As an able-bodied neurotypical 30-something straight white cis male with a suburban middle class upbringing and an office job, I don’t participate in identity politics.
As an able-bodied neurotypical 30-something straight white cis male with a suburban middle class upbringing and an office job, I don’t participate in identity politics.
Well yeah. I mean, the big companies hire psychologists to conduct user studies to maximize time on device, and they model their user experience after variable reward schedules from slot machines. Seems obvious that they’re nefarious.
I just have no idea how you can effectively regulate big tech.
At every corner, the fundamental dynamic of big tech seems to be: Do the same exploitative, antisocial things that we decided long ago should be illegal… but do it through indirect means that make it difficult or impossible to regulate.
If you change the definition of employment so that gig-work apps like Uber become employers, they’ll just change their model to avoid the new definition.
If you change the definition of copyright infringement so that existing AI systems are open to prosecution, they’ll just add another level of obfuscation to the training data or something.
I’m glad they’re willing to do something, but there has to be a more robust approach than this whack-a-mole game we’re playing.
Edit: And to be clear, I am also concerned about the collateral damage that any regulation might cause to the grassroots independent stuff like Lemmy… but I think that’s pretty unlikely. The political environment in the US is such that it’s way, way more likely that we just do nothing – or a tiny little token effort – and we just let Meta/Google/whoever fully colonize our neurons in the end anyway.
Error: Challenge already accepted on your behalf
Interacting with people whose tone doesn’t match their words may induce anxiety as well.
Have they actually proven this is a good idea, or is this a “so preoccupied with whether or not they could” scenario?
I’m gonna do the most annoying thing in the world here, and just tell you to go watch Finding The Money. I feel like that’s a dick move in 99% of circumstances, but I did explicitly start this thread with the notion that after watching that documentary… I felt like these were misleading terms. So if you wanna discuss whether they are misleading terms given that context, it might be useful to share that same context.
I’m down to talk more afterwards. You’ve been a good pen pal.
I, uh… think we got off on the wrong foot. I don’t see spending or taxation as a bad thing.
I mean, peep the @midwest.social, for a hint. And I did specifically say that I wouldn’t recommend any terms to replace “raise” and “revenue” that have a negative connotation, such as “deactivation” or “destruction”.
I’m also aware of the multiplier effect. The benefits of government spending are actually why I’m so interested in reframing the conversation about spending and taxation.
I will quibble with this:
The spending of a tax dollar is the beginning, not the end, of the benefit.
The spending is the beginning, yes – but not a tax dollar.
Governments don’t need to tax first, in order to spend second. It’s the opposite. That’s why “raise” and “revenue” are such terrible terms. Because they prime you to think that taxes are how we pay for things. We pay for things by just paying for them. The government spends dollars into existence. Taxation is just there to incentivize economic activity to chase those new dollars and keep a stable value.
If you view taxation as necessary to gather the funds to do something, you can have a bunch of resources just sitting around doing nothing and never be able to utilize them because you can’t gather the funds without destabilizing the economy. But if you can just spend the money into existence, you can go ahead and increase the utilization without taxing first and then adjust taxation as needed from there on out.
And it turns out, this is how money has always worked. Taxation has always been a cleanup step to keep the spending productive, not a prerequisite to enable the spending in the first place. The myth of tax as revenue is relatively new.
I’m not sure. I’m not a wordsmith or an economist. But I would expect it to be something that conveys a sense that the money is being decommissioned rather than mobilized, or annihilated rather than gathered.
But the sense of deactivation or destruction is usually a negative feeling, so I would want to find a word that puts a slight positive spin on it. This is a happy conclusion to the money’s journey. Its task is done and the inflationary pressure associated with its work is now relieved.
After watching Finding The Money, terms like “raise” and “revenue” applied to taxes seem deliberately misleading.
What if the US had to deploy troops to enforce this?
I mean, could you imagine?
US troops, in the Middle East, fighting against a regime that we propped up, using weapons we gave them?
I mean, what a strange and unprecedented turn of events!
It’s only hacking if it’s in a CVE.
Anything else is just sparkling unauthorized access.
Sabine
abe-simpson-turning-around.gif
If yall haven’t watched The Schneidecker Paradox yet, you should.
So wait, the AI is destroying cat-girls?
120k is insulting.
If you steal 40mil, you’re staring down the barrel of losing 40mil plus your freedom.
Just breaking even (losing the 40mil) but keeping your freedom would be an amazing deal for you, but what’s your freedom worth?
I figure the overall payment has got to be something like 50mil to be fair. With at least a 5% down payment to show you’re serious, that’s 2.5mil.
Anglocentric supremacists:
“Stop speaking that weird language! Speak more English!”
Spanglish pioneers:
start speaking more English, make “that weird language” less “weird”
Supremacists:
“Not like that!”
It blows my mind that anyone can still be undecided in 2024.
as a renter you aren’t responsible for upkeep/changes to the home
Nobody likes big unexpected costs. That’s why landlords tend to offload the risk to PMCs, warranties, and insurance.
And then your rent pays for the monthly costs of all of that.
Kirby was earlier seen telling Netanyahu: “I’m gonna count to 3, young man! 1… 2… 2.5… 2.75… 2.8…”
There needs to be prison time.
If you can personally cash in today, and leave the consequences for the company to handle 30 years later, there’s a massive incentive to be reckless.
For most of human history, and even today, much of our individual identity is heavily tied to our familial identity.
Saying that someone’s mother is especially promiscuous is basically saying that you can’t trust any claims about what their true family tree is, or that it is that way on purpose.
The reason the insulter would use themselves as an example is because they clearly don’t have any romantic interest in her.
It’s less about it being an accomplishment for the insulter, and more about it meaning nothing at all to them. That you may end up with a half-sibling as a consequence of nothing truly significant.
It’s as if to say that your family’s constituency is so carelessly crafted that the entire reason you exist at all may be that someone offered your mom an Oreo for a handjob and she counter-offered with sex for the whole sleeve.