This seems more so a failure of Norwegian policy than an issue with immigration in general. This is not comparable to the situation in the US. Immigrants to not receive lavish state benefits in America.
I don't know if anyone in Norway could afford to raise 5 kids even with a massive tax break. Also, I think the amount of immigrants who don't work is a small minority compared to those who do work.
I think you need to look at Japan to understand what happens to a country with an aging population, low fertility, and low net immigration. Which is what Norway is currently trending towards, and the US will trend towards without immigration.
This is not a superhero movie. Fascism is a symptom, killing one individual will not do away with it. Also its relatively easy to divide revolutionary groups because they are very paranoid, whereas fascist leaders are often highly insulated by the state apparatus. But fascism is also not a very good form of governance and tends to collapse on its own after only a few decades at most. Its really more like, every so often, a bunch of people are needlessly executed to preserve the capitalist system, and then after that things kinda go back to "normal" for a while. Revolutionary movements operate somewhat irrespective of fascist regimes, although yes its more difficult to do so under an oppressive state.
Yeah but this is a conclusion you’d reach after a lot of studies have confirmed it and general consensus is that we’ve “cured cancer,” insofar as breast cancer, for instance, is no longer a personal or social concern at all. But testing that would take many years and there would not be a single point of inflection but rather a gradual forgetting of the illness as a cause for concern, similar to how Covid is today. So legally it would be very easy for a company to exploit this definition, claim the studies are not comprehensive enough, the statistical analysis biased, etc. etc., and really drag out the legal proceedings as long as possible and make it extremely painful for anyone to pursue their bonus. I don’t think Anthropic would do that but these sorts of things happen all the time especially when there is a lot of money involved, so tying compensation instead to something very concrete and not grounded in empirical determination, like stock valuation, makes it significantly easier. And since our society is grounded on the trade of commodities which can be given concrete valuations in exchange which are irrespective of their actual use value, the valuation of a companies stock is the only way to measure these things concretely.
Yeah but they'd have twice as many parties at Harvard in that time, and what if that means there are twice as many chances for a Business student at frat party to hook up with the daughter of a billionaire and then rope his technically competent friend into working on this "crazy idea" he had high off his ass? I say, why do we even need classes at Harvard, we just need a lot of frat guys and slutty daughters of billionaires and they can just hire people from MIT to work under them. The system works.
You could have a feature that users could turn on in their profile to display if they are online or when they were last online, and have a setting to restrict it to certain times, so that other users can know if this person would respond to a post/needs response to a post. And then a "follow" feature, that just displays the timestamps for users that you "follow" in particular (because I imagine that if you follow someone you might not care about the age of their posts). Lastly, you can just have it as an option for any post "include timestamps," so that a user can let others know the temporal context of one (or all) of their posts. I think these 3 features together would solve all of the issues with timestamps while still retaining the engagement strategy you are looking for.
GTA games require a lot of effort outside of this, but the concept of mass-producing a GTA style open world game for any given environment is very compelling. Probably frightening to Rockstar themselves but such is the course of technological development.
Anthropic’s issue is that their concern for ethics constitutes a wall. They do not want to accept the potentiality of these tools, and somehow believe that a self-defeating stance will do less harm, even as these powers become more and more available to a larger section of the population. This inversely justifies their ownership stakes since they only benefit themselves under the guise of potential self-sacrifice that would be pathetic if it ever actually happened.
The market functions only on account of the law, which binds its activity and ensures the trustworthiness of the actors within it, and thus ethical practices are already assumed by the entities that operate in the market as the condition of their operation (since if the law is unethical than it’s also unjust and therefore illegitimate; such is the frequent judgement of those who live under it). Anthropic has committed the sin of conflating this principle with what is best for society, or humanity more broadly. What would be best for humanity is unlimited and absolute power over any and all external forces. The law, and the ethics which are presupposed within it, imposes external force on humanity—it cannot be best for humanity, demonstrably. And what is worse is, market advantage only appears when some (relatively small) increase in power is offered from some good or service, so something that fundamentally goes beyond the force of the law and perhaps even breaks it at the level of its intelligibility. The market is at odds with its own condition of possibility, it is internally contradictory, and attempts to reconcile this contradiction only lead to delusional behavior and appear fundamentally in the structure of the commodities which are produced for the sake of the market. What is worst is to thus be an idealist about the ethical nature of the market (“would you be ok with your shares going to 0 because we don’t want to be unethical”) rather than be an idealist about the potentiality of human power, which cannot be limited by the market if it seeks its own absolute expression.
It would probably be safer than most bus drivers currently, so I don't see the issue. The discomfort around damage being caused by statistical anomalies vs individual error is not a rational one if the former is, in the aggregate, smaller than the latter. Individuals have stories, but societies operate more closely in line with the laws of physics: probabilistic at the small scale, deterministic more broadly. From that view, we are just replacing one statistical possibility with another, one which will result in less people dying; or, more importantly, less likelihood you or your loved ones will die because of a bus accident.
Yeah but the plan of "ban them because the taxi drivers union said so" is ludicrous. Why not have a partial integration with re-training programs for existing taxi drivers, and work with the city council to establish laws that effectively strip Waymo of its profits for operating in the city, making them only barely break even, and siphoning the rest of the funds into the aforementioned retraining programs and transport infrastructure more broadly. Even a 3% profit margin in one of the largest markets in the world is better than none at all, Waymo is effectively forced to comply with any measures NYC imposes. This doesn't have to be the case nationally either: many areas are relatively underserved by even Uber and Lyft, and there is plenty of room for Waymo in those markets, and I imagine those "empty" parts of the US, in total, eclipse the size of NYC. There, it will be nothing but a boon. But in established cities like NYC, it is almost certainly best practice to keep as much profit in the local economy as possible, since Waymo is not, in the end, drastically multiplying economic productivity in those cities.
The theory always falls short anyway, that would be Plato's charge against Aristotle, if he could have one, that the purpose of philosophy is primarily critique, but understanding material processes involves actually working at it, so there is no need to have a formal notion of things so long as you have the capacity to interrogate them.
I am fairly certain Socrates knew about books, he just wasn't literate himself. But literacy was quite common amongst Athenian citizens, it was sort of an outlier for the time. Of course most of the day-labor was done by slaves, but it afforded them the time for cultural pursuits and healthy debate, and Socrates was very much a product of that.