arbitrary_name

really? it was more shocking to you then Jan 6?

it was more shocking than when multiple state legislators were gunned down and the shooting was blamed by Trump on Marxists? Or when Rob Reiner was shot by his son and Trump implied he had it coming?

nobody is trying to tear down AI companies. but there is a general reaction to companies and their leaders who imply that 'risk to civilization is non zero', or they need unemployment is likely, while pushing for the state to backstop them.

This take fails on even the most basic reading.

how is grid electrification and evs political?

but it works so well!

there is a level of extractiveness that optimizes for overall wealth and prosperity.

and overly extractive systems are unstable over the long term.

are you confident that the current level of extraction is optimal, or sustainable?

if a large part of society decides that it's not optimal or sustainable, where would you stand? prevent change? or seek equitable and stable redistribution?

there are so many examples of the inherent unwillingness for the beneficiaries of extractive systems to resist change: see the laws imposed against serfs following the black death, or the shooting and violent suppression of striking union workers.

that cycle is beginning again: MAGA, widespread rioting in France, Italy and other places.

There is economic and political injustice. Systemic extraction is passing a stable equilibrium.

relax the grip on power and resources, or spend the blood and treasure it will cost to maintain it.

but don't bullshit anyone with this 'life has an inherent cost': that's trivially obvious to everyone.

we are well past the point of collectively paying that cost. it's just not fairly or reasonably distributed.

uhhh, try being the child or family member of a problem gambler. almost as consequential as drugs or alcohol in my experience.

>There haven't been any good options for president in a long time.

that does not justify voting for the worst candidate for this office in as many decades.

this argument immediately pops up. and it's easily refuted: just don't vote for the guy convicted of felonies and with a long history of boorish behavior and grift. it's really not that hard.

i think racist is a projection.

example: I'm a new Zealander.

i don't want Americans immigrating in large quantities to New Zealand, because they have cultural values that change the nature of the society, in ways that i don't want it to change.

And i don't consider American a 'race', but more an agglomeration pf people with some general preferences, shared experience and even material characteristics ($$$) that will have negative impacts.

Now, if i could filter, as a voter, to 'allow in Americans that share my values and that would minimize change on axes that matter to me', i would accept immigration of Americans.

but, as a voter, i cannot do that. So instead i vote to keep immigration restrictive. that does not mean I consider Americans inferior, not that i hold that they are meaningfully different from me in any way except culture.

it's not racism. but instead a generalization that we are forced to apply as individuals.

does that change your perspective on this?

it's possible to believe in democracy in principle and also understand that we are too far gone to either recover or find an alternative.

we let the rot grow for too long.

I'm reading "why nations fail" and it's fascinating to learn how deliberately Apartheid South Africa was engineered to impoverish black farmers to improve profitability for whites.

Feels like a very similar policy being pursued here.

are you american protestant perchance? your perspective is shaped by your cultural milieu and is not a firm objective fact.

i get much more satisfaction out of preparing a meal or reading a good book than work. i like to choose what i work on, rather than be told by the prevailing wage rate what work i should do.

caring for a child is one of the most valuable and rewarding activities, but it is not rewarded monetarily. that doesn't make it less valuable or worthwhile.

i think this is a dumb take that does not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

AI reduces the marginal cost of solving some of these problems. IE some will roll their own solutions, some will roll their own partial solutions. the very really will be to reduce the total market for some SaaS, and add pricing and margin pressure.

Saaspocalypse is overstated. but some kind of changes are coming.

That would be like saying the first vehicle off the assembly line had to be profitable; there is an ocean of optimization that will drive the economics.

feels like pure copium to believe that won't change rapidly.

interestingly there is "ellos son unos payasos" = they are clowns: a judgement, not a statement about their employment