autobodie

They aren't replying to you. I sure hope you don't berate your poor tenants like you are commenters in this thread. You're a landlord, not a hero.

It won't be consistent because you will be raising the rent every chance you get. Trust me.

> You'll find out there's not enough room to scoot around your wife's thicc ass

> That sounds… wildly specific to the US.

It was a perfectly fine example. Nothing in your comment has any relevance to what it's an example of.

> any drudge can do it if they’re prepared to sit in front of the computer for a few days

It still remains a fact that most working people don't have a few days to sit in front of a computer making art. Especially not uninterrupted.

Literally trickle-down economics.

No, we would see profits increase, and we have been seeing profits increase.

Get worse for who? The ruling class will simply never care how bad things get for working people if things are getting better for the ruling class.

Source? Keynes was a serious economist, not a charlitan futurist.

Keynes lived in a time when the working class was organized and exerting its power over its destiny.

We live in a time that the working class is unbelievably brainwashed and manipulated.

That is extremely wreckless. The board is unquestionably the most responsible party.

One has to wonder why they don't just copy the Cuban model of having a surplus of their own slave doctors, especially given the supposed immense profit potential!

To be honest, I'm not convinced of your explanation.

How is there a market for these unskilled slave doctors?

Why is there a market for these slave doctors?

> Why is that, I thought? That doesn't fit being sanctioned by the US(and vassals), being poor in general, and so on.

I think the word for that is capitalist realism. You cannot imagine a motive beyond calitalist logic, but that doesn't mean nobody else can.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism

I think you're overcomplicating things. Castro was very vocal about medical care being a top proority during and after the revolution. There's no coincidence or conspiracy.

When you try to build a society around human needs instead of capital needs, you end up with different priorities. It's that simple.

If anyone thinks they're making the big bucks and accumulating "soft power" by training a bunch of doctors then selling treatments to Americans for cheap, I'm not sure they can be helped.

Need more trains.

Yes, against all odds, Cuba has a great surpous of doctors. How do they do it, I wonder!?!?!?!?!?!

(it has something to do with profit)

When a company is disgraced, the owners don't get replaced; the CEO does. The "responsibility" is primarily a matter of public relations.

Whether or not the CEO does (or could do) the job 100% perfectly is irrelevant. I said what their purpose is and I'm correct.

Sounds right, except calling Dali or Warhol "middlebrow." That's just weird.

No law specifically requires more than a coin flip, but firing people because some rando in HR "decided" without justification or documentation of cause can be risky.

If a company wants to stay in business, the legal risk of AI bots firing people is probably not worth the cost savings. Until that changes, I don't think there's much to discuss, but that may not be long given the way things are going.

The most fundamental duty of a CEO is to accept responsibility away from the board members, hence the large bonuses when they are let go. By definition, AI cannot do this. End of conversation.

Same goes for managers in most cases. Firing people because an AI said to simply won't hold ip in court, at least for now.

Profit and income are two different things. Jobs make income, not profit.

Aggregate profit and income from curation (both) have dropped off a cliff, so I'm not sure what your point is. Of course a select few will always be rewarded by the wealthy for hand-made delicacies, including curation, and the demand will correlate with wealth accumulation but remain scarce. There is nothing new or novel about it either way.

>immensely gratifying to me because it means humans will always need humans

Just to confirm, this is sarcasm, right? It's hard to tell, and it's terrifying to me that so many people don't comprehend this as a basic fact at least by grade school.

Also, is it still gratifying if humans won't have other humans? Curation is harder to come by than ever before because it's less profitable. What is gratifying about that???

I have yet to see someone explain in detail how writing the same words as another person works (showing they understand the technical nitty gritty and the overall architecture of the human mind) and also layout a case for why it is clearly a violation of copyright. You can find lots of people talking about reading, and you can find lots (way more) of people talking about plagarism being a violation of copyright, but you can't find anyone talking about both.

Doesn't matter because U.S. ruling class doesn't agree.

>they can't just write a single thing that writes all wrongs.

Found the attorney! Nobody asked for "a single thing that writes all wrongs."

Simple, broad laws can absolutely be written, they are especially easy to write, and they are usually the best laws for decent average citizens, but decent average citizens are not who laws are written for in the United States. Most people already know this.

I was going to be shocked if your case study actually found means testing worthwhile, so I read your entire comment, both others might not.

Wrong. The question asked the opposite; it asked if the means testing saved the government money.

You answered "yes" in your original comment, but your supporting arguments imply "no" so I can see why people are confused.

Read the original question again:

>Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?