Refreeze5224

It is a fundamental feature of capitalism. There is an inherent tension between employers and workers, in that workers represent a cost center that can never be totally eliminated, and has a lot of undesirable features, such as: being alive, having opinions, being able to talk/whistle-blow, requiring bathrooms, bathroom breaks, and safe working conditions, banding together to increase their collective power and reduce exploitation, and worst of all, necessary; you can't ever get rid of them all!

The history of capitalism is the history of grappling with this inherent tension, and companies finding novel ways to deal with it. Gig work, union-busting, "right-to-work", non-competes, NDAs, return to office, employee tracking software, automation, robotics, AI, etc. The most effective trick though, was convincing the workers that they definitely don't ever need to band together, and you as an individual are definitely better off negotiating alone versus entire corporations.

In today's age of exclusive capitalism? There is no worker ownership of the means of production. If you can't use a mine to get some coal, or use some tools to make widget, or use a GPU to do inference I guess, then you don't own it, do you? The point is anyone who needs to do those things can, and that ownership is tangibly available to everyone. Not in the "this is public property" but the state actually owns it sense.

Shares are not the means of production. They are a mutually agreed upon fiction and sit firmly within the realm of capitalism.

> I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...)

You might want to flesh this part out a bit more before criticizing scientists tweaking some cell clumps.

For the billionth time already, socialism is not "when the government does it." Using the government to increase your capital and become even richer is standard capitalism.

Altman is not now and will not ever relinquish any means of production he own to the workers.

I wonder at what level you could enforce/how far you could take the idea of "don't allow invalid states to be represented" to a programming language, to prevent this kind of language debauchery.

C does seem to sit at the perfect intersection of language age and low-level access to allow this kind of competition, whereas something like Go seems far less suited for it. Javascript is routinely obfuscated pretty well for human readers. I'm not familiar enough with Rust to say, but I bet with what little I know of its syntax you could create some pretty ugly stuff?

I take my choice of VPN very seriously, and have used Mullvad for a long time. But now I cannot help but wonder whether the principles the two of you founded Mullvad on, to quote you from above: "because of our political convictions about free speech, free press, privacy, mass surveillance and censorship" are more important to Daniel than the views of his party.

He clearly is willing to spend large sums on the party's views, and if he can use his influence and access in Mullvad to achieve his party's stated goals, will he?

It is asking a lot to trust someone who espouses what he does to maintain Mullvad's founding values, and not to exploit Mullvad in pursuit of ideas he values at a very high monetary level.

I have zero confidence someone supporting what he does and thinks the way he does will protect my traffic, and I sadly cannot use or recommend Mullvad any longer.

I think they left it to the lower court to decide if the search was legitimate in particular. They ruled in general that geo-fence warrants are not OK. Not a lawyer though!

What a cool job, and congrats on great work!

Nazis don't get good faith or the benefit of the doubt. I'm not censoring anyone, I am pointing out that you and other commenters here decided, apropos of nothing, to advocate for including racist and genocidal propaganda.

>Are you afraid because non-banned books and films told you they were bad, or because the people who produced those were afraid they were right and didn't want you to know that they were right?

How about you be more explicit, instead of hiding? You're saying shit like The Turner Diaries, a book that advocates for race war, white supremacy, and adoration of Hitler. You're saying the people who wrote those books might be right. You're saying the Nazis were right.

I know what you're doing, and you know what you're doing. As I said, fuck off with all that, no tolerance for the intolerant.

How in the world could you read that article and think there is anything positive about OpenAI's prospects? We've been hearing for months that these companies need to make trillions of dollars in a handful of years, growing at record rates in order to break even and justify their massive outlay.

It's not going to happen.

You're advocating for including white supremacist and Nazi books. And you're not the only one in this thread doing it.

There is one reason someone would do that. You're a white supremacist and a Nazi. There's no in-between here. How about you fuck right off with all that? No tolerance for Nazis and racists.

This is fantastic. Works perfectly right off the bat. I have so much trouble just getting capslock to be control consistently in Linux, and this made it easy.

Well if your product wasn't already basically spyware, it wouldn't be so much work to abide by privacy regulation frameworks, now would it? I have no sympathy for how hard it is for surveillance companies to adapt their exploitative business model to the EU.

I think it's appropriate that a surveillance company should surveil its employees so they can get a taste of what they are contributing to.

Surveillance and privacy invasion is profitable, so not ironic at all.

Solidarity forever! Game devs eat a a lot of crap, so I'm glad they are banding together to bargain collectively.

The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.

Another way to say it is that capital is operating as it always has: in its own interest.

I took Euclidean geometry in high school, and having a book with colors like this would have made things so much easier to grasp. The color scheme is lovely too, and really makes me consider buying the poster. If you'd have told 15 year old me that I would one day really want a Euclid poster, I'd have called you insane!

> I am of the opinion that the following are all reasonable, and I think most people would agree with me:

Absolutely not. The 4th Amendment, among others, are intended to make law enforcement more difficult. The alternative is tyranny. The power that these cameras provide is far beyond what they seem, and police have shown zero ability to be trusted with this sort of thing, and deserve zero benefit of the doubt, or trust to maintain logs only for x days, or not to use them for stalking people.

We optimize for law enforcement efficiency at our peril.

The only innovation needed to be sustainable is to recognize that capitalism is not sustainable, and never can be. But that's not a profitable innovation, so it never gets pursued.

And I would recommend Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12292260-kill-anything-t...

As mentioned, enshittifying doesn't mean "make shitty" or "make worse". It's a specific exploitative company MO, like taking a product like Bitwarden and the goodwill it's generated with open source contributions, free plans, etc., and exploiting that trust by selling it to private equity, unbeknownst to the users, in order to squeeze the most out of it they can and then scrap it.

They picked exactly the appropriate word.

It would be trivial to exclude overtime from the last 3 years. People gaming them is not why pensions are going away.

Then you, like many others, misunderstand what the saying All Cops Are Bastards means. It's not an observation about the morality of each individual cop. It's shorthand for the fundamental corruption and injustice inherent to the institution of policing itself.

If Mother Theresa or Mister Rogers becomes a cop, ACAB isn't suddenly disproved, because it's not about specific individuals and their specific moral qualities. It's about systemic and fundamental problems with policing as a whole.

See how ACAB is a lot easier to say?

I know what his solution is not. It's not a mechanism that conveniently enables the fine-grained surveillance of people that just so happens to be google's business model.

How much of your earnings are inflated? Do you safely do a job that potentially risks several hundred people's lives every single day?

Do you realize you are infinitely closer to a pilot than a billionaire or a founder or whomever it is you seem to care more about than working people?

Class consciousness, solidarity, and workers literally fighting and dying earned you an 8 hour day, social security, and all the workplace protections you probably take for granted.

Cars were more efficient horses. AI is not more efficient people. It's an excuse to reduce payroll. Capital is fundamentally antagonistic to labor, because labor is an eternal cost center that until AI, never had a solution.