Refreeze5224

That's not cynicism, that's an accurate understanding of how Western capitalist democracies have worked for decades.

It's great it can do that. But it in no way justifies the social and environmental costs of AI, which is the point of the article.

You are misunderstanding basic political terminology then, if you think it's somehow odd that leftists are against Democrats. Democrats and Republicans are both capitalists and liberal in the classical sense, both of which leftists oppose.

Nope. They know their business model is not sustainable, so they are trying to prop it up before their IPOs.

Fuck that indeed. The buck should stop, and prison sentences should start, with the highest paid employee.

"Hesitancy" about heliocentricity isn't new either, and yet we've sent out a solar probe. Willfully ignoring science will never get old, it seems.

> I believe he truly has humanity's best interests at heart

How can you possibly believe this? What else would someone in his position say? No billionaire has humanity's interest at heart, so they try to hide that fact by building libraries (Carnegie) or creating foundations named after themselves.

All of his words and none of his actions support his caring at all about humanity, and you choose to believe his words? The man has an IPO coming up (probably one of the biggest ever!), he could not be in a less trustworthy position.

So in this example, the equivalent of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people fighting for their lives and the very existence of their country for Dario is... losing lots of money?

What a ridiculous analogy to make.

By the creators: https://www.nogodsnomasters.org/abolish-ice/

Read your history mate.

https://eghammuseum.org/terrorists-the-suffragette-arson-and...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

We have an 8 hour workday, and women's suffrage, thanks to "terrorism", as you call it.

Of course they did. The president wants them to, he complains about mail-in voting (despite doing it himself yearly...), and thinks it helps his opponents. He also picked the postmaster general.

None of this is news, and none of it is a conspiracy. He has made it explicit that this is what he wants, and he's doing it to disenfranchise people so his team wins.

Privacy absolutely should be a human right. But currently it isn't, and part of why is there is lots of money to be made with surveillance on ordinary people. And things will not change unless the people who exploit the privacy of other for monetary gain feel the effects of their privacy being violated.

Like the CEO of Flock.

I don't. But I do think the CEO of a company who sells spying as a service to cops should have a taste of his own medicine.

Absolutely nothing about how the Supreme Court works nowadays has respect for standard process or decorum. It's merely a shield to hide behind when it's convenient, to be ignored when it's useful.

He doesn't have a view on trade deficits. To imply he does is giving him far too much credit. The "most powerful person on earth" in charge of the United States fundamentally doesn't understand trade deficits or tariffs.

We do a disservice when we act like he has a strategy or view about these things. He doesn't. He is ignorant of how they work, and to prove it you only have to listen to his own words.

This site is intended to be a discussion between people. If we wanted to consult some other resource, we would go do that. Injecting unverified information is not a contribution to a discussion between people, especially if it isn't coming from a human source.

Sort of. They were not campaign slogans though. They were battle cries, by militant labor, insisting on what they deserved.

This smells of a system working as designed. Cops exist to protect property, capital, and the status quo. The people whom they actually exist to serve have no issue using tax dollars for this purpose.

You don't have to go as far back as the French Revolution. Labor unions in the late 19th and early 20th century fought pitched battles against the exploitative billionaire equivalents of their day, and it was much easier for the rich to accept t labor's demands when they knew there was real risk of physical harm from the workers they were exploiting. If you work an 8 hour day, or your job can't subject you dangerous conditions with no recourse, thank militant unions who were willing to lay it on the line against greedy oppressors like Zuckerberg.

The 4th Amendment exists to make the cops' job harder. Full stop. I do not care how much easier it is for them to do their jobs because of invasive surveillance, both because it's a violation of rights, and because they cannot be trusted not to use them in all sorts of other criminal ways we haven't even considered.

Kenneth Branagh + Shackleton is an instant watch for me, what a great combination.

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!