Nasrudith

What do we want? Meaningless preventable toil! When do we want it? Now!

It isn't AI generated it is just plain a vacuous cliche. Seriously what is with people who think 'they can always tell it is AI' when really AI is living rent free in their head and they fixate on anything they don't like and are oh so convinced it must be the AI they hate. They're exactly like Fundamentalists and the devil. Or Communists and how they think capitalism literally intentionally created everything as harmful as possible just to spite them.

Listen, if they actually had the ability to detect bots perfectly just from owning a big tech company, then we wouldn't need spam filters. Perfect bot detection would be a very valuable product. It is one thing to hold responsibility to those with power, it is another to ask the literally impossible of them.

It is important to remember that meritocracy isn't a binary, it is a spectrum. Just having exams based upon literacy and ability to understand poetry about flowers for bureaucratic positions that do paperwork is more meritocratic than just a literal aristocracy and ensures literacy, but it still isn't necessarily the most relevant ability to actual ability to perform the job. Then there is the question if office politics qualify as actual job skill or is just a derailment of merit.

Furthermore there are complications with unequal resources and means of training. Not just from some families having more money, but also from more knowledge. Children who are read to are more likely to be literate, family businesses, and all that. The unequal resources raises deeper questions about what is the origin of merit.

The real world is messy like that.

Creating huge inequalities among people as opposed to highlighting them? Seriously? That doesn't sound like something derived from reasoning, it sounds like rationalization from feelings first.

We have health codes and regulations to prevent commercialization of food production in potentially substandard conditions. It prevents both good and bad things.

The frog in those experiments had its brain destroyed first. Just saying.

Tesla not being unionized was the main guess I heard about it at the time. The legacy auto industry has a history of outsized political influence leading to many dumb decisions on politician's part from an administrative success perspective.

I don't know either really, I'm just reporting remembered second-hand sources.

Morally there are also a boatload of problematic assumptions behind communism. Start with its defacto assumptions that the state is entitled to the labor of everyone. It doesn't treat people as having any sort of agency whatsoever, just a commodity for the ruler. Their 'virtue' only goes as far as how they serve. That they denominate the unit of value as the toil of its subjects as something it has in abundance for granted, and thus as near worthless, and problem solving as a matter of throwing bodies into the breech. Meaning little need to improve efficiency. The produced goods are expensive and scarce. All the same problems as slavery.

In the end there is an awkward question. What separates Communism from a bronze age god-king's palace economy where everyone is a slave of the ruler?

That is arguing a distinction which is a really bad look.

You don't actually know the definition of empathy, do you?

Personally I can't help but think that 'reasonable' is a dangerous legal standard due to its unpredictability, subjectivity and assumed values and knowledge. Is it reasonable to put powdered aluminum and iron oxide into paint? What about when the paint is going onto a Zeppelin? Oh wait, those are thermite's ingredients. Oops. Is it reasonable for the paint seller to be held liable for selling paint with common reagents?

Don't ultimately even the ones which are vision + LIDAR ultimately have to choose priority in terms of one or the other for "What do you do if LIDAR says it is blocked and sight says it is clear' or visa-versa?" Trying to handle edge-cases where say LIDAR thinks that sprinker mist is a solid object and to swerve to avoid it and say vision which thinks that an optical illusion is a real path and not a brick wall.

The Great Filter is just bullshit until we come across space ruins to prove that something has been filtering out civilizations. It is possible that we are just the "precursors" without any giants to stand upon the shoulders of.

Catastrophazing new media hasn't gone out of fashion yet. Remember when it was Reality TV that was supposed to be the downfall of civilizations?

At worst the same way that performing CPR on a man with a heart attack is problem shifting, or feeding the hungry only makes them hungry again in the future.

Wind turbines are not problems. They are opportunities. Notice that thr specious bullshit problems cited with wind turbines go away in rural areas once farmers are the ones making money on them.

Again, if the voters bought it they are responsible for it and not the advocates. There is a reason that nobody named in the Epstein files is running a normalize pedophilia campaign. Because contrary to the rhetoric about money being the end all in politics it doesn't work for everything.

Reminds me of the one bizzare rationalization in California claiming high speed stops will somehow bring burglaries. I am not sure what blend of NIMBYism, racism, classism, or xenophobia came up with that.

Personally I suspect Autoped wouldn't do too well, it would provoke too many jokes about robo-pedophiles, not quite as bad as Nonce Finance, though.

Nitpick. Governments don't have privacy. They have opacity. Don't anthropomorphize governments, especially not to that extent.

Why wouldn't Peter Principle apply just because the magical financial threshold is crossed? This is Peter Principle in a textbook way, a promotion from managing companies to managing the government.

Because people were so sick of their shit, and they already got their asses beaten so hard that they turned a fundamentalist city into an atheistic one. Banned in Boston used to be a thing. Boston itself got sick of that puritan bullshit.

They know that re-litigating that is a road to ruin because 'artistic merit' is so well tread a ground in literature.

You're seriously using the cliche used to justify jailing objectors to World War One unironically?

Laws which are open to abuse are bad laws. Full stop.

Paranoia of the war on drugs is part of it as well. Some are afraid that kids with large sums of cash would spend it on drugs or alcohol and it is more difficult to barter giftcards for drugs.

Not a good reason but it is a real one I have heard.

To be fair 'common sense' and 'many people have been shouting it' about technical matters have a long history of being hilariously wrong. Like claims that trains would cause organ damage to their riders from going at the blistering speed of either 35 or 50 mph, IIRC. Or about manned flight being impossible. Common sense would tell you that launching a bunch of broadcasting precise clocks into orbit wouldn't be usable to determine the distance, and yet here we are with GPS.

Nor did the fixed price controls they were often saddled with. It seems that politicians are congenitally completely incapable of considering inflation indexing as a concept when they are writing laws.

Street cars are a red herring anyway. Because street cars don't maintain anywhere near the same number of routes as free-form roads. It is a routing problem still, and railed vehicles perform much, much worse at it, which is why they need to be time multiplexed with rail schedules.

There would need to be some form of punishment towards them for their failure to deter them.

The most 'accessible' options to a disgruntled populace (or a small portion of it, down to N=1) are generally recognized as extreme things that very few sane people are on board with, because they are recognized widely as bad precedents for societies. Things like issuing death threats, assassinations, or burning down parliament buildings. To state what I hope is already obvious - this is not an endorsement of violence. For one Japan's history of 'government by assassination' was incredibly ugly and helped lead to extremism which helped lead to Imperial Japan's conduct becoming notorious as they did.

There are other far more peaceful options to be considered but they would require high degrees of coordination and agreement. For an example, the classic Amish shunning - if legislatures faced utter social ostracism for their attempts then they would be unlikely to attempt it again.

I'm not sure what policies could even provoke such extreme responses as those listed (violent or otherwise) in the first place, but for better or worse Chat Control isn't one of them. My most realistic guess would be that trying to abolish the pension/retirement system altogether.

Nothing prevents the prevailing trends from being utterly stupid. Just the opposite, really.

The best argument in my opinion against "nothing to hide" is that you don't get to decide that. The accuser does. If that doesn't scare you then you didn't think it through fully.

A change in regieme is a downright terrifying variant of Pascal's Wager - where you are judged for heresies against ideologies that were obscure or didn't even exist yet.

The Khmer Rogue made being an intellectual or wearing glasses something to hide. All sorts of absurd ideological hypotheticals become terrifying.

I don't think you understand what "inherently dangerous" actually means.

FYI murder requires intent, otherwise it is just manslaughter. Your indoctrination is showing by your turns of phrase.