The Internet always should have been decentralized. The centralization we've seen has been a huge mistake. The good thing is how amazing the tools we have available to us are. Stepping away from social media, I've got a lot of great things to say about Nextcloud, and that can be self-hosted by any size organization.
ChatGPT is like a smart person who pretends to be smarter than they really are. Really great for getting information, but you have to double check everything because it doesn't give a crap if the information is true if it looks like a good answer.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
Fully agreed that companies have way too much influence in politics in general where they should have none.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
I don't disagree.
The thing is, we're doing it out of order. First we produce the viable alternative, then we can look at eliminating the thing. What we're doing instead of taxing the thing out of existence and all poor people are allowed to do is die.
A lot of the technologies we need don't need to be developed, they've existed for 100 years and we just need to use them. Hydroelectricity and lots of street cars could change everything.
The thing is, we're doing it out of order. First we produce the viable alternative, then we can look at eliminating the thing. What we're doing instead of taxing the thing out of existence and all poor people are allowed to do is die.
A lot of the technologies we need don't need to be developed, they've existed for 100 years and we just need to use them. Hydroelectricity and lots of street cars could change everything.
These people think they would have been part of la resistance in Germany in 1938, but in reality they'd be in line to throw the first stone at whoever Hitler told them was the cause of Germany losing World War 1.
It's not a popular view, but I didn't mind Chretien, Martin, or Harper. In fact, realizing what his government was doing and how it lined up Chretien for success, it seems like Mulroney did what he had to do as well (The GST is shit, but it's shit the country required in order to balance the budget and one of my criticisms of Harper was lowering it when the budget was balanced and the federal debt was going to be paid off in my lifetime)
From here though, we're going to need a handbrake turn to get back to sanity.
From here though, we're going to need a handbrake turn to get back to sanity.
Purple is just fine.
Won't win ever, but nobody else stood up for what's right when it wasn't politically expedient to do so.
Won't win ever, but nobody else stood up for what's right when it wasn't politically expedient to do so.
I don't know what winter is like in NZ, but up here in Canada, the moronic climate initiatives we see cause predictable outcomes like it becoming outrageously expensive to just do luxurious things like not dying of cold in -40C winters. The current proposals are genocidal.
The problem is that we're childish, and think we can have our cake and eat it too -- there's no way to produce enough energy without an environmental impact. We need to pick between multiple options that all have positives and negatives, and certain lobbies have people telling us to ignore the negatives of their current big and shiny proposals that will cost more money than exists on earth, while doubling down on the negatives of far more practical options that aren't big and sexy.
That isn't to say that there aren't viable options. In Canada, half the provinces rely on carbon neutral energy sources, and most of those rely entirely on hydroelectric. In Quebec and Manitoba, the plentiful hydroelectric power costs low enough that people can heat their homes with that instead of burning fossil fuels. If Manitoba can do it, then the other provinces can too. The problem is that there's an immediate environmental impact to large scale hydroelectric projects, and a cost that doesn't make anyone immediately rich (especially if the project becomes part of a crown corporation to distribute the benefits of a public good instead of going to some private company).
Without becoming wiser, all we'll do is waste energy and materials making lobbyist's masters rich instead of actually doing anything to make anything better.
The problem is that we're childish, and think we can have our cake and eat it too -- there's no way to produce enough energy without an environmental impact. We need to pick between multiple options that all have positives and negatives, and certain lobbies have people telling us to ignore the negatives of their current big and shiny proposals that will cost more money than exists on earth, while doubling down on the negatives of far more practical options that aren't big and sexy.
That isn't to say that there aren't viable options. In Canada, half the provinces rely on carbon neutral energy sources, and most of those rely entirely on hydroelectric. In Quebec and Manitoba, the plentiful hydroelectric power costs low enough that people can heat their homes with that instead of burning fossil fuels. If Manitoba can do it, then the other provinces can too. The problem is that there's an immediate environmental impact to large scale hydroelectric projects, and a cost that doesn't make anyone immediately rich (especially if the project becomes part of a crown corporation to distribute the benefits of a public good instead of going to some private company).
Without becoming wiser, all we'll do is waste energy and materials making lobbyist's masters rich instead of actually doing anything to make anything better.
I'm not really saying there isn't anything better, I'm sure there are. It's more like administrators are highly conservative so of the tools they are willing to use it's the best they've got. Same as "Nobody got fired for going with IBM/Microsoft"
You're right, the legal framework is also a problem. In some ways, the whole concept of an employee is a gilded cage most people don't even know they're restricted by.
You're right, the legal framework is also a problem. In some ways, the whole concept of an employee is a gilded cage most people don't even know they're restricted by.
Hiring, particularly hiring specialists, is tough as hell. You're trying to find someone who doesn't just advertise themselves as able to do the job but is actually able to do the job. Once you hire someone for such a job, you won't even really know that they can do the thing for 3-6 months after they start, and once you've made it that far it becomes really difficult to fire people since you've got to go through the 7 circles of Hell to do so.
So the big question becomes: Sure, resumes are bullshit. What better method is there to determine which people of 7 billion are willing and able to do the job?
So the big question becomes: Sure, resumes are bullshit. What better method is there to determine which people of 7 billion are willing and able to do the job?
Microsoft seems intent on making stuff nobody wants to use.
I don't even question it now, every new windows install gets open shell.
I don't even question it now, every new windows install gets open shell.
They made some design decisions that really hurt things with the CGA. Not being able to choose your colors besides a few different shitty preset palettes is one, the planar video stuff was another. With just a half dozen changes, CGA could have been top tier, but it clearly was not.
IBM PCs started off far behind because they bruteforced the hell out of everything. The VIC-20 looked a lot better because it took a bunch of shortcuts and limited the things you could do with it so you could do those specific things really well with specific circuitry for stuff like sprites, but that brute force method ultimately ended up better because even though it was way less efficient per clock cycle, it also ultimately ended up more flexible so as CPUs got more powerful you could do things like Wolf 3d, Doom, and Quake that IBM never imagined.
I'm only marginally aware of the whole thing, but I know he has been on the road to full cancelation for years.
I think we're already seeing that starting, so I tend to agree with you.
Not just the poor or the idle rich, the administrative class is overwhelming the actual productive classes. There's a use for administrators, but when there's a disparity between the prestige and money for doing a thing compared to administrating doing a thing there's a big problem and you end up with too many people trying to manage the one person actually doing the thing.
Not just the poor or the idle rich, the administrative class is overwhelming the actual productive classes. There's a use for administrators, but when there's a disparity between the prestige and money for doing a thing compared to administrating doing a thing there's a big problem and you end up with too many people trying to manage the one person actually doing the thing.
Geez, really then, it would be excessive government spending on all kinds of things leading to Nixon closing the gold window, leading to stagflation, leading to tax cuts and spending increases causing massive increases in government debt, leading to a number of financial booms that weren't based on anything other than excessive money in the system, then eventually households started to go into debt while the government just kept on piling on the debt, and all that was continuously piling on cost of living (while the government pretended inflation wasn't happening with doctored numbers) which led to people having fewer kids because they can't even afford a home, let alone a stay at home wife to raise the kids...
And more. You guys are right that 401ks would have an effect where pensions that were previously a company's liability pure and simple would become this growing powder keg of money.
And when you look at it like that, the next financial crisis could be epic because a lot of those boomers are retiring or retired or dying, and that means that they're about to start selling off those assets, or they're already selling off those assets, or they're going to be forced to sell off assets to cover death taxes.
And more. You guys are right that 401ks would have an effect where pensions that were previously a company's liability pure and simple would become this growing powder keg of money.
And when you look at it like that, the next financial crisis could be epic because a lot of those boomers are retiring or retired or dying, and that means that they're about to start selling off those assets, or they're already selling off those assets, or they're going to be forced to sell off assets to cover death taxes.