Imagine being a proponent of a social credit system because 'meh economic freedom' when the irony is individual freedom becomes constrained by what the top seems prosocial in a social system. Amazing. You're not for maximum total freedom, you're just outsourcing hierarchy to an ecosystem of fintech third parties who use govt to enforce it. The ban might be better than you think, fool.
Even if this was the case it's actually worse if they don't since this would also indicate a lag in technological capability. Something that, say relevant to what we just experienced, makes supply and production vulnerable to shutting down.
Sorry to hear. Yeah it's crazy out here, for those accomplished and those also still learning the pace of relevance related to appreciation and job entry is chaotic as accelerating factors brings us closer to the singularity. No cultural and structural support for folks is being established really.
That sounds ab9ut right. Its a band-aid for expanding standard care and standard diagnoatics and general preventative(pre-op weight manahement, diabetes etc). For specialist and subsequent non-streamlined health necessities like treatment for extensive illnesses (cancer, autoimmune disease, cardiovasc, nervous, muscular disease, tumor response care) and spur of the moment operation stuffs, wont hold much. Need a bigger systemic solution.
Angry porn for wagey simps from garbage news sites. Next.
Why dont you find something real and systemic to get outraged at like hedgefunders, milotary industrial complex, or the fda.
lol so growth is good no matter if you end up with no digital rights because 'muh freedom'. Got it. Even though there is every indication to suggest that the freedom and liberty being produced isn't absolute and requires not just progress, but ultimately particularity in the landscape (lest you're left with amazon-fed partnership in a surveillance state, an oligopoly of cloud landscape and the elimination of actual property rights since everything becomes leased, and a fed-corpo conglomeracy over just about everything else). So yeah, i guess if I prefer a reasonable outcome, i do have at least that freedom to espouse it. Lame-o.
Expanding the economy benefits everyone, but really it's more nuanced. Yes you need (ambient) growth because growth equals change which hopefully you get (good) innovations. But you can have growth down bad paths like cloud slavery and the erosion of machinic/digital ownership so growth for growth sake may be maliciously ignorant without the nuance of what the consumer and product landscape is like. On that alone I'll rebuke growth over equality. You don't want to become a bootloader for a paperclip system of bad innovation and social organization. Ah figures this was written by a 'classical* liberal'.
On the flip side is this not an example of technological deceleration that we aren't seeing mass deployment and adaptation? Maybe it's not a good thing either.
I'll support them, but I'll go a step further and say we need to deeply evaluate the structure of higher ed, a lot of reform is necessary else it's mostly a ponzi scheme
Important to note in the west especially government is not just the state but a coalition between state operators and corporate operators, either general(various industry) or specific(ex; defense or banking)
This presumption is your mind in an ivory tower under national bias. It's important to note how the 1918 pandemic didn't influence all countries 'roar' equally. Parts of europe were recovering, the roaring 20s was a predominantly American phenomenon also in part due to industrial surges from the war.
To would be downvoters, list contributions of pinker that's novel and long lasting? Until then I'll continue to view him as another overrated commercial intellectual.
2040 is a better bet and it shouldn't be low. Enough time to mature biotech for novel biologics outside of nature and the technological means(method + access) to pose risk. Ugh pinker is such a pseud in the ivory tower.
This has been stated over and over again, what next? In the past iq was used to justify desirables/undesirables and to some is still used to influence policy or opinion pertaining to resources. Speculation of ubiquitous ai and neural implants on augmented human intelligence is never discussed, and so the (contemporary boundaries of the) topic remains circular between iq skeptics and metricist. At the end of the day, when it comes to the topic it hasn't moved much at all.