allturtles

This may be so but what others in this thread are trying to point out is that this is a relative novelty. Decades ago, layoffs were something that hapened at struggling companies trying to stave off bankruptcy (or already in it). It is a major cultural change to treat employees so casually as fat to be trimmed.

That's fine, but that leaves two legitimate options:

1) Warn readers there are "spoilers ahead" and then proceed to actually say something.

2) Withhold from writing a totally vacuous post and write about something else instead.

As it is this reads like an Onion article titled "Man, that twist at the end of Empire Strikes Back was totally crazy!"

This actually says nothing at all about how the documentary deceives you. It simply claims that it does, with no evidence provided. This basically a clickbait headline stretched out to blog post size. Total garbage, IMO.

I just have zero interest in looking at any of these "AI did a thing for me." posts.

> I've been excited for this day ever since I saw "2001" in the matinee theater as a kid

You've been excited for the arrival of AI ever since you saw a movie about a murderous AI who tries (and mostly succeeds) to wipe out the entire human crew of its ship? Dr. Strangelove also got you psyched up for a nuclear war, I guess?

Why? Are we doing labor theory of value now?

Yep, familiar with it. I think the Chinese room is clearly a bad argument. The brain is just as much a "chinese room" as a computer is.

So by your lights, the vast majority of humans don't reason either (and even those who do don't do it most of the time)?

> Chicago would have been in land owned by the Chicago Park District which is part of Grant Park and is meant to be free and open to the public

You can call it part of Grant Park if you like, but it is a big paid parking lot. The Lucas proposal would have replaced some of the asphalt with new actual green space that was free and open to the public.

For those who doubt the AI apocalypse is possible, because "you can always pull the plug", our AI overlords provide a ready-made answer: the data center whose plug can't be pulled! Put a few nuclear warheads on board (we need our own weapon to answer the threat of Chinese super AIs, after all) and you're good to go.

You could say exactly the same about humans. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Every human depends on a vast corpus of prior human knowledge to be able to accomplish anything. This doesn't mean they have no intelligence.

You're also against public education, I guess? Kids should just figure out what's valuable and do that without having values and habits imposed on them.

> They work where each direction has an approximately equal amount of traffic. However, usually, one direction (north/south, say) has a larger share of the traffic. In those cases, the bulk of traffic all needs to slow down, downshift, turn a bit in one direction and then turn a bit in the other direction for the minority of traffic that's bleeding on or off the main artery. In those cases, a traffic light is better because the timing can be adjusted to the proportion of traffic from each direction (and more flexible since it can be adjusted over time).

I'm not convinced of this either. It may make sense when considering one intersection in isolation, but over a corridor with ten intersections, you are going to get caught in a red light at least once, and that one full stop will cost you more than all the gains you get from not having to slow 10 mph through each intersection.

This is setting aside fuel efficiency and safety considerations which also favor roundabouts, IMO.