asu_thomas

1. Of course.

2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition.

That doesn't sound profitable to me.

> Apparently this stuff has matured a lot in the last 10 years

Matured is not the word I would choose.

> To me it looks like we need to win the decarbonization game to maintain a stable climate.

Given your salary depends on it, I am hardly surprised.

You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.

That is so incredibly naive. When you and your family is distracted with trauma and turmoil at every turn, there is no precedent for curiosity about anything except how to survive the current state of affairs. This is extremely basic stuff. It's literally just rational prioritization of concerns. If you can't grasp that, you have other problems that aren't being discussed in this discussion.

Children living in poverty will surely use LLMs, but they will continue to lack the capacity for curiosity and intentional learning. They will use LLMs to assist with the same things they invest their energy in without LLMs, which is their immediate life challenges and psychological escapism. And insufferable people like you will blame them when your ignorant plan inevitably fails.

> The West and much of the rest of the world have built societies with few strong kinship bonds.

Lies. The West had boundless kinship bonds as deep as they were wide, in fairly recent memory. The West brazenly wrecked them in the name of the profit motive.

This pity culture stuff is utterly despicable and no self-respecting individual should have any patience for a society where such blatant decadent is excused.

This should be news to exactly nobody.

No, it's for the sacred profit motive. What are you? A communist?

You are either being dishonest or you're in for a major disappointment. There's a lot more involved in that "opportunity" than a mechanism for low cost feedback. One's material circumstances predominates their ability to take advantage of such mechanisms, hence why strictly increasing school budgets or teacher quality has never succeeded in significantly improving overall outcomes for children living in poverty. I suppose maybe you have to experience it to grasp the extent to which the havoc and insecurity that living in poverty in brutally individualized Western countries ensures, but it's been shown over and over again that these shortcuts simply don't work. You have to address the poverty itself.

HN is full of propagandized technologists who have yet to realize how few of the world's problems are technical, and how approximately all of them are political.

I'm sure there are better essays with similar value, but the one that comes to mind is Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil394/The%20Quest...

> But, like in most big organizations, I suspect the web people and the company data people don't talk to one another.

Sounds like you're trying to assume good intentions, but you sound extremely naive as a result.

The issue is privatized utilities. They are an ordained monopoly. Their failure to "talk to one another" is not a failure at all. They have no reason to even consider the problem in the first place. You're still paying them, are you not?

People do like that software but nobody wants to work on an iPad. They would much prefer use it with a Wacom or Xenselabs device.

Once they lose control by selling 80% to the employees, they no longer have that power though, right?

Procreate is iPad-only. Nobody uses iPads because they like iPads. They just like that one software. They would much prefer use it on a Wacom or Xenselabs device, though.

In those worst cases, workers are almost always still better off with the union deal.

Some unions are better than others, but all unions are democratic (at least to some degree) and engaged members can improve them.

This article is about 20 times as long as it should be.

This is why I can't see myself buying skiplag tickets.

> Labor has _always_ been a liability for rich amoral capitalists

Just capitalists. It doesn't matter how rich or amoral they are.

> Unions have arguably been good for straight white native born men. Everyone else who has had to pay higher prices or has had to deal with worse products and services has lost out.

I criticize unions all the time, but your comment is so incredibly ahistorical and out of touch it makes me rethink my position because I don't want to be confused with people as clueless as you are.

Nothing in US history has come remotely close to improving race relations like the union movements of the 1930s and 1940s. The ruling class deployed racism to divide working people and unionization brought them back together, making the civil rights movement viable. People like you who spout nonsense they know nothing about disgust me and I hope your employees unionize ASAP.

Having worked in many graphics roles for 20 years, I have never heard of a professional wanting to use an iPad for their work, yet this thread is full of people claiming the iPad is some artist dream tool. It is not even close to true.

> Those business owners are also being exploited by larger businesses

They aren't being "exploited." If they need so desperately to exploit workers, they can and should just go out of business instead. It's that simple. It's called a market and this is how it works. Business owners love to describe themselves as risk-takers but they whine like babies when they have to pay the price. They are dishonest and generally pathetic people in my experience.

There is no moral rationale for either side, only a conflict between classes.

I recently started doing more party drugs as a replacement for dating women. Dating in 2023 is just an absolutely miserable experience and party drugs are not, so I setup fun party plans instead of dates now. I've been on enough dates in my life to realize when the odds and likelihood of ROI are not on my side. I'm happier now and I meet plenty of women; they just aren't the types I'm likely to marry.

Wikipedia has long had the same thing. It's called 'What links here'

> one cannot deny some level of true popular will

I have never even heard anyone suggest such a thing. Whether a fringe grassroots privacy politics effort existed in Sweden at the time is not up for debate. It absolutely did, but it was not "popular" by any stretch of the imagination. Average voters simply don't care about privacy, no matter which country you're in.

The EU was explicitly formed to compete with the US economically. Nobody should be surprised if their most flagship legislation to date is motivated by the same intent.

Furthermore, it is being generous to say the EU is a pseudo-democratic institution. If an actually popular privacy movement did exist in Sweden at some point, the chances of it penetrating the EU are slim to none, and the chances of it having any political influence in the EU are even lower.

Small businesses use this kind of advertising as much or more, proportionally speaking, as corporations. And with a virtual guarantee of worse data security/privacy practices when applicable.

> If you use the internet, or an app, you must protect yourself.

As in "choose a strong password"?

As in "never accept a terms of service agreement you disagree with"?

As in "read all code before running it"?

What thoughts were going through your head when you typed that?

Why would it? The EU is just protecting its own member states' IT industries and its own interest in undermining encrypted communications.