-4 karma · joined August 27, 2026
Why not? Maths studying correlates with high intellect, high intellect correlates with competitiveness in the job market. So their chances of finding a job that would allow to have much of free time (for doing math) without being homeless are pretty good.
That is not the things that can be unlimited. There will always be better food, bigger houses, better medicine etc.
In the eyes of the bottom 30 (or maybe even 60) percent of humans on the planet Earth average American already has the access to unlimited food, shelter, medicine, and knowledge. But good luck to convince Americans that they have those access.
Then your salary will be decided by lowest common denominator. Employer does not leverage this situation, employer reacts to the incentives this situation creating.
Wait, aren't Sweden like literally the world leader by rapes count?
Those people will spend their savings, sell their houses to live in the smaller ones, or find another jobs. They will probably gonna get poorer. But the majority of the people with wrenches definitely will get richer, that is how economy works.
I mean then they will start to sell their homes and situation for those who can buy them cheaply and renovate will become even better, no?
That is pretty obvious and mostly correct idea. I don't understand why people who have even a little bit of common sense about how the economy works thinks that mass layoffs of programmers or office workers will destroy the economy.
It is people who ALWAYS reduce everything to personal opportunism (no matter capitalism or not). Capitalism is the smartest way to run anything exactly because it is build on concepts of broader consequences of that fact.
Generally it is mean exactly that.
The judicial system is a branch of governmental authority. Any government on the planet Earth sees the establishment of unauthorize parallel branches of authority as one of the most serious crimes, and people who belong to such bodies face extremely harsh penalties up to physical elimination by the military force.
That is exactly how authoritarian state looks like.
"It's not illegal in the <our-authoritarian-state> to do <something-our-authoritarian-state-does-not-like>" (but if you do, you'll be f.ucked. Probably. Because it is not illegal).
I think that is very easy.
"If Muslims get their nuclear weapon (chemical weapon, Jerusalem, that particular abandoned piece of desert, any other random crap, choose whatever you like) they WILL DESTROY THE WORLD. How we can see, the world is still existing. So compensation? That would be pretty nice of them, we are ready to start getting compensation at any moment".
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.
It is not when we are talking about government subsidies intended to redistribute wealth from the poor to the middle class.
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.
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 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?
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".
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.
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.
What about the performance (especially the bottom 1% frame time)? What about availability of those games in free online game libraries?
Aren't this take like 3 additional minutes (including search of how to do this)?
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.
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?
> 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.
All the data showing that it is still free. There is no cost, generally anthropogenic climate change is increasing the habitability of our atmosphere.
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).