A friend of mine who grew up in China told me about these 3 wheel electric cars that could carry 2 people and a bit of cargo that all kinds of people would drive around when he was in high school. It meant more people had personal transportation, and because they were small and not meant for use on highways, they used very little material and didn't need overwhelming amounts of batteries so were relatively inexpensive and didn't need special measures to charge. Some people even started businesses driving people around a taxi service sort of thing.
Soon the government caught wind of it and cracked down on it since only driving around expensive looking cars maintained china's "face".
Something like this is a solution to several problems at once. Many people don't have personal transportation at all, and this would provide them with something they can afford. Just like hybrids, it wouldn't require overwhelming electrical infrastructure and depending on how they're built you could potentially carry spare batteries so you might not need to charge remotely.
But just like with hybrids being a solution they don't care about because it can enable improvement while actually helping people's quality of life, it seems like electric city cars aren't an option either. The only option they're interested in is returning to feudalism where the poor live in mud huts and the rich live in castles surrounded by the best of everything.
Soon the government caught wind of it and cracked down on it since only driving around expensive looking cars maintained china's "face".
Something like this is a solution to several problems at once. Many people don't have personal transportation at all, and this would provide them with something they can afford. Just like hybrids, it wouldn't require overwhelming electrical infrastructure and depending on how they're built you could potentially carry spare batteries so you might not need to charge remotely.
But just like with hybrids being a solution they don't care about because it can enable improvement while actually helping people's quality of life, it seems like electric city cars aren't an option either. The only option they're interested in is returning to feudalism where the poor live in mud huts and the rich live in castles surrounded by the best of everything.
Anti-asbestos people are pro-fire. If only our homes were made out of strong, fireproof asbestos! 180,000 people per year die in fires, and in spite of this, the pro-fire crowd continues to push their racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic agenda! In the 30 years since asbestos was banned, as many as 6 million preventable deaths from fire have occurred, and that's all on the shoulders of the pro-fire lobby. #asbestosisnotover
(Just having some fun)
(Just having some fun)
Anyone else remember when Twitter was supposed to have gone permanently dark by now because all those employees were totes important an critical to running a website?
I just made chatgpt go full angrily soyjack by proposing the bank of Japan, which owns over 50% of Japanese government debt just finish the job buying 100% of Japanese government debt then have the legislature dissolve the debt, ending a 22 trillion yen per year debt service cost which is more money than the Japanese government has been in deficit for most of the past 15 years.
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
I can absolutely believe that. Throw the right platitudes out without crossing the line into actually advocating anything, then you can say something two different people interpret two completely different ways.
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I made a bit of a mistake referring to it. The actual phrase is "one screen, two movies" referring to a pop politics idea that there's a disconnect between different political factions and despite living in the same world they're seeing completely different things. It seems to me that this would be a natural consequences of the rejection of an idea of objective facts, so instead of learning what data everyone has and trying to come up with a truth that integrates all the facts you have one sides subjectively held facts and the other sides subjectively held facts and you can never agree on anything because you can't even start from a remotely common data set.
So the modern skeptic question is "how do I know I exist", and one response to that was "I think therefore I am", but the postmodern extrapolation of that appears to be "I think therefore I am therefore I am whatever I think and so is everything else because I can't actually count on anything else objectively speaking"
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
I'm curious about this. What are postmodern notions of individualism, and how is this distinct from the prior notion of individualism such that it makes a key distinction so we can call one form stupid and the other not stupid?
Problem with ai as the future of any media industry: work created by an ai algorithm is not copyrightable in the US. That being the case, a music industry relying on AI would lose its ability to protect those works.
Nationalizing the Internet by giving control of social media to the radio regulator the CRTC.
With the passage of Bill C-11, I've closed registrations for this instance.
The people responsible should rejoice for every day they have on earth, because one day they'll die of old age peacefully in their beds, and they'll face an eternity answering to their ancestors for their atrocities.
The people responsible should rejoice for every day they have on earth, because one day they'll die of old age peacefully in their beds, and they'll face an eternity answering to their ancestors for their atrocities.
AI isn't capable of producing Jean Claude Van Damme going "I'm going to take my bo-at and I'm going to go down the reeeever"
Because that's art.
Because that's art.
There's a lot of people who think their "rights" trump everyone else's *rights*.
What's the difference? Natural rights are things you would have without anyone else around. Rights to life, liberty, property. You're free to speak, you're free to travel, you're free to believe whatever you want or have whatever religion you want. With nobody around to stop you, you can have these things.
You don't have a right to other people's labor. You don't have a right to other people's children. You have a right to say what you think but you don't have any right to force others to say what you think. You have a right to believe what you want to believe but you don't have a right to force others to believe what you believe. You have a right to follow whatever religion you want, but you don't have a right to impose that religion on anyone else.
What's the difference? Natural rights are things you would have without anyone else around. Rights to life, liberty, property. You're free to speak, you're free to travel, you're free to believe whatever you want or have whatever religion you want. With nobody around to stop you, you can have these things.
You don't have a right to other people's labor. You don't have a right to other people's children. You have a right to say what you think but you don't have any right to force others to say what you think. You have a right to believe what you want to believe but you don't have a right to force others to believe what you believe. You have a right to follow whatever religion you want, but you don't have a right to impose that religion on anyone else.
"killing innocent people and taking their stuff is hecking valid!"
These fokkin people
These fokkin people