Go through it. No offense to you... but the idea you're pushing is wrong and you need to shine the light of objectivity on it. If you double down after it was proven wrong... well, that is on you.
Don't be that guy. Look over the information and then concede.
As to surplus populations, we'll see what happens. If the communists are not entirely intellectually and ethically bankrupt then they'll take care of the proletariat. Either way, it will be fun to watch. As to surplus population outside of the China etc, I could wax on with several positive scenarios that address those issues. We are entering a socio-technological paradigm shift. This is a change we went through when we went from hunter gather to agrarian farmers... and then again when we went from that to urban industrial... This is a big move. Every time it happens there is suffering. Gods die... the way and what people worship. Political systems collapse. Very volatile stuff.
But none of us has a crystal ball on it. If you are interested in my crystal ball gazing... I can share that... if not, then I'll keep it to myself.
As to everything being bad before WW1 and 2... the stats don't support that position. We can go through the historical economic data if you want.
As to the presumption you can pass a law and force the market to do what you want... Look at Detroit or Venezuela. The market has a response if you want play games.
If I hated someone... I'd tell them to do it. It is one of the crueler things I could wish upon a people.
It won't work. It will backfire. The data makes that clear. We can pull up information if you want.
As to "employers know how to make the labor market a buyer's market"... I'm not disagreeing... but I think when you cite "how" they're doing that, it will reveal other solutions. I know how they do it. I want you to say it. It will come back to supply and demand. Thus making supply and demand the dominant force. It was dominant in Soviet Russia and is dominant in North Korea. You can't stop it. It exists in maximum security prison. It is everywhere in every economy.
As to new kids always entering the labor pool... depends on the profession... if you're exclusively talking about unskilled labor... that is work literally "for" children. As an adult, you should not be competing with children anymore than you should be getting beaten in a spelling bee by a toddler. Between the time you were a kid and now... did you really develop no skills at all? Because "that" is actually the problem if so.
Go to welding school or something... takes a few months... they are paid pretty well from what I understand.
Reasons for anything I've said being in error were not provided.
This is a null argument.
What you basically said was that you rudely disagree and that my opinion is as bad as someone I've never heard of before. Given that you're posting under AC... I don't know why you even bother with names.
Should we all just be ACs at this point so that we can shit post and there isn't even any pretense of having a point?
Regardless, you didn't provide a reason for why I was wrong. Until you do, this is a null argument.
Okay, so you think if I force your employer to give you two less hours of work, you'll therefore be able to pay your rent?
As to choices, yes you have the choice to rent an apartment you can't afford and then work hours that ensure you'll be evicted.
This is a choice.
I suspect you're an adult and will take appropriate actions to see that your needs are met.
As to the suggestion that you need the government to come in and force "the man" to give you what you think you're worth.
"IF" you were worth that, then the market would see you be paid that.
"the man" only pays you that because many areas have been used to a glut of labor in relation to jobs.
This means you have an over supply of labor and insufficient demand to soak it up.
Now, there are different ways to deal with this... one of them is to move. Often economic issues like this are regional and you can address them by going somewhere else. This is something americans used to do all the time but since the 1970s it has become increasingly less common. Various theories for this exist but it does mean that when regional issues occur labor tends to stay in those regions and go unemployed. This depresses wages and creates a generally nasty economic situation.
Forcing the companies to pay you more, often will cause the companies to hire fewer people or do what you should have done... and leave. The statistics on this are pretty clear and not especially open to debate. It is objective reality.
Now if you issue is "how do I address the issue, get paid more, have a better life, have more control" etc... we can do that. There are solutions for that.
But the solution is not "force the government to make them pay me more"... you might see that as an easy fix but you're not factoring time. As in... okay... you did that ONCE... now that "the man" knows you're going to do that, is he just going to put his neck in the noose and let you do it again tomorrow and every day there after?
Most really bad economic theories explicitly do not do a time calculation. Look at their equations and look for a time variable. You'll often find it doesn't exist... for some reason. And that's because they're not factoring long term consequences.
We can cook the golden goose right now... but you're going to starve tomorrow.
True, however by fewer you don't mean like "5" employers... you have hundreds of thousands. There is competition.
The issue is not a lack of competition, but rather a SUPPLY vs DEMAND issue.
You don't resolve that by legislating value. You do it by shifting the balance. To increase the value of labor you have to decrease the supply vs the demand.
We're seeing that happen right now even though that is "politically incorrect."
Cutting down H1B visas etc.
Regulators are not going to bias the market in the way that you want. It doesn't work with other products in the market. You can't just say the price of socks is 10 dollars and expect everyone to buy just as many socks for 10 dollars. What you're going to see is more people going around in sandals. Various people will find citing labor as just another market factor that is coldly calculated by the market as... immoral or unethical... this is like calling the winter wind unethical or tide tables unethical. It is naive to impose arbitary moral standards on something that is not plastic to such considerations and has dramatically more power to impose its nature on you than the other way around. The wise course is to understand and work with these forces rather than wasting a lot of energy trying slap the tide away with your bare hands.
If you want to balance power between employer and employee... then you have to shift the supply/demand curve more in the labor seller's favor and away from the labor buyer's favor. There are a lot of ways to do that. But it is going to require some re-posturing by the various political and economic tribalists that have ideologically associated themselves with policies that... sadly have a track record of failure at this point.
Anything short of that is going to have a lot of unsustainable consequences.
... that includes how long I want to work, how many days I want to work, my end of the compensation negotiation... etc.
Third parties have no stake in the matter. It is between employer and employee.
What stake does any third party have in this matter?
Here someone will say "but what about the exploited worker"... sure, which is why high demand workers are only paid minimum wage... right?
Of course not... We're all paid according to supply and demand. And we generally want to work based on our valuation of our own time vs whatever we're being offered. Offer people very little and people often don't apply or show up for those jobs. Offer them a competitive rate and people show up. Offer them a lot of money and you get to pick and choose from the applicants as well as attract higher quality employees.
All these choices... when we work, how long we work, how much we're paid... it is all supply and demand.
Third parties have no stake in the arrangement and unless they're willing to bias the value of the labor in a manner that is accepted by the market it won't do anything.
The issue with giving to the point where you render yourself impotent is that you've rendered yourself irrelevant.
Now what comes after you might carry on the good work or whatever but they may not. in fact, what comes after may totally subvert everything you were trying to do.
But you can't stop it once that happens because you started by rendering yourself impotent.
If Bezos is a good guy... theoretically... then you want him to retain power. If he's a bad guy then he's not going to give up his power.
You see? The good cannot afford to give up their power and the evil are not inclined to do it.
Now you can create something perhaps that you give your power to that you are sure will be better at carrying on the torch than you.
But that is very hard. Typically such ventures fail unless very carefully designed. It typically requires hard coded, psychologically and politically wise rules set up in the organization that anticipate corruptions and block them off at the spore level.
Even then, such organizations are only resistant. We've never made something that was immune. At best what we can make is something that lasts a few hundred years before it starts showing extreme signs of infection.
The best and most sustainable systems are the most cynical ones because they accept the unavoidability of corruption and the need for various organizations to die simply to recreate them fresh.
It is what we see in life. To last in time you have to base your legacy on replication and adaptability.
The problem with most of these "think of the weak and helpless" movements is that they're not adaptable. Yes, a wealthy society can afford to spend large sums of money giving a high quality of life to many people that cannot earn that money in the open market.
However, that can't be the touch stone of the society because the ability to help people is first founded on the wealth which is required to help those people.
If you undermine the systems that generate the wealth then the wealth will not be there to be dispensed.
Here some will say, the money needed to help people will be less in a more equal society because there will be less hording of resources.
This position has been empirically contradicted many times by various societies that have put this principle into practice. If you eat the golden goose... there are no more golden eggs.
Does that mean that any level of extreme class stratification is good? No. But inequality is good. Because how else do you encourage and discourage behavior in the market? The unequal earnings are a all the market has to persuade people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
Who wants to go into a coal mine or cut down trees for lumber or harvest fish for the market? Who wants to do insurance adjusting or QA for spaghetti code?
We have to pay people.
Now you could say that "people will do these things out of community solidarity and brotherly love"... but even in the soviet union that didn't work. People that did more in demand jobs had to be given special perks to reward them for doing things.
This dream of the totally equal society is silly. I know a lot of people are religiously invested in it... but it is a stupid religion that needs to stop.
What we all care about is the best life we can have for ourselves and our families. The blend of ideological and moral paradigms that keep advocating for an end to meritocracy and inequality on the basis of contribution to the logistical system... it is all toxic.
That will just cause an arm's race between the Wifi's block list and the VPN's aggressiveness.
The banning of VPNs in places like China and Russia is great for the industry because it will force people that need vpns to come up with tech that the Russians and chinese will neither stop nor even detect.
And that can be applied generally there after.
The tech is inherently uncontrollable. It is hubris on the part of the networks to think they can stop connections from occurring.
But that's fine. I like their hubris. It means they'll make more mistakes.
They'll know which device connected at which time... where that device is... but they won't know what you're doing on it.
The big problem with tracking everyone is that you don't want to track everyone. You want to track specific subsets of the population and classify those to create useful patterns.
Absent that... the tracking isn't useful.
What is more, theoretically, the identifiers could be altered in software. I'm fairly certain you can do it with a rooted phone already.
But the real point is that the tech is there to do it if you want to do it.
Everyone seems so eager to destroy all the open platforms and give all the power to a few arbitrary proprietary systems dictated by a literal handful of people... what could possibly go wrong?
First, you didn't cite a single discussion you wanted to use for evidence.
Not one.
You instead vaguely cited all of them in the assumption that would qualify as evidence whilst freeing you from any obligation to defend your citation. I've already pointed this out.
You can cite a specific discussion you want and then show some integrity by defending it. Or... you're just doubling down on a failed argument.
Second, as to cherry picking, again... you can see how I've conducted this discussion with you. This is pretty typical of my conduct. I've treated you with all due respect and civility. I do that with everyone until they act like a degenerate.
Here you say "but you've been hostile with so many people!"... true... but that leaves us with one of two conclusions... either I treat good people badly or the internet is full of degenerates.
You can see I'm on pretty solid ground here.
Anyway, I suspect you're not going to make a citation... and if you're not going to do that, I'll ask you kindly to just accept that no one can take your position seriously if you're not willing to make a specific citation you're willing to defend.
And as no one can take this seriously... Just let it go. Let us part on pleasant grounds... you are aware of what comes if you keep pushing this in bad faith.
Kindly stop talking to me if you're going to accuse me of things you won't substantiate. It is rude.
Actually not... I'll go through my post history if you want and rifle through it.
Note... comments between me and the SAME trolling AC are hardly evidence of anything but a persistent crying individual that literally searching my account every time he posts to see if I've commented on anything... and then says something stupid to remind me that he's still throwing a temper tantrum.
We'll start with the interactions I've had with "you".
I clearly disagree with you. But I also am not insulting you. Why is that? Because I don't perceive you as crossing a line of civility yet. Evidence of my behavioral model starts there. If "you" were right, then I'd probably have been very rude to you without provocation. Correct? But I didn't.
Heated arguments happen with name calling... I didn't deny it. I instead said it was justified.
See, I provided specific posts and threads. You didn't.
Why? I suspect because you know that I am right. That I was provoked before responding with hostility.
Take this very thread where the AC you're ultimately defending attacked me for something I said in another thread that wasn't even related to this thread. Think about that. Maybe you don't have to deal with this because you post under an AC tag. I don't. That means you can search my post history.
Why can't I search yours? Maybe you're just dropping N bombs and encouraging pedophilia in your posts? I would have no way to know that. You hide your post history. If I did the same you wouldn't be able to go through my posts at all.
Now, since you've failed to make a specific citation from my post history that you want to defend, I have to assume you're surrendering the issue. I cited specific threads. You can either cite something specific from my record which I allow you to search and read... unlike your record which you hide... or you are conceding the argument by default.
That isn't me being hostile. That's you refusing to move your piece in a chess game. That's a forfeit.
I comment to people all the time without saying they're degenerates.
I only do this when people act like degenerates. It just so happens that you've seen some degenerates attempt to dog pile me a few times.
This doesn't mean I "always" do this anymore than a woman hits everything with a fly swatter... Just flies.
You can go through my post history and whilst there are quite a few salty people that don't like me because I contradict obviously bad position they've taken... I have very friendly interactions with people... including people I disagree with.
But when people lie, when people act deceitfully, when people substitute stubbornness for a sound argument... what is the judgement of them?
They're obviously not worthy of a good opinion when they do that.
Which leaves me with two options... I can either keep the obvious conclusion that they're degenerates to myself in some misguided notion of civility... or I can honestly call a turd a turd.
Now you probably wonder why I consider it misguided to be civil with people that aren't being civil with me. Well, for the same reason I don't treat someone like a guest after they pull their pants down and defecate on my couch.
If someone wants to be treated civilly they have to obey some basic rules of civility. In every case I unload on someone, I can show you an incident either in that post or a prior one where the individual forfeited that courtesy.
To continue to extend the courtesy after faith has been broken is like loaning money to someone that robbed your bank.
I do not start the hostile posting. I defend myself.
I dare you to find I've done otherwise. And if you can, I'll concede at least in that incident that you're right. Care to accept my gambit? If not, appreciate that I will feel some justification in ignoring an undefended and unsubstantiated argument.
First, you're likely the same sad AC attempting to appear more authoritative by making another comment pretending to be a third party. Keep in mind, if you were, it would look exactly like that post. As such, I have to assume you're probably the same sad fellow.
Third, my insults actually come AFTER and indifferent to my arguments. Many people don't seem to know what an Ad Hominem is in the first place. An ad hominem is not me saying 1+1=2 because logic... and you're an idiot. An Ad hominem is me saying "1+1=2" BECAUSE you're an idiot.
My arguments in this discussion are not reliant on my insults. My insults are secondary observations of another's character.
These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.
I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large companies.
We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.
All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or something that anyone could set up their own personal server for that interlinked with each other.
A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host the overwhelming majority of individuals on social media on a 1:1 basis. Sure, no one wants to spend 20 dollars. But that's not the point. The point is that it "could". We talk about these vast datacenters... but per capita they're nothing special.
The point is logistically they should be pretty easy to replace. The primary barriers are software that has to be built to do the job... much of which already exists in one form or another... and there is something of a branding issue.
Everyone wants to be on the biggest social network and no one wants to be on even the second largest.
This further proves the need for an open platform. An open platform could contain ALL social networks in a common frame work like web pages. And you could say "but how do we link these little islands of servers and users into a larger collective?"... anyone that knows anything and thinks about it can see the obvious. An open platform would permit user information, group information, etc to flow and bleed between the servers in much the way that someone at kickme@yahoo.com can send an email to someone at kickme@google.com.
There's no need to have all the data controlled by one company to facilitate communication.
Here someone might say "that explains direct messages but how do you have groups etc"... you have the groups set up on any of a million different hosts, invite people, and there you have it. Same way facebook etc works from the user's perspective.
With distributed hosting qualms about freedom of speech become irrelevant. It would be like losing your google email address. Sure... you might have liked that thing, but it doesn't stop you from sending emails.
And that also keeps such hosts to account because they know that you can do that... and thus it becomes largely irrelevant. The interest of biased people to effect who can and cannot speak is nullified.
Slashdot Mirror
okay...
first link:
https://www.infoplease.com/us/...
just look at the bit between 1850 to 1900... the numbers go up.
This is the consumer price index
https://www.minneapolisfed.org...
Here is a book that goes through US wages from colonial times to 1928 or so:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
Go through it. No offense to you... but the idea you're pushing is wrong and you need to shine the light of objectivity on it. If you double down after it was proven wrong... well, that is on you.
Don't be that guy. Look over the information and then concede.
Don't complain to me about "surplus population" I was responding to someone else that used it.
As to surplus populations, we'll see what happens. If the communists are not entirely intellectually and ethically bankrupt then they'll take care of the proletariat. Either way, it will be fun to watch. As to surplus population outside of the China etc, I could wax on with several positive scenarios that address those issues. We are entering a socio-technological paradigm shift. This is a change we went through when we went from hunter gather to agrarian farmers... and then again when we went from that to urban industrial... This is a big move. Every time it happens there is suffering. Gods die... the way and what people worship. Political systems collapse. Very volatile stuff.
But none of us has a crystal ball on it. If you are interested in my crystal ball gazing... I can share that... if not, then I'll keep it to myself.
As to everything being bad before WW1 and 2... the stats don't support that position. We can go through the historical economic data if you want.
thanks
Article doesn't have anything to do with AI. Someone throw an icy snow ball at whomever posted this...
As to the presumption you can pass a law and force the market to do what you want... Look at Detroit or Venezuela. The market has a response if you want play games.
If I hated someone... I'd tell them to do it. It is one of the crueler things I could wish upon a people.
It won't work. It will backfire. The data makes that clear. We can pull up information if you want.
As to "employers know how to make the labor market a buyer's market"... I'm not disagreeing... but I think when you cite "how" they're doing that, it will reveal other solutions. I know how they do it. I want you to say it. It will come back to supply and demand. Thus making supply and demand the dominant force. It was dominant in Soviet Russia and is dominant in North Korea. You can't stop it. It exists in maximum security prison. It is everywhere in every economy.
As to new kids always entering the labor pool... depends on the profession... if you're exclusively talking about unskilled labor... that is work literally "for" children. As an adult, you should not be competing with children anymore than you should be getting beaten in a spelling bee by a toddler. Between the time you were a kid and now... did you really develop no skills at all? Because "that" is actually the problem if so.
Go to welding school or something... takes a few months... they are paid pretty well from what I understand.
You're killing me.
Reasons for anything I've said being in error were not provided.
This is a null argument.
What you basically said was that you rudely disagree and that my opinion is as bad as someone I've never heard of before. Given that you're posting under AC... I don't know why you even bother with names.
Should we all just be ACs at this point so that we can shit post and there isn't even any pretense of having a point?
Regardless, you didn't provide a reason for why I was wrong. Until you do, this is a null argument.
Try again.
Okay, so you think if I force your employer to give you two less hours of work, you'll therefore be able to pay your rent?
As to choices, yes you have the choice to rent an apartment you can't afford and then work hours that ensure you'll be evicted.
This is a choice.
I suspect you're an adult and will take appropriate actions to see that your needs are met.
As to the suggestion that you need the government to come in and force "the man" to give you what you think you're worth.
"IF" you were worth that, then the market would see you be paid that.
"the man" only pays you that because many areas have been used to a glut of labor in relation to jobs.
This means you have an over supply of labor and insufficient demand to soak it up.
Now, there are different ways to deal with this... one of them is to move. Often economic issues like this are regional and you can address them by going somewhere else. This is something americans used to do all the time but since the 1970s it has become increasingly less common. Various theories for this exist but it does mean that when regional issues occur labor tends to stay in those regions and go unemployed. This depresses wages and creates a generally nasty economic situation.
Forcing the companies to pay you more, often will cause the companies to hire fewer people or do what you should have done... and leave. The statistics on this are pretty clear and not especially open to debate. It is objective reality.
Now if you issue is "how do I address the issue, get paid more, have a better life, have more control" etc... we can do that. There are solutions for that.
But the solution is not "force the government to make them pay me more"... you might see that as an easy fix but you're not factoring time. As in... okay... you did that ONCE... now that "the man" knows you're going to do that, is he just going to put his neck in the noose and let you do it again tomorrow and every day there after?
Most really bad economic theories explicitly do not do a time calculation. Look at their equations and look for a time variable. You'll often find it doesn't exist... for some reason. And that's because they're not factoring long term consequences.
We can cook the golden goose right now... but you're going to starve tomorrow.
Pointing out traffic issues doesn't get us to "contracts should be proscribed by non-stake holding third parties."
True, however by fewer you don't mean like "5" employers... you have hundreds of thousands. There is competition.
The issue is not a lack of competition, but rather a SUPPLY vs DEMAND issue.
You don't resolve that by legislating value. You do it by shifting the balance. To increase the value of labor you have to decrease the supply vs the demand.
We're seeing that happen right now even though that is "politically incorrect."
Cutting down H1B visas etc.
Regulators are not going to bias the market in the way that you want. It doesn't work with other products in the market. You can't just say the price of socks is 10 dollars and expect everyone to buy just as many socks for 10 dollars. What you're going to see is more people going around in sandals. Various people will find citing labor as just another market factor that is coldly calculated by the market as... immoral or unethical... this is like calling the winter wind unethical or tide tables unethical. It is naive to impose arbitary moral standards on something that is not plastic to such considerations and has dramatically more power to impose its nature on you than the other way around. The wise course is to understand and work with these forces rather than wasting a lot of energy trying slap the tide away with your bare hands.
If you want to balance power between employer and employee... then you have to shift the supply/demand curve more in the labor seller's favor and away from the labor buyer's favor. There are a lot of ways to do that. But it is going to require some re-posturing by the various political and economic tribalists that have ideologically associated themselves with policies that... sadly have a track record of failure at this point.
Anything short of that is going to have a lot of unsustainable consequences.
... that includes how long I want to work, how many days I want to work, my end of the compensation negotiation... etc.
Third parties have no stake in the matter. It is between employer and employee.
What stake does any third party have in this matter?
Here someone will say "but what about the exploited worker"... sure, which is why high demand workers are only paid minimum wage... right?
Of course not... We're all paid according to supply and demand. And we generally want to work based on our valuation of our own time vs whatever we're being offered. Offer people very little and people often don't apply or show up for those jobs. Offer them a competitive rate and people show up. Offer them a lot of money and you get to pick and choose from the applicants as well as attract higher quality employees.
All these choices... when we work, how long we work, how much we're paid... it is all supply and demand.
Third parties have no stake in the arrangement and unless they're willing to bias the value of the labor in a manner that is accepted by the market it won't do anything.
The issue with giving to the point where you render yourself impotent is that you've rendered yourself irrelevant.
Now what comes after you might carry on the good work or whatever but they may not. in fact, what comes after may totally subvert everything you were trying to do.
But you can't stop it once that happens because you started by rendering yourself impotent.
If Bezos is a good guy... theoretically... then you want him to retain power. If he's a bad guy then he's not going to give up his power.
You see? The good cannot afford to give up their power and the evil are not inclined to do it.
Now you can create something perhaps that you give your power to that you are sure will be better at carrying on the torch than you.
But that is very hard. Typically such ventures fail unless very carefully designed. It typically requires hard coded, psychologically and politically wise rules set up in the organization that anticipate corruptions and block them off at the spore level.
Even then, such organizations are only resistant. We've never made something that was immune. At best what we can make is something that lasts a few hundred years before it starts showing extreme signs of infection.
The best and most sustainable systems are the most cynical ones because they accept the unavoidability of corruption and the need for various organizations to die simply to recreate them fresh.
It is what we see in life. To last in time you have to base your legacy on replication and adaptability.
The problem with most of these "think of the weak and helpless" movements is that they're not adaptable. Yes, a wealthy society can afford to spend large sums of money giving a high quality of life to many people that cannot earn that money in the open market.
However, that can't be the touch stone of the society because the ability to help people is first founded on the wealth which is required to help those people.
If you undermine the systems that generate the wealth then the wealth will not be there to be dispensed.
Here some will say, the money needed to help people will be less in a more equal society because there will be less hording of resources.
This position has been empirically contradicted many times by various societies that have put this principle into practice. If you eat the golden goose... there are no more golden eggs.
Does that mean that any level of extreme class stratification is good? No. But inequality is good. Because how else do you encourage and discourage behavior in the market? The unequal earnings are a all the market has to persuade people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
Who wants to go into a coal mine or cut down trees for lumber or harvest fish for the market? Who wants to do insurance adjusting or QA for spaghetti code?
We have to pay people.
Now you could say that "people will do these things out of community solidarity and brotherly love"... but even in the soviet union that didn't work. People that did more in demand jobs had to be given special perks to reward them for doing things.
This dream of the totally equal society is silly. I know a lot of people are religiously invested in it... but it is a stupid religion that needs to stop.
What we all care about is the best life we can have for ourselves and our families. The blend of ideological and moral paradigms that keep advocating for an end to meritocracy and inequality on the basis of contribution to the logistical system... it is all toxic.
We've known it was a stupid idea at least since Jamestown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let it die.
That will just cause an arm's race between the Wifi's block list and the VPN's aggressiveness.
The banning of VPNs in places like China and Russia is great for the industry because it will force people that need vpns to come up with tech that the Russians and chinese will neither stop nor even detect.
And that can be applied generally there after.
The tech is inherently uncontrollable. It is hubris on the part of the networks to think they can stop connections from occurring.
But that's fine. I like their hubris. It means they'll make more mistakes.
They'll know which device connected at which time... where that device is... but they won't know what you're doing on it.
The big problem with tracking everyone is that you don't want to track everyone. You want to track specific subsets of the population and classify those to create useful patterns.
Absent that... the tracking isn't useful.
What is more, theoretically, the identifiers could be altered in software. I'm fairly certain you can do it with a rooted phone already.
But the real point is that the tech is there to do it if you want to do it.
If you don't care, then you don't care.
Anyone that cares can use a VPN and probably should be using a VPN anyway. There are VPNs selling subscriptions for less than a dollar a month.
Just get a VPN and move on.
quote it... and we'll see if I can justify it.
If I can't then I'll concede the point to you. If I can, then you'll have to find evidence that actually is evidence of anything besides my position.
I looked over that thread and didn't see your argument there.
CEO of google, CEO of Twitter, CEO of Facebook, CEO of Apple, CEO of Reddit...
Good day, sir.
The citation didn't involve me being hostile with anyone.
You example fails. I simply said an argument was irrational and thus bad faith had to be assumed when it was made.
That isn't breaking codes of civility.
Try again.
Everyone seems so eager to destroy all the open platforms and give all the power to a few arbitrary proprietary systems dictated by a literal handful of people... what could possibly go wrong?
First, you didn't cite a single discussion you wanted to use for evidence.
Not one.
You instead vaguely cited all of them in the assumption that would qualify as evidence whilst freeing you from any obligation to defend your citation. I've already pointed this out.
You can cite a specific discussion you want and then show some integrity by defending it. Or... you're just doubling down on a failed argument.
Second, as to cherry picking, again... you can see how I've conducted this discussion with you. This is pretty typical of my conduct. I've treated you with all due respect and civility. I do that with everyone until they act like a degenerate.
Here you say "but you've been hostile with so many people!"... true... but that leaves us with one of two conclusions... either I treat good people badly or the internet is full of degenerates.
You can see I'm on pretty solid ground here.
Anyway, I suspect you're not going to make a citation... and if you're not going to do that, I'll ask you kindly to just accept that no one can take your position seriously if you're not willing to make a specific citation you're willing to defend.
And as no one can take this seriously... Just let it go. Let us part on pleasant grounds... you are aware of what comes if you keep pushing this in bad faith.
Kindly stop talking to me if you're going to accuse me of things you won't substantiate. It is rude.
Good day, sir.
Actually not... I'll go through my post history if you want and rifle through it.
Note... comments between me and the SAME trolling AC are hardly evidence of anything but a persistent crying individual that literally searching my account every time he posts to see if I've commented on anything... and then says something stupid to remind me that he's still throwing a temper tantrum.
We'll start with the interactions I've had with "you".
I clearly disagree with you. But I also am not insulting you. Why is that? Because I don't perceive you as crossing a line of civility yet. Evidence of my behavioral model starts there. If "you" were right, then I'd probably have been very rude to you without provocation. Correct? But I didn't.
Regardless, here are time stamped examples:
Sep 1
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Aug 29
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Aug 28
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Aug 4
https://slashdot.org/comments....
July 31
https://slashdot.org/comments....
July 29
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Heated arguments happen with name calling... I didn't deny it. I instead said it was justified.
See, I provided specific posts and threads. You didn't.
Why? I suspect because you know that I am right. That I was provoked before responding with hostility.
Take this very thread where the AC you're ultimately defending attacked me for something I said in another thread that wasn't even related to this thread. Think about that. Maybe you don't have to deal with this because you post under an AC tag. I don't. That means you can search my post history.
Why can't I search yours? Maybe you're just dropping N bombs and encouraging pedophilia in your posts? I would have no way to know that. You hide your post history. If I did the same you wouldn't be able to go through my posts at all.
Now, since you've failed to make a specific citation from my post history that you want to defend, I have to assume you're surrendering the issue. I cited specific threads. You can either cite something specific from my record which I allow you to search and read... unlike your record which you hide... or you are conceding the argument by default.
That isn't me being hostile. That's you refusing to move your piece in a chess game. That's a forfeit.
Good day, sir.
I comment to people all the time without saying they're degenerates.
I only do this when people act like degenerates. It just so happens that you've seen some degenerates attempt to dog pile me a few times.
This doesn't mean I "always" do this anymore than a woman hits everything with a fly swatter... Just flies.
You can go through my post history and whilst there are quite a few salty people that don't like me because I contradict obviously bad position they've taken... I have very friendly interactions with people... including people I disagree with.
But when people lie, when people act deceitfully, when people substitute stubbornness for a sound argument... what is the judgement of them?
They're obviously not worthy of a good opinion when they do that.
Which leaves me with two options... I can either keep the obvious conclusion that they're degenerates to myself in some misguided notion of civility... or I can honestly call a turd a turd.
Now you probably wonder why I consider it misguided to be civil with people that aren't being civil with me. Well, for the same reason I don't treat someone like a guest after they pull their pants down and defecate on my couch.
If someone wants to be treated civilly they have to obey some basic rules of civility. In every case I unload on someone, I can show you an incident either in that post or a prior one where the individual forfeited that courtesy.
To continue to extend the courtesy after faith has been broken is like loaning money to someone that robbed your bank.
I do not start the hostile posting. I defend myself.
I dare you to find I've done otherwise. And if you can, I'll concede at least in that incident that you're right. Care to accept my gambit? If not, appreciate that I will feel some justification in ignoring an undefended and unsubstantiated argument.
Good day, sir.
First, you're likely the same sad AC attempting to appear more authoritative by making another comment pretending to be a third party. Keep in mind, if you were, it would look exactly like that post. As such, I have to assume you're probably the same sad fellow.
Second, I did actually validate my position. If you look at the thread, I've posted links that support my position. But just because I don't mind beating dead horse arguments in the street to prove you have no case:
Look at the cited Pew study... that's the supreme court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...
Double voting in kansas:
https://www.denverpost.com/201...
Voter fraud:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...
Ice catching some non-citizens illegally voting:
https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...
So... no.
Third, my insults actually come AFTER and indifferent to my arguments. Many people don't seem to know what an Ad Hominem is in the first place. An ad hominem is not me saying 1+1=2 because logic... and you're an idiot. An Ad hominem is me saying "1+1=2" BECAUSE you're an idiot.
My arguments in this discussion are not reliant on my insults. My insults are secondary observations of another's character.
You proved my point again by refusing cross referencing a database of US citizens with the voter registry.
No inconvenience or expense to the poor voters you say I'm trying to do vote tampering against.
You've confessed.
These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.
I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large companies.
We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.
All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or something that anyone could set up their own personal server for that interlinked with each other.
A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host the overwhelming majority of individuals on social media on a 1:1 basis. Sure, no one wants to spend 20 dollars. But that's not the point. The point is that it "could". We talk about these vast datacenters... but per capita they're nothing special.
The point is logistically they should be pretty easy to replace. The primary barriers are software that has to be built to do the job... much of which already exists in one form or another... and there is something of a branding issue.
Everyone wants to be on the biggest social network and no one wants to be on even the second largest.
This further proves the need for an open platform. An open platform could contain ALL social networks in a common frame work like web pages. And you could say "but how do we link these little islands of servers and users into a larger collective?"... anyone that knows anything and thinks about it can see the obvious. An open platform would permit user information, group information, etc to flow and bleed between the servers in much the way that someone at kickme@yahoo.com can send an email to someone at kickme@google.com.
There's no need to have all the data controlled by one company to facilitate communication.
Here someone might say "that explains direct messages but how do you have groups etc"... you have the groups set up on any of a million different hosts, invite people, and there you have it. Same way facebook etc works from the user's perspective.
With distributed hosting qualms about freedom of speech become irrelevant. It would be like losing your google email address. Sure... you might have liked that thing, but it doesn't stop you from sending emails.
And that also keeps such hosts to account because they know that you can do that... and thus it becomes largely irrelevant. The interest of biased people to effect who can and cannot speak is nullified.