff. It is beyond absurd and well into obnoxiously stupid.
And on top of that, US NUMBERS FOR CO2 HAVE BEEN FALLING FOR MANY YEARS!!!!!!
So... Enough. Go whine to China or possibly Europe who's numbers UNLIKE US NUMBERS are not going down.
Look it up.
If US numbers were climbing then you could maybe argue the US should do its part to cut back. But US numbers are going down. We're doing our part. And that's before you account for all the carbon sink qualities of US territory. Some countries emit a lot of CO2, are increasing their CO2 emissions, and have such dramatic land exploitation that all the forests etc are just getting clear cut. Complain to them.
We've got green energy projects coming out of our ass, your emissions are falling year over year... Just enough.
This is like listening to the B12 deficient vegans at this point. I know... you're mad... so are the vegans... and that isn't the only thing you share in common.
Won't stop the interesectional hydra from attempting to conflate.
I've seen it out of third second and third wave to some extent. And keep in mind that first wave was basically elite British ladies complaining that they were inheriting the family estate.
It was basically there from any relevant start because first wave is not worth crediting with any ideological seriousness.
Let us not presume offense in silly internet posts. If good faith is sincere then we can leave it at that and see where it goes. If it is not sincere then I suppose some false offense can be concocted and I'll know the good faith was not sincere.
Gentleman's bet accepted. We'll see where this goes. Till then.
Good day, sir.
leave your honor intact by making a gentleman's bet... you wouldn't pay anyway... ;)
We'll see. Seems like no one is lining up to do it so we may be in for a wait.
As to hosting content not being the same thing... they cite themselves in court as communications companies. So, their own lawyers are contradicting you.
Mic drop.
I cited the law at you already. Californian law.
Game over.
they outright deny service arbitrarily... imagine if Cox or ATT filtered content on their service the same way youtube or google search etc does... or facebook...
The point is that they deny and allow certain content which the traditional communications companies are obligated to not do. And yet google and facebook seek the same legal protection that the classic communications companies get... aka safe harbor.
Again, the net neutrality thing was bankrolled by Google and Netflix to trick stupid people into forcing the government to lower bandwidth costs for big dot com companies.
It was a scam. The internet was fine before NN. It only applies to the US and not the GLOBAL internet. And as everyone noticed after NN was retired... nothing changed.
The whole thing was a giant goat rope. And as usual, zillions of people just get excited about whatever they're told to without having any curiosity as to why some giant multi billion dollar companies are dumping PR money into it.
https://transgenderlawcenter.o...
First, that is basically the law already in this matter.
Second, it would be just as bad for the advocates of intersectionalism if the court case were lost because the trans movement wouldn't accept it.
These are foils thrown at disorganized reactionary elements that are not well thought out. The idea is that you concoct some argument, a set piece reactionary rival is found, targeted, and triggered. This then gives you the desired political optics to undermine rivals whilst empowering allies.
The problem with this concept is that it only works when your rival is unaware, isolated, and responds only according to predicted script.
At some point, the Fabian strategy fails. Even Hanabal got through Fabian's own trap.
And how? By attaching lit brands to bull horns and stampeding his own food supply through the Roman lines at night to make a path for escape.
The arrogance of the Fabian strategy is that is presumes your rival will never innovate or ever do anything that you can't predicted.
What you find is that you grind up predictable unimaganitive men until all you have left are unpredictable creative men.
The policy if you don't shift out of it can only fail eventually. It is political passive aggressiveness.
And that works for awhile until people realize how to deal with passive aggressiveness.
In any case, the "court" and "legal" argument are immaterial. This is not a legal matter. It is an aspect of a sociopolitical moral crusade. To lose, the supporters of this notion need only be made to appear absurd.
Remember how the internet didn't exist until Obama put on the Wizarding hat, went to hogwarts, defeated the dread snake wizard, and made the world safe for porn downloads?
Nothing changed.
Most of us have been around long enough to remember what the internet was like before and after... it was the same.
This is of primary interest to the likes of Netflix, Google, and some other big corporations that want to force the backbone providers to give them cheaper communications rates.
The fun thing with that is how hypocritical it is because Google, facebook, etc do not practice net neutrality themselves.
Here you would say "but they're not communications companies"... Well, that's not what they say in court all the time.
They cite themselves as communications companies all the time. They use a provision in the law that grants "safe harbor" to communications companies which permits them to not get sued if child porn gets posted on their networks or other things.
So actually, they have declared themselves as communications companies.
But do you notice how they don't actually practice net neutrality? Nope.
It is more private law desired by big corrupt corporations that want one set of laws for other people and another set of laws for themselves.
And really, if you want net neutrality anyway, then fine... Just apply it to all "communications companies" as the law would dictate and watch Google etc flip on whether it is a good idea.
This whole issue is full of hypocrites and dupes.
... No really. Just say "I identify as a woman".
Game over.
why? Because the inter-sectional Marxists have swallowed a whole lot of contradictions and conflicting interest groups in their quest for power.
Opposing forces have behaved in a dumb "reactionary" pattern where they don't really change what they're doing but merely cite their disagreement with things. This is idiotic.
The point of intersectionalism is to conflate as many interest groups as possible with analogs of classical "class struggle".
The way to fight this is to not treat these various ploys separately and not appreciate the wider context but rather to hammer at the very glue that holds these groups together... which is generally a deceit that suggests that if you give X power then all these contradictory interest groups will get what they want.
So the black power groups will get what they want, the feminist groups will get what they want, the islamic organizations will get what they want, the hispanic groups will get what they want, the trans activists will get what they want.
It isn't possible to satisfy these agendas at the same time. Which is why in practice they're not satisfied at all. Look at Detroit. It went from being a mecca of blue collar success to a warren of endless crack dens. But the people that took power when that started are still in power.
Weird, huh? The only people that will ultimately get power are a few elites and some politicians and some political party here or there might pick up power. But the endless ranks of dupes that fuel this nonsense will get nothing.
Women will get nothing.
name the racial group will get nothing.
The various agitating ethnic religious factions will get nothing.
It is a big silly game.
And THAT is the weakness.
By declaring yourself a woman, you hammer on one of the more glaring incompatibilities in "intersectionalism" which is the conflict between Feminism and Trans-sexualism.
The Feminist movement holds that all gender norms are social constructs and that women should be advanced above men generally to address historic favoring of men.
The trans movement holds that gender is biological and that one can "feel" like a woman inside or a man or whatever indifferent to social constructs. And that one can shift between being "male" or "female" simply by citing yourself as one or the other. A medical procedure is not required, nor is changing your sexual partners, nor is changing your preferred clothing, etc. So a 55 year old guy in a suit can just say he's a woman according to the Trans sexual movement. He doesn't have to do anything besides that.
The feminists have predictably been giving ground to the Trans movement even though they make up at best something like .01 percent of the population or something. It is a pretty common tell with intersectionalism that individual interest groups will always subordinate their interests when they come into conflict with the collective intersectional power structure. This has already lead several feminist conventions to stop performing the vagina monologues. And quite a few of these things will have it openly cited that "not all women have vaginas".
This is the weakness of intersectionalism. The greediness of it to gather too many conflicting interests under one banner.
So don't attack any of the hydra heads. Attack the body that connects them. The hydra heads are endless. A giant waste of time to argue with any of these interest groups directly. Rather go after what gives them the national thrust they have... break up the alliances by forcing them into conflict with each other.
Short of that, intersectionalism will continue until the people primary interested in their own personal power have total control over everything... and then basically tyranny until systemic corruption and inefficiency destroys the society.
Either/or.
Here some zealot for the cause may tell me that a zillion contradictory interests can be satisfied at the same time. Not without divine intervention, bucko. Only one planet and one reality. The oppression pyramid is a pyramid scheme. Wise up.
the only thing I miss on duck duck go are the translation, image, and mapping features of google.
But that only gets me to go back to google for one thing every so often when I want that. Otherwise, I avoid google.
You're right and wrong. The market is not the problem but the political system which allows politicians to bias the economy.
There are mechanisms to inflate the labor supply with suppresses price.
What you keep not appreciating is that it is SUPPLY and DEMAND.
Contrary to your suggested knowledge of the matter, it is by manipulating SUPPLY that employers lower price.
IF you want to be paid more, then you have to DECREASE SUPPLY. Just as that will increase the selling price of nickel or rubber... it will also increase the price of labor.
Control immigration, regulate the H1B visa system better... and labor prices will come up. It is fundamental and unstoppable. You can get around that as easily as you can get around the laws of thermodynamics. Many say they can dictate the market... hyper-inflating currencies and famines tend to be the reward of such people.
How then were labor prices suppressed? Well, look at a graph of WHEN US labor prices started to go down:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
We can see it started to crash in the 1970s. What happened in the 1970s? Globalism was an element. There were changes in trade, changes in labor, and that put pressure on US wages.
If you want to improve US wages, you don't do it by passing a law that says companies have to pay people more. You do it by increasing the value of US labor... which means shifting the supply/demand curve.
radio stations are publishers and are liable for content... obviously.
I can only assume by your comment that you don't realize how transparent your rhetoric is here.
First, you quite obviously are trying to waste my time because all I asked you to do was put in about five seconds here and there doing web searches. That apparently is over the line of what you're willing to invest which means you're at best a troll.
Second, you're claiming "you are not from a western country." Friendo, you're compounding stupid lies on top of stupid lies. I'm quite obviously "western." I'm just not "stupid." Your sad little ploys work on "stupid people." Try someone else with more lead in their diet, get better at your sophistry, or actually make the token commitment to actually pull some basic devil's advocate with your own nonsense.
Absent even competent deceit on your part... you're boring... absent making a token effort I'm not going to feel ethically obliged to take you seriously... and absent honesty there's no legitimate argument here.
I've been very flexible with you here. I didn't even demand you argue in good faith. But if you're going to argue in bad faith, then at least be an amusing liar. You're not even that.
Not Western? The fact that you would throw out such a patently absurd, transparent, and ignorant insult... Pitiful, sir.
Strive to be better at whatever you're attempting to do... perhaps a better liar... it is up to you. But if you are "western" and I assume you are... I weep for the civilization if THIS is what is considered competent deceit. You are by all measures the weakest of us whatever you're attempting to do here. Be better. Our civilization has no future if this witless drivel from you constitutes our measure. Be inspired. Be better. Hate me... be indifferent to me... I don't care... Be better. If you value Western civilization as you suggested you did... you're going to have to be better than that.
Good heavens. :-D
My understanding is that they cite themselves as being publishers under the law in some contexts and effectively communications companies in other...
and as is typical they change their identification depending on what is most convenient for them.
Publishers for example are responsible for their content and communications companies have "safe harbor".
Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.
So if Google is a publisher they are liable for all content on their service personally and cannot cite safe harbor.
If Google is a communications company then they cannot remove content from their services unless it violates the law.
Simply doing that would solve most of the current shit show.
Google would reflexively be forced to be a communications company because the publisher condition imposes too much overhead to be practical. That would remove the concern that google is biasing content. End of argument.
Literally just apply the law and don't let them change their identification. They can choose whichever they like. Totally their choice. And then then apply the law. Done.
If you are willing to go quid pro quo with effort then I'll do make an effort.
if you're just asking whether the Sun is in the sky to waste my time then we're done.
As to "how things work in the real"... in the real, we don't ask common knowledge questions. That sort of silliness is a sad internet rhetorical tactic.
So no. What you're doing is not how we do things in the real.
As to google products, their search engine is so ubiquitous that it actually has the ability to affect public perception. That is well beyond just a product. Indifferent to whether I stop using it or not, I have reason to be concerned.
Consider the "russian influence of the election" which was mostly a bunch of posts on facebook. If "that" is worth an FBI investigation, what is Google playing with search results worth? Or does it only matter when there's some alleged link to the Russians?
What if we just make a baseless claim that Google is doing this because of China... Guess we'll have to get a special investigation to kick down Google's doors, right?
Attempting to brush this off is a non-starter. You might as well tell me hard vacuum is good for toddlers.
"They haven't been doing it. Everyone knows."
Well, the very article in question has them discussing it right there for one.
Let us not play the "I bet you don't know how a search engine works" game.
You either accept that I can find lots of links to substantiate my position... as I would hope you know I can... or you can waste my time by daring me to do it... and then try to claim the links aren't any good for some reason... Probably because they weren't notarized by Jesus or something.
All the while... you'll probably not be citing anything... doing any kind of work... or really doing anything to balance out the effort here.
So why don't we cut to the chase...
We do both know they were doing it. Your argument is blatant time wasting. And I'm not going to bother going through this process with you unless you agree to keep up your end so I don't feel like I'm just getting fucked with by a troll.
That's me being honest. Your move.
Never did walking dead or game of thrones.
Did do Monkey's island, Sam and Max, Wolf Among Us, and Poker Night... sad they're closing shop.
I loved google when they delivered search results relevant to my query. But increasingly they've been tweaking results. You can do the same search in google and then in other search results and there are certain things that should be in the google search that aren't.
Lots of things are still good about google... their translate service is pretty cool, their maps service is great, their image list thing is pretty good for finding random images that are similar to search results.
Lots of positive things. But... the company has abandoned their "don't be evil" motto.
Time to recognize that and pop over to DuckDuckGo or something.
Whatever your politics, if you put any stock in classical Western Liberalism, then you can't be okay with the search engine trying to bias your political opinions by biasing the search. They've been doing it. Everyone knows. Time to acknowledge it and move on.
I think of AI like the new version of the "book".
The idea of a book is to store a man's knowledge so that someone else... possibly even another generation can absorb that knowledge. But books have no identity or personality... they're always slaved the mind that absorbs them. And whether the information is even retained is entirely dependent on someone else wanting to read the thing.
AI... or a persistent artificial personality will be fed knowledge by its creators and given a personality... a ethical and moral premise... objectives... things to avoid... whatever. And to the extent that initial input is stable the AI will continue to be "be" what the creators made it. You see... a step beyond the book.
The good or bad of the AI will be a matter of what you put into it. Fill it with craziness and you have a crazy AI. Fill it with wisdom and you have something that might be very useful to people.
well, briefly going over past paradigms to show the patterns... I'm going to be very general here... this is off the top of my head.
10,000 years ago we were pretty much all hunter gatherers. We were generally nomadic. We tended to worship animals. Our political systems were small and often based on family. Money was more a concept of social capital then it was little objects made by whomever. Trade between tribes happened.
5,000 years ago we started to see a lot of societies/civilizations/population groups shift to sedentary agrarian farmers. Most people started worshiping the weather. Land rights became a thing. Our political systems got larger but were still typically based on family. Populations increased dramatically and the social connections between each in the society became more formalized and less personal because people didn't know each other as well. Money happened to compensate for social capital not being able to function with that many people. Trade if anything decreased for a lot of people at least at the start. Roads were built ultimately. Sea trade started to become a thing. The political and economic inequality increased as the utility of every member to the society decreased. In a small hunter gatherer tribe a single person that participates in the hunt is a bigger stake holder than is a tenant farmer on a lord's land. This economic reality manifested itself politically in that the less of a stake holder you are the less agency you have in the society.
250ish years ago machines and new ideas started changing the way we do things. Labor moved from the farms to the cities. Economies of scale. Assembly lines. Rail hubs. Shipping ports. By this point weather worship basically doesn't exist and people start to worship "systems" that are relevant to the logistics of the new paradigm. You get people worshiping the "invisible hand" or some of the various ideas Karl Marx was pushing. It always gets metaphysical. The population concentrating has political consequences. The way we live. The way we think. All of it driven by logistical imperative. Do this or you don't eat... just like every other paradigm before. One of the big changes was the transition from peasant farmers to urban factory worker. The urban factory worker is a much bigger stake holder and has a much bigger influence just on a 1:1 basis than does the peasant farmer. Going with the pattern this resulted in an expansion of liberties and rights that in previous systems would not have happened because the man in question didn't have the leverage to demand it. Slavery goes away... not only because some find it morally wrong but also because it can't economically compete with the new industrial age.
Now-ish, going on what I said above, I will base my tea leaf reading on the logistics and extrapolate from there. Automation undermines economies of scale since economies of scale are primarily based on labor efficiency. There are many exceptions where bigger is better indifferent to labor but when it comes to factories... it is generally labor. This means the cities just like the fields of the past will lose some relevance. Using automation we could source factories at point of use more efficiently than concentrating them. Transport costs largely irrelevant at this point given how cheaply we move goods. A container ship can move 1 ton of goods across the seas on average at about 1000 miles per gallon of bunker fuel. So transport won't force people out of concentration but real estate prices, regulation, over standardization/lack of customization, etc probably will over time. I think we're going to have a more distributed industrial framework. Rather than a few big factories making everything... there's no reason why the thing that makes whatever couldn't be within a day's car drive of everyone. Micro factories. Combine this with the internet and you have an increasing agency of localities as they gain logistical independence. Look at big corporations competing with smaller corporations, big helps you do other things like manage
just wow.
You don't have to convince me. I want the automation to happen. The existing paradigm is going to lead to war if it doesn't collapse.
Things need to change to save our silly civilization. I'm all for it.