But then capital can't pretend that it's doing anything. It spends all of its time now acting like ownership is a job rather than a title in order to justify itself. If a machine can manage, then it makes it more obvious that they are simply royals, ruling by self-decree.
Royals needed gods to justify themselves; when gods die or are switched out, royals are deleted or deposed.
I'm looking forward to the "coordination problem" being debunked. It's always been a demand that economic problems must be impossible to solve centrally, rather than a proof (a demand that justifies 2/5 of the economy going to the financial industry to produce nothing but coordination.) I actually thought that the success of algorithmic trading was enough to do it.
it's about the only way of reconciling experimental validity (if the AI can't "fire" staff and remove them from business operations and their P&L account in situations when it would be legal and normal to do so, is it really running a business?) and not having the massive ethical issue of people being arbitrarily fired because a computer glitched. Whether that's what they actually do is tbc.
> AAVE itself is drastically different depending on the part of the US you’re in.
That's because AAVE is a really dumb term that only caught on because a black man (McWhorter) introduced it.
It was a convenient way to advertise your inclusiveness while simultaneously dismissing the way black people speak by lumping them all together (a lot of woke has been insisting that all black people, or even all non-white people are fungible, like commodities.) Even better, you could show that you listen to a black linguist who, iirc, is the son of professors who grew up in a university environment, knowing no more about black language variation than any number of white people.
The way black Americans speak is as varied as the way white Americans speak, and is often far more similar to their white neighbors than to the black people in the next state over. Also, black Americans don't call themselves "African-American" unless they were raised in a white environment. Never have.
> Also, black Americans don't call themselves "African-American" unless they were raised in a white environment. Never have.
I'm guessing you either don't remember or weren't alive in the 1990's. It was a whole grassroots movement and pretending it didn't exist is extremely insensitive, to put it mildly.
> and is often far more similar to their white neighbors than to the black people in the next state over
Actually you might be right depending on how integrated the area is:
Exhibit A: Your Old Droog
Exhibit B: Lord Sko
As an adult my normal speaking voice is closer to a relaxed California accent. It’s clear , but it always leaves room to weasel out of certain situations.
If I could I’d probably use a Mid Atlantic Madmen accent. That accent gets things done.
No such thing. And if you just want to assign anybody who works in IT to it in order to create the concept of such of a thing, a large percentage of this community would work at Google, a company that depends on Google, or a company that has the same attitude as google.
So it's less pie in the sky than nonsense. People don't talk about things changing in the physical world without talking about force, mass and inertia, but when it comes to people, the theory of power just evaporates and we start wishing for things to spontaneously happen because we've declared that they should happen.
With some weird definition of "should" which relies on our personal conception of the world. In the physical world, we say something "should" happen when we expect it to happen based on our theories of how the world works. With people we say things "should" happen when we personally want them hard enough.
There was a time before Google when various mailing lists of grumpy sysadmins in key institutions could decide the fate of a new mail sender, internet-wide. But yes that "internet community" is small fry now, and can only cut off their own noses if they don't like Google's mail policies.
Before Google, AOL were the previous big-beast mail host, and they did provide some tools to help diagnose why you couldn't get through to their users. It still felt like there was more of a balance of power towards the grumpy sysadmins.
> Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says
This is true, but only because Google is a horrific monopoly and is allowed to continue to be (and to grow) only by the grace of government. If they don't do what they're told, they won't be allowed to steal in the way that they are accustomed to doing.
I don't think that anybody who controls Google misses a moment of sleep over it, though. They're being "forced" to do it like a kid is being "forced" not to do their homework if you offer them candy. It's easy and lucrative to be passive.
Notice how pro-free speech = pro-clearing brush buildup?
It's so weird how people join these partisan factions that have a full package of beliefs that you have to be evil not to share. Woe to your job if you say that you think brush buildup should be cleared; you're obviously racist.
The culty character of contemporary politics is entirely due to the complete destruction of labor rights. We've created a situation where you need to have particular political/ideological beliefs to work, because we've failed to protect people from being fired for their political beliefs.
Or more accurately, we've guaranteed that people can be fired instantly, for any arbitrary reason other than one specifically hinging on their membership of a protected class. However, the only way to prove that you've been fired for being in a protected class is for somebody to have clearly said this on a recording or in writing. If they say "no, I fired him for liking superhero movies" they're good to go. So even traditional civil rights actions have been basically annulled, and justice can only be done by activist judges ignoring the letter of the law.
It's important to say that the vast majority of middle class people now support people being fired for political beliefs. They only get angry when people are fired for supporting their political beliefs. They will regret this.
I almost think this Spotify stuff is an op, just like I think the archive.org covid library was an op. Just pulling these targeted orgs into stupid decisions that will leave most of the public unsympathetic, in order to justify more law enforcement resources to go after them.
When I imagine AA going offline for stupid pop music piracy, it makes me angry. They're basically where virtually all of the old archive.org material landed, and nobody else is mirroring it. 95% of it can't be purchased; you either dl it from AA, or do an interlibrary loan through libraries that barely exist anymore, or if you live in some little and/or poor country, you just don't get to read it.
The material in our history of nonfiction writing represents a far wider range of opinion than we're allowed to have right now. Eliminating all of it at once (as libraries throw books away and/or close down), and commercially reissuing approved and reedited things as ebooks (that can be edited again, and again) is a nightmare future. Maybe it's even an optimistic nightmare future - we'll just be expected to accept what the AI says.
Perhaps one day we will invent a technology that allows computers to connect to each other directly, and share information freely across some sort of distributed network.
Because their assets would have been vastly overvalued. The bailout is when the government buys those assets at as close to that fictional valuation as they can, and likely then sells them back at their actual worth.
> Absolutely no reason for a bail out.
There's never been any reason for a bailout. It's just handing tax money to wealthy people who have made bad decisions.
Royals needed gods to justify themselves; when gods die or are switched out, royals are deleted or deposed.
I'm looking forward to the "coordination problem" being debunked. It's always been a demand that economic problems must be impossible to solve centrally, rather than a proof (a demand that justifies 2/5 of the economy going to the financial industry to produce nothing but coordination.) I actually thought that the success of algorithmic trading was enough to do it.
reply