orcrist
Interesting. We all have the same feeling about you. The sad part is that you might actually know something. Maybe you could say something constructive, if only you cared to do so.
You could have made an argument about how aiming for perfection is a bad strategy here. But you didn’t, so let me show how you’re wrong. The proposed solution doesn’t address the underlying problem, and it adds complexity. Rent can only go up by 5%, sure, but what happens if you sell the property you move into it or other exceptional circumstances happen? Then you can raise the price. Or perhaps you rent it through Airbnb, so the rules don’t apply either. It doesn’t really matter what the special cases are, because finance folk love complicated solutions. They’re always going to find ways to game the system at our expense.
But let’s suppose the 5% solution is somehow good. If it’s good for rent then it should be good for other things too, right? You can’t let electricity or gas prices go up faster, or people won’t be able to heat their homes. You can’t let food prices go up faster, or people won’t be able to eat. Oh, and you certainly need minimum wage to be going up 5%, for any of that to make sense.
So if we consider all of that, and we find the aforementioned proposal slightly lacking, maybe it’s not because we’re seeking perfection. Maybe it’s because you have no idea what problems we are trying to solve.
I like how you mixed a few notions together in a way specifically designed to induce chaos.
Even assuming that AI can take away jobs, which is itself I think inaccurate, and provably so, that has nothing to do with people lacking money. In an ideal world, we could use technology to improve productivity so that we would need to work less.
So then what you are actually asking is a different question. What you’re actually asking is, what happens if we create an economic system that takes away most money from most of the people, to much larger degree than is currently happening. And for that, all you need to do is go look at the history books.
Finally, your question as posed is partly self-contradictory. You’re talking about AI being competent enough so that it can fire everyone, but improvements in technology are not always monetized. They can also lead to extreme cost savings. If for example, if I don’t have the money to hire an accountant, but I don’t need to because the software package is good enough to handle all of it for me, then there’s no problem to be solved. And this is true for any number of so-called white collar jobs.
So then what we actually see is that jobs change and evolve over time. The word computer used to talk about a person who did arithmetic and other such operations. Now it’s used to refer to the machine itself.
Well that’s kind of funny. You’re right that white people cooked up her image. And they did so specifically with the idea that she would fit that stereotype of the older slave woman who has always worked in the kitchen, and is happy to do so, and because of that she’s really good at cooking.
By the way, the word “aunt” was not used to be respectful, but rather specifically to be disrespectful. That particular nuance has faded over time, but the history is real, and once you learn it you can’t forget it.
The sad thing is, you could have inferred this without looking it up. You could have asked yourself why they didn’t use a cartoon character of a white woman, with a white sounding name. The fact that you didn’t, and that you didn’t bother doing a web search, shows how much you want to avoid seeing racism in the modern world. But just because you don’t want to look at it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is not that kind, my friend.
Finally, don’t take my word for it. Ask the company itself why they changed the name. They have documentation on the subject.
You can’t use the English language in an openly misleading fashion and expect that people are going to go along with it, not in a situation like this. The expression “someone set this up” clearly implies the existence of a second person.
What made you think that another person is involved? Nothing. If we were to look at historical evidence, we would find that a lot of these situations are done by so-called lone wolf attackers. So if we’re going to blindly speculate, we should at least be consistent with historical evidence, and we should certainly speak unambiguously.
I totally agree with you. My speculation is that people in power in the DNC didn’t want to push for a younger candidate because then that candidate would immediately seize a lot of power. Perhaps they were disagreeing on who would be the best person, and they figured that some old man is low risk because he’s going to retire soon enough anyway. But that’s all blind speculation. A lot of what the DNC does happens behind closed doors.
You have to stop thinking rationally and start assuming that Trump and his supporters are incredibly narcissistic. For him, this wasn’t an occasion where he almost got killed, but it was an occasion to show how amazing he is. The same is true for his supporters. The fact that he survived means he’s an even better candidate than he was before. Never mind the lack of gun control. Never mind that the attacker was a registered Republican. Narcissists are telling a story about how they want to see the world, not how it actually is.
So one of the questions is what voter turnout is going to be. In other words, how much this event boost Republican turnout at the polls? Clearly it’s not going to reduce turnout, because it’s too dramatic and it makes people pay attention to the fact that there’s an election coming up.
Of course we don’t know what will happen. It’s natural to expect that Trump’s pulling numbers will go up, but it’s also natural to think that it will only be a temporary increase. So the question is how much and for how long.
Now now. You wrote “average liberal” there. We all know that’s just wrong. Try again. :-)
Except there are tons of alternatives that actually work. I watch plenty of YT videos with paid sponsors and if it’s done well, I don’t skip the sections because they are interesting.
What people dislike is obnoxious advertising, not advertising per se. Unfortunately, most advertising is obnoxious.
In other words, reality has already shown us what is possible. But it would probably reduce certain types of ad revenue, and big ad companies (i.e., Google) don’t like that.
