I hope someone could tell Alan Kay about the Galaxy Note. It has a really nice pen and a place to put it.
187 karma · joined June 19, 2017
Yes, because it's tried and true and works for them.
But yeah, it was just a coincidence. Only powerful people in Russia and China kill journalists. In the US, they just die of accidents and natural causes.
To distract from something else or to downplay their ill deeds or to explain what they did in completely different context so that the real intent can be hidden.
If there is conflict:
- there will be multiple groups who want to defeat each other
- you can sell weapons to the richest of those groups
- you can sell weapons to third party governments (who use money collected forcefully from the public) to "fix the problems" caused by the conflict
I love how Google handles their customers. They just block/remove without any warning, don't respond when asked and reinstate if they have to without any apology or explanation.
Someone is not wealthy by coincidence. To gain wealth, you have to create a product or a service that people are willing to pay for i.e. people value the product/service more than the money that they have. Otherwise, they wouldn't be parting away from their money to get that product or service.
>The wealthy pay disproportionately little considering that their wealth is built upon the infrastructure that the working class pays for.
Not necessarily. Bill Gates didn't make a lot of money because government made computers for him. Mark Zukerberg did not make a lot of money because the government gave them the world wide internet network. Apple didn't make a lot of money because the government gave them something. If you look at the any money making businesses, they most likely made it despite of the government not because of it.
>I'm not sure what you mean, but you seem to be claiming that education is "useless"?
It's a huge waste of money for what it is.
>You go on to say that education does not help people get jobs. I mean, it's clear that education has a large role to play in employment rates.
Not necessarily. Most companies fall back to education for selection only when they don't find people with experience in the industry unless it is enforced by government regulations for people to get a degree, a degree is not very valuable.
>Besides that, the goal of education is not to ensure people are employed; it is to ensure that there is a well educated populace capable of making sane, rational decisions.
Such "goals" have been misused by totalitarian regimes to instill their brainwashing to the general populace so that the establishment can remain in power... and it is not untrue in the US given that most campuses are full of politics, sometimes even when it shouldn't be.
>I'm not going to try and tackle the last part of your statement here because I have no clue what you're trying to say.
Here is what I am trying to get at: when the government is in charge of healthcare for example, even the "socialist" countries like Norway and China have learnt that government is too incompetent to actually own and manage hospitals and insurance companies. So, they usually give this to one or more privately run companies. Which companies they pick for this is too much prone to corruption because when this happens, the company getting the contract generally gets a monopoly status and a huge number of customers by default. Even if the government doesn't pick a particular company, it can create regulations that can weed out small competitors eventually leading to a monopoly, and not necessarily the company that deserves to be one.
>We live in a society where the amount of effort you put in generally determines what you get out of life.
Exactly! So, if you tax someone heavily above a certain bracket, people making just below the bracket do not have a high enough incentive to put in any more effort, because they get to keep a small amount of what they make above that. So, people may be prone to stagnate. When they do, they are not contributing to the economy as much as they could otherwise have. On top of that, people willing to make more could move their businesses away to other countries when possible, doing further harm to the economy.
>No one can explain how socialist policies/programs would ruin the U.S.
Socialist programs harm everyone. Let me try to explain in the simplest possible way. When a politician promises to give things for "free", the government has to buy it from someone. But the government doesn't have any money of its own. It makes all the money by collecting taxes from the very people it says it's giving for free. So, whatever free thing it says it is giving away, it will have to stop spending money somewhere else or raise taxes. So, people are still paying. However, not directly anymore but via a middle man... but not just any other middle man. Government policies and programs react very slowly and poorly to market demands. It is made up of insane number of bureaucratic layers which are very difficult to maintain. So, additional companies spawn up to help maintain these processes. Meanwhile, the related industries have to follow strict regulations imposed by the government for "quality of service". More useless businesses then pop up to try to get around these regulations and laws. So, without insane amount of capital, nobody can hope to enter the industry because you have to pay insane amount just to keep it running. As a result, many existing companies gain monopolies and lose any incentive to do any better.
So, as a result, people may end up paying more for the same service, except it has no competition and shows no incentives for improving it.
>We have the ability to build a post-scarcity society but most of those who control the means of production are too selfish to see past their own noses.
Exactly! This is because it is virtually impossible for anyone to enter certain industries because of insane number of regulatory hell as I mentioned earlier.
>[citation needed] >Seriously though, I'm gonna need some numbers on that before I take it at face value. Even if this is true, I'm sure there are some factors that you are willfully ignoring.
All governments publish their budgets and expenditure for everyone to see. It's not very hard to look up if you are interested.
>Why do you jump from "believing in ideas" to "mindless activism"? Why can nobody ever see the middle ground. For most people it's walways black or white. Well, sometimes, the correct answer is gray.
Because anyone who knows anything about how the world operates can clearly see how mindless and simple his ideas are. There is nothing profound he has to say. "We need less corruption and more government programs" is the gist of everything he has to offer.
No, the budget cuts do not adversely affect the working class. The working class collectively pays more taxes than the richest because working class makes a much larger portion of the population. That money is being wasted on education which is useless as far as getting employment after it is concerned and other government programs let the corrupt politicians decide who gets the business. Tax cuts on the rich doesn't affect the amount of money collected significantly and in addition to that encourages the lower income people to justify earning more.
>Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party
Even the Democratic party was not in favor of Sanders because socialist and communist parties in failed countries, the DNC understands that socialism doesn't really work. They pretend that it does and might say it for votes, but seeing someone who would actually go ahead and try to do it would make things much worse for the country. As evil as Hillary is, everyone should be thankful that she made sure Sanders didn't get a chance.
>Sanders was the working class' best hope. >He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets
Yeah right... because if you want to help people, you should take their money forcefully and then give it to a slow, inefficient bureaucratic system which will solve all their problems.
>However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada.
No. All big healthcare programs around the world are costing a bigger chunk of the budget every year and have thus far been sustainable because most of the healthcare innovation happens outside of them i.e. in the US, which they simply import.
>Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office.
Except for the corruption he is being investigated for.
>He legitimately believed in his ideas
Having no experience in anything else outside of mindless activism and politics makes one delusional, so while I also think he legitimately believed in his ideas, I can't see it as a good thing.
I see. That must be the reason why Americans are starving and Africans are so fat because of too much they grow on their undesertified fertile farmlands.
Anyways, the fact of the matter is, all the climate studies have shown us is that climate is very unpredictable. All of the predictions based on various modeling of historical climate data have failed. And the reason is simple. The climate system is too chaotic. A butterfly flapping its wings can lead to a hurricane... or not, but nobody can predict it based on the observation of the butterfly or all the events in all parts of the world for that matter. Even if we had those data points of all butterflies flapping wings and all koalas farting, it would be impossible to compute what would happen in a very long time from now (a year or decades or centuries). Anyone who tells you otherwise is a snake oil salesman and it's pathetic to see reasonable people fall for this nonsense.
The reason it is still popular despite easy debunking is because why people fall for this has nothing to do with science. There was negligible data and climate models in the 70s and 80s but there was no less enthusiasm in people who wanted to shut down big corporations for "harming the environment". All of the "science" people reference now came very recently and not without organized effort to "prove" that it is the case while silencing and threatening anyone who disagrees by using ecoterrorist organizations and political slamming.
The main idea behind the religious following of climate change narrative comes from the fact that certain people are rich and they somehow should be doing something bad to be that rich, and being rich is bad so they should be departed of their money. That is all there is to it.
Environmentalism is anti-humanism.
Please refer to the linked graph again. Homo sapiens evolved around 200k years ago. You can see endless spikes during and before that time. Climate has been relatively "steady" for ~10k years after it recovered from an ice age. If the latest is due to "human activities", what about all the countless spikes which have occurred forever?
- Supposedly CO2 is also a green house gas that helps earth trap some heat from the sun. The link between how much heat CO2 captures based on the concentration is very difficult to find, suggesting that the link is not very strong and propaganda driven "climate science" deliberately doesn't want anyone to know. My guess is that it is very weak at best which is why they supplement the theory with heating will cause water vapor concentration to rise, which is also a green house gas, which will cause snowball effect. This could be tested in a controlled greenhouse but most probably it didn't turn out to be favorable for the propaganda so the research has not been published.
- Climate has been changing throughout the history of the earth and there are no known consistent patterns that we have been able to model which can help us predict anything, not that we have seen working at least. Overall though, it has been cooling and there is no reason that it will not continue to do so in the long run.
- The causal relation between CO2 levels and global temperatures has not only not been established, but it is impossible to establish because of large number of factors affecting it and affecting each other. The best we can get is some kind of correlation but even that hasn't been consistent over time. They keep adding more explanations to anomalies to pretend that they know what is going on but it's obvious that they just don't want to accept it. Max Plank said "Science advances one funeral at a time", but it seems increased life expectancy will keep "climate science" going for a while.
So, yeah some people may be upset that people are touting this solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Western elites have been trying to brainwash people against China since long before the idea of the internet was conceived.
>Governments do not get to be immune to criticism.
Edward Joseph Snowden.
I'm sure China would happily adopt "western liberal freedoms" if didn't mean opening their citizens to brainwashing by western media and all their data being accessible to the CIA.