To be clear, you want me to articulate a point that you fabricated and then attributed to me? I think I’m going to pass, but feel free to continue the discussion with yourself about things I didn’t say.
20,948 karma · joined September 21, 2014
>But obviously this isn't how China is now and even state-owned companies in China generally operate in a market and can be in competition with private companies and other state-owned companies.
"Compete's in a market" is irrelevant to socialism. Again, basic poli sci, socialism encompasses both free market and captured market. What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.
>There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.
Right, and which western "capitalist" society has state ownerhsip of 70%+ of the "private" companies that make up its economy? Correct, 0. Socialism has never required the state to own all business in a given economy anymore than capitalism has required 0 ownership.
> a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arc-of-the-chinese-...
In layman’s terms that basically says if there’s a 0-day, patch first and we’ll worry about validation later.
You could say that’s “an issue” with literally every software package that has a support contract on earth. I can’t count how many times in my career we had to apply a patch release that wasn’t “officially ga” because of a zero day. That’s common sense, not a FIPS issue.
From a military standpoint, yes. You have to have your head buried in the sand to think we didn’t have significant loss of military assets in the region.
Our ability to defend our allies in the region is non existent, and we lost almost all of our radar capabilities which will take a decade minimum to rebuild. That’s assuming hostilities end tomorrow.
Unlike trickle down economics, it’s not just a failed theory. It’s something we’ve seen in action and it works as expected.
Eliminate share buybacks. Raise the top tax bracket to 95% on earnings over $10m. Executive shares cannot be exercised until retirement if you really want to get aggressive.
The nuclear option would be stocks cannot be used as collateral for loans, it would shore up 90% of the nonsense overnight and have 0 negative impact on 99.99% of the general public.
Out of the gate access was restricted to government use, and a limited subset of governments at that. There was never a point in time it was handed out to any private citizen to do with as they pleased.
As for “we haven’t seen the destruction yet” - huh? Between the proliferation of hacks utilizing AI and drone warfare in ukraine we’ve ABSOLUTELY seen the destruction already.
You developed the nuclear bomb. Would you give free access to every human on the planet to do with it as they see fit? Or would you demand responsible guardrails from the start?
AI companies want it both ways. This will both redefine humanity as we know it, but also nobody should try to enforce any guardrails. Why? Because it might hurt profits.
Either it’s snake oil and not as revolutionary as claimed, or people should be facing prison time for trying to claim “I just invented it and gave everyone access, I can’t be held responsible for what happens next”.
Rick Scott being a close Trump ally tells you everything you need to know about how concerned the Trump administration actually is about fraud.
We make decisions based on objective reality, not a perfect theory in a lab.
Just because something isn’t economically viable today doesn’t mean it never will be. That short term thinking is exactly why China is absolutely decimating the US in renewable energy.
But literally the least important factor beyond “should we have started yesterday”. The amount of waste humanity has perpetuated in just the last 100 years because something wasn’t “economically viable” this fiscal quarter makes my head hurt.
Can you name even one example in the last 50 years?
In a functioning economy he’d have faced criminal charges for knowingly misleading investors and customers about a dozen times over by now. It’s one thing to set lofty goals internally to keep your workforce motivated and innovative. It’s something else entirely to state things publicly with a targeted date when you know there’s absolutely no chance it will ever happen.