pasquinelli

if we optimize the billionaire class everyone's better off, like i said. of course we can go orange catholic, but my comment was premised on how we might apply ai.

see what you don't understand is that the owning class actually bring crucial long term strategic vision. i wonder though: we always talk of ai replacing the working class, but wouldn't it be more economical for ai to provide that long term strategic thinking? i'm sure the operating costs for ai would be way less than the operating costs of billionaires. everyone would be better off.

> Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. That's kinda the opposite of people starving to death.

not necessarily. you're inadvertently conflating things. just more people alive doesn't mean they aren't starving. a population boom can be had in the starving population too.

> Everyone has different situations and different level of risk.

that's true, and also why it's prudent to not go around giving unsolicited family advice to strangers.

also it's why, when you're talking about one particular woman you've never met, you should keep the demographic insights you think you have about her to yourself.

if that's the one where you get to own things then there wasn't trade before capitalism, because you can't trade things without ownership. is that what you're saying?

so how's it the beauty of capitalism?

why did anyone trade prior to capitalism?

i've been waiting for you to share your conclusion for the last ten years. finally, i can sleep again.

> Greed isn't a problem.

you listed

1. buying the cheapest groceries you can reasonably find 2. trying to get the highest salary you can 3. literally any time you try to get more for yourself

that's a weak list from which to conclude that greed isn't a problem, especially since in the case of 1. and 2. someone's making money off you, the person who's supposedly greedy in these scenarios.

so in your mind "advertisement" covers any transmission of information?

> How does it seem like the ad was superfluous?

just to be clear i don't know your friend or their life or their medical condition or if the drug you saw an ad for treats their condition or if you saw an ad for a drug or if your friend has a medical conditon or if you have a friend at all... and i don't know if every event in a chain of events is necessary to the eventual outcome of that chain of events... and i can't see into the alternate reality wherein you didn't see that ad for a drug, to know your friend would've been fine in the end... and so on.

i'm speaking more generally, saying advertising is superfluous to medicine.

ah the world where ads are a good form of education.

i like my union because they force the management to actually take care of our equipment. every non-union job i've had involves a lot of making fucked up shit kind of work. that's what i want from a union, tangible benefits to my working conditions. it's not a social club, and i'm not one to be worried about the caliber of people i associate with.

seems like the ad was superfluous. the doctor treating your friend's condition would be aware of new drugs relevant to your friend's condition. i go to a doctor because i don't know about medicine, i don't want to be educated on medicine from snake oil salesmen.

what do you know about the pre-industrial world, really?

> Only marketing has been using “it’s not X, it’s Y”

i'm not even remotely convinced that's true.

i would expect emdashes in a professionally published website.

so we would manage the conditions we've imposed on cuba by just simply not having those conditions.

i'd love to see america "manage" the conditions america has imposed on cuba.

after a failed invasion to overthrow the cuban government, we spent a lifetime doing covert operations and using our economic dominance to try to starve cuba to death, but the problem is that cuba has resisted. i wonder if that'll still be your tune if america finds itself on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.

one wonders why

if they don't let people leave to prevent total state collapse then they're starving their own people (by means of the american trade embargo); if they do let people leave, it's to tighten their stranglehold on the country.

i remember during covid china sent its vaccine to cuba and america captured it and siezed it. that's why cuba developed their own vaccines. another point on the "maybe the cuban communist party isn't so bad" tally.

doesn't surviving a 70 year embargo make you question how bad the communists really are?

it kind of is an accident that ww2 didn't effect the united states but did effect europe and asia rather a lot.

> Natural selection will take care of them in due course.

or you.

maybe what we really need is a butlerian jihad

even smart people say dumb things sometimes.

i was just telling you how you sound and asking if that's how you mean to sound.

yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.