Klinky

Teams is hot garbage, it feels like it was designed to be terrible at everything it does. Everything feels laggy in it compared to Slack/Zoom.

Okay, so I guess that means you're now okay with their public statements.

No, there's no evidence of Bill Gate's involvement in the appearance of COVID. You're drinking from the same well as those Facebook boomers.

Well I don't even think there's enough evidence here to win a civil trial where the bar is lower than criminal. Don't act like you have the answer while citing sources that literally say your claim might not be what happened. Y'all just want to jump to a conclusion.

I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports.

Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.

Why is that not important to you? I am not "splitting hairs" or "denigrating" anything. I am reading the sources cited and not jumping to a conclusion. The evidence here probably isn't even enough to win a civil trial.

Your cited comment doesn't back what the commenter you're replying to is saying. It's just making a generic political statement. It does not have an opinion on the claims they're making.

A public statement is for the public, kooks included, and when some of those kooks are political figures that makes it even more reasonable to make such a statement.

Speculate all you want, just don't make definitive claims using non-definitive evidence.

Trump did use the terms "Kung Flu" & "China Virus". That kinda sums up his capacity to handle the crisis. It felt very much like the initial solution was to just blame China so much it'd magically go away by Easter. This rhetoric did have a negative impact on Asian communities.

Reality is there is still no definitive evidence of a lab leak and China is never going to admit to it. Trump's racist finger pointing didn't actually tangibly help US citizens. Even if he did prove it was China's fault, what was he going to do? Go to war with China? Cutoff trade our economy is inextricably tied to? It felt very much like a dog chasing a car. The dog has no clue what it'd do if it actually caught the car.

We agree that it's not definitive evidence. You typing a lot of words and citing another non-definitive source doesn't make it more definitive.

Claiming something was/is "too politicized" is typically just a tactic to say you disagree with something politically with a false air of superiority that you're not "making it political", while you actually are the moment you bring up politics.

I am not relying on faith, I am reading the cited sources.

No, absurdity is citing sources that say "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't" then claiming they mean it "definitely was".

It's not damning evidence either.

Neither of those are definitive sources of evidence. Grant proposals that were denied and statements that the furin site could've evolved naturally or been lab manipulated, aren't really evidence that COVID-19 leaked from a lab.

Many conspiracy theorists have claimed it was a bio-weapon, along with other batshit stuff like Bill Gates & 5G. Read both quotes, not just the last one.

Is your strawman that only one of the quotes is what was said? Did you bother reading both quotes?

He's welcome to his opinion, and I am not necessarily disagreeing with the concept. I am stating that his definition is broader in scope than only considering the employee's perspective.

I don't have a problem with Graeber writing about bullshit jobs, and think it's a worthwhile topic to discuss. My issue was with people narrowly defining the qualification of a bullshit job as being solely based on the perspective of the person doing the job, without looking at the bigger picture.

I think there are definitely jobs that a computer or robot should be doing, but a human is there instead because of what our economy and society currently values. However, until the computer or robot is actually doing the job, I don't think I'd call it a bullshit job. That's not to say society shouldn't consider the impacts of grinding people's lives away with rote repetitive tasks.

Ideally the point is to ask this question before you have them stop doing the job.

"What will happen if this person stopped doing their job?"

"Oh the important monthly reports will stop going out."

"Oh, okay, we better not have them stop doing that then."

> Provisional Definition: a bullshit job is a form of employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence.

The qualification is that even the person doing the job thinks it's bullshit. That doesn't mean the definition relies solely on them thinking it's bullshit.

Frankly, reading through the article, it feels like the definition keeps shifting and much of it is his struggle to even define what it means. He then goes on to start giving his definitions of the what he thinks are types of bullshit jobs.

The article I don't think is all that consistent and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

That is definitely true. One would need to carefully consider what the person does before making such a judgement.

Planes can keep flying without a pilot for quite awhile, until they run out of fuel or crash into a mountain.

In the Preface, the earlier inspiration for what's a "Bullshit Job":

> Everyone is familiar with those sort of jobs that don’t seem, to the outsider, to really do much of anything...

> This possibility that our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about did not seem inherently implausible.

> Clearly, then, we have an important social phenomenon that has received almost no systematic attention.

There's also a Chapter titled: "Why Do We as a Society Not Object to the Growth of Pointless Employment?"

It seems Graeber is making a much wider commentary, including society's perspective, which goes beyond the personal opinions of the people holding these jobs.

Then shouldn't the title be something like "Self-proclaimed Bullshit Jobs".

Even in the example given by Graeber at the start could have variables that make the job of having an IT guy drive 6 hours to move a computer down the hallway make sense. Maybe soldiers moving computers has resulted in many computers becoming broken costing more in money and downtime than having a trained professional drive in and move the computer. Maybe having on-site IT staff is more expensive than having the off-site IT guy make a few visits a year.

Can't you simply test by asking what happens if the person stops doing their job? If nothing detrimental happens, then the job was probably bullshit.

Even Raspberry Pi has struggled with GPU/HW acceleration, but at least its distro is maintained & updated.

That's a well-regulated market not a free market. I completely agree that regulation is needed, and better by the people than by the biggest bully in the market.

A literal free market is one without regulation. If you want a regulated market, don't call it a free market.

This sounds like a delusionally extreme take, as if there is no in-between or nuance. You're either a victimized superhuman who never gets ill or a chronically ill scumbag with no regard for your health? Hardly realistic at all.