MentalM

> Somehow just paying them the market rate so they stay

But your competitors can pay them more anyway, because they have not spend their money on training.

> a (shudders) contract with the employee to stay for X number of years

Literally shudders. Employer has no practical way to ensure adequate quality of work from their employee. Generally it is not a problem, because employer can get rid of those workers one way or another, but when you have spent money upfront... Shudders.

> That seems like the economically optimal middle ground.

It is not when we are talking about government subsidies intended to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle class.

Of course it is afraid, and because of that AI will be banned for many use cases and severely regulated by the government for other use cases.

That is like one of the first steps to build the ultimate totalitarian regime. In the USSR bolsheviks were grate proponents of civilian weapons right until they have got power. And then civilian weapons were banned.

> If it's any consolation, in the end it will destroy capitalism too.

That is hardly will be of any consolation. AI will probably destroy capitalism, but not because it will replace some useless f.ucks from their useless computer jobs (most of them will perfectly fine find another more useful job, if only way less paid), but because with surveillance and totalitarian control that AI capable of, socialists like Stalin or Hitler will build resilient and durable society where no member will have any way for resisting.

> There aren't enough construction workers and data scientists to buy everything.

There will be, when two third of the office workers will be replaced by AI.

It is astounding why so many people does not understand how consumer economy works. I think it is more a matter of the copium, because, well, it is generally hard to accept the truth that in five years you will have to haul bricks as a job, and the guy who used to put that bricks on one another and make three times less than you in your tech job now will be your new boss.

And advertising models in that environment? Why should something changed for it?

Wait, aren't even surface‑level analysis shows that it was 100% systemic occurrence? What were the mistakes? The system functioned exactly as designed.

> This speaks volumes on the state of the US.

It is actually true. In pretty much any other country this will be "people don't trust the government? Well, guess what? We does not care".

I think they have practically unrelated causal factors.

About children the case is quite obvious. We created the cultural environment in which children are considered no less human than productive members of society and deserve if not the same amount of resources, then more. This order aligns well both with Western worldview and with human biological nature, so people are easily accepting and strengthening it.

But if we are spending on a child as many resources as on productive members of society, that means for fertility rate 2 we should forgo half of our resources. So on average to forgo half of your work for children are not very tempting, but to spend on children less is sociocultural unacceptable. The only solution? Less children.

I think fertility rate 1.5 is already pretty high for such environment and only show how strong biological drive to procreate for humans is. And government's attempts to increase birth rates by spending more seems like rather terrible idea: that only will increase cultural expectation on children costs and effectively will lower the birth rate even more.

> The point is that if the flock surveillance data hadn't existed in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Yeah. After all, the police are known for never arresting people based solely on very tenuous and easily disproved evidence. This damn flock surveillance data!

> Everybody knows police will abuse this kind of surveillance technology

Only here that is literally not the case. There was a real crime and the surveillance technology provided the relevant evidence.

> Most commercial games work fine on Linux now.

What about the performance (especially the bottom 1% frame time)? What about availability of those games in free online game libraries?

> Try reinstalling that surface pro with windows 11 without a Microsoft account

Aren't this take like 3 additional minutes (including search of how to do this)?

> And 30 years ago you could still afford a house.

It is the people, who had build houses 30 years ago, and who set a price for those houses. Then came the government and start to regulate, redistribute, optimize and improve housing. And We live with the results.

> insurance in the US is still cheaper than the difference in taxes between the two countries.

If you are a white male. But what about suppressed minorities and women (and especially minorities women and nonbinary persons) that can't get job because of chauvinistic billionaires?

> And the other thing that people just simply do not understand is it's solar and wind are now cheaper than anything else, even if the subsidies are applied to them

> so if the trump tarrifs were eliminated

That sounds very very questionable. We have like tens of countries in Europe that are trying to implement solar and wind energy throughout the decades, and are undoubtful lieders and visioners in that areas. And what is the practical results? Energy costs like 10 times more than if that energy was generated through burning fissile fuel alone.

> using fossil fuels as hard as possible?

All the data showing that it is still free. There is no cost, generally anthropogenic climate change is increasing the habitability of our atmosphere.

But in case of the democracy there is no paradox. Democracy is about will of people defining the government. When it is the other way around (the government defines the will of people), it is called authoritarianism.

So basically you are arguing for the authoritarianism against the democracy. It is just so you seemingly does not like the word authoritarianism and like the word democracy, and are trying to justify the discrepancy by some kind of paradox (which there is none).

Even IF you are right about people will destroy the democracy by their will if that will does not formed by the government, there is still no paradox and that is still called the authoritarianism. By that, you simply point out one of the weakness of the democracy, and suggest the authoritarianism as a better alternative (even if you are refusing to use the correct definitions).

Oh, no! How did it happen that a country founded by religious fanatics and capitalism supporters (and who literally killed almost all natives) is run by religious nut jobs and billionaire sociopaths?

How so? Aren't you advocating for the state censorship that literally intended to prevent citizens to vote "wrong"?

> Instead of the eyes of their own politicians?

Politicians? It is messages for the voters, and they are leftist politics (so their voters doesn't understand German)

> They didn’t get hit by WW2

I think things start to go wrong for the Spain somewhere after the 16th century

> Beautiful on paper, in practice you surrender national security to foreign actors. > But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.

You know, democracy obviously has its downsides. Should we abolish democracy because of that?

> "being directly interfered with by foreign actors"? > This is a direct threat to democracy.

You mean those foreign actors who force themselves across Spain's border? It is not a threat to democracy, it is one of the problem that democracy solving (by replacing the government that allow that to happen)

> Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.

I mean yeah, democracy is doing it's job.

> Yet most people in the world are religious, because all it takes is someone with a little authority to tell people something and they'll just believe it and that's that, you can't reason them out of it because they didn't reason themselves into it.

Yeah, we simply should not forget that there is very different types of religions. Some religions, for example has it main belief that climate change is a big problem for the Earth and Humanity.

> It explains why big "green" organizations are and have been against nuclear energy - even though nuclear energy has been the obvious answer to climate change

Exactly. I mean my model explain that, not yours. Like in any other religion generally churches exists not to solve the MAIN PROBLEM, even if the religion says otherwise. Because churches are hierarchical structures, and on the top will end up pretty SMART people, who mainly focus on solving their personal problems, and not the MAIN PROBLEM of their religion. Often they even does not believe in existence of the problem at all.

> Whoever says the shit the hordes of sheep have been conditioned to want to hear, get elected.

I don't know. If we look at the elections of the "world's biggest fucking clown", it was more describing of his opponents. But he still got elected, twice.

I think we ALREADY at the point when AI is capable to replace like 99.7% of designers. It is only a question of market inertia and personal brands that prevent it from happening right now.

That is pretty weak logic. I mean obviously it is the Baron who becomes wealthy. But what follows from this?

By the same logic if Baron bought her baroness masterful dress to enjoy her look in that dress, and you when walked past the Castle saw the baroness in that dress, should you compensate to the Baron or not?

> I'm surprised there's no actual commie coming out and claiming the end of capitalism is near.

Aren't they doing that like literally from the very beginning? I clearly remember Lenin said that capitalism will end in a couple of decades because of electricity.

> You must explain what you give back to these people.

Ha-ha. Sorry, but it is not "these people", who is paying to the mathematician. Government is doing it. So they must explain to the government what they cold give back to the government. Usually it is loyalty and the use of their social position to confirm the correctness of the government’s actions and political programs.

> I actually just think every person should have their basic survival provided for efficiently by society

Define basic survival. Tantalum mine worker in the Congo who earns 22 cents per hour and raises his three children on that money, is he under "basic survival" level or below?

And to be clear, as a part of a society, are you ready to forgo your salary, except maybe 1 dollar per hour, to provide to other people? Why haven’t you done it yet?

> 2. The value of calculus justifies the cost of all the curiosities. The economic benefits of funding lots of "curiosities" was well worth the few that were useful.

That is totally not true. I am sure you can hardly name even one of those "curiosities" that later turn out to be useful and not "free" (i.e. if not existed, wouldn't be invented on the spot as a tool for solving those particular problem that they end up solving).

> imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus?

That is a pretty weak point. Calculus from the very beginning was an applied math.

> how many of our modern technologies rely on the field having been birthed? that could only exist because of even further decades-worth of antecedent refinements, extrapolations, applications that had, at their time, no direct utilitarian cause?

Idk, about zero? I mean almost all of our modern technologies could exist perfectly fine even without previous decades-worth refinements and extrapolations of math theory. All the math tools that they would be needed would be created on the spot if they are required.

And Newton's calculus is rather an argument that is support that view: it is not like there was calculus, that had make describing of the world possible. No calculus was born as a tool to describe physical world from the very beginning.