Yeah but their argument is that if someone takes a photo of you with thier iphone and its uploaded to icloud, you cant ask apple to delete the photo, you need to ask the person who took it
I agree with the thesis but i dont agree about elon buying twitter. That was really messy, but it was clear later on that he did it to manipulate the election for trump, and that bet paid off amazongly well for him in hindsight. Not only did twitter turn out to be ceitical in spreading misinformation (how many morons didnt vote for harris because they thought shed start a war in the middle east) but that then also gave him crazy access to the government. It fell out later, but it was probably the most effective 40bil anyone today could hope to spend
Its shocking how they didnt. Imagine how shit the culture must be when employees arent bothering to consider how the user will use the feature, just focussing on getting it through
can happen at the same time when businesses speculatively fire workers to replace with AI. The lack of results might bite them in the ass and the bubble might pop. Or not, but they are going long on their AI position
Large populations of humans not getting their basic needs fulfilled is a feature. That way, those who do have lots of resources get to have even more intense feelings of superiority and that of having high status. That is, after all, the point of wealth accumulation (at least a certain point where more money does not change your life quality meaningfully). For status, its the delta between you and others that matters most. If raising your own wealth has diminishing quality of life returns, then lowering other peoples is the only effective way of increasing the delta.
Your not looming at anything after the first order effects. The idea of work os that people participate in the economy, what does a post work economy look like? How do people have the cashflows necessary to participate in things like housing and food and stuff when their way of contributing to the economy was automated away?
They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem.
A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.
No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread
> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.
>> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor
> Source?
the defendant in the lawsuit can use the plaintiff’s participation
in a "riot," as defined by the 2021 law, as "an affirmative defense."
This means that the person being sued can argue in court that their
action was justified by the riot.
reply