coolaliasbro

I completely agree with the drift of your comment, but would nitpick the notion of "sharing" in this context: since, as has been explained above, the system is effectively gamed to legitimize the capturing of value by those that already have most of it from those that produce it and do not, the current situation is tantamount to legalized theft by one class from another. I don't follow that a thief can share something he stole with the person from which he stole it.

> Unregulated capitalism is not what's causing the massive inequality we see today. It's the financial and monetary policies.

Well, considering that financial and monetary policies are aimed at deregulation, and that financialization of the economy in developed countries is a thing, it would appear that unregulated capitalism is precisely what is causing massive inequality.

To be clear, the billions controlled by these 8 individuals are not in the majority held in cash. The notion of redistributing this wealth is about socializing the benefits and gains from capital investments. As such, a restructuring of this wealth would not look like handing circa $165 to every person on the planet.

> Do you know that 8 people in the world have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people. That inequality is STAGGERING.

This. This is the root of the issue in its entirety. As a civilized species (civilized in the sense that we "have" civilization) we should ban as a practice and ostracize those that propone the privatization of capital gains and the socialization of capital losses. Period. The figure posted by parent speaks volumes of the flaws of the currently dominant economic paradigm.

I hate to get too tangential and throw shade in a generically, but I've always felt like those of us that aspire to be millionaires, etc., are doing it wrong.

> I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain.

Agreed. And when the businesses receiving these credits are primarily "creating" low-paying service sector positions, the picture is even more bleak.

> vehicles could move around almost in tunnel-like back-alleys, with periodic embarkation points into pedestrianized open plazas and boulevards.

Sounds an awful lot like a subway or lite rail system to me. I've never understood the fascination with self-driving cars and what they imply for PT--how is such a system superior to a well designed and maintained train system?

This is ridiculous. I mean, so many angles...

Can't they just train their system to do whatever it is they propose that it do in response to alleged revenge porn, but with any nude image/nude images generally? Will their system prevent the propagation of revenge porn videos?

I would argue that it was his understanding of ownership and causality that landed him an OS sans building one.

I mostly agree with this sentiment (though I grant that there may be other, more nuanced views with which I might also agree) and find its implication a little startling: that one's life is really "One's Life: The Movie".

Computers.

Can you clarify the issue with parent's tone? I only read a set of rhetorical questions that made a slight appeal to emotion, which seems appropriate considering that the future of peoples' livelihoods are being discussed.

You had me at "social elites".

Indeed, but considering some of the comments from other parents on this thread--and accounting for my own experience--spending time with one's children, just being present in the world together, exploring and fostering experiential learning, is not as simple as it would at first appear. Parents' lives are beset by demands and obligations outside those of parenting and managing a household, so it can be incredibly difficult to balance these disparate tasks and still make time to be present in the lives of their children on a timetable that does not begin to negatively impact the children's development.

Quality time is important and possibly one of the scarcest commodities in our economy. The importance of experiential learning (eg, dining together at the table), wherein a child learns about the world firsthand, including how to comport oneself in various situations, cannot be understated.

Completely agree. In our house, TV === PBS stations. Daniel Tiger, et al., on PBS Kids are phenomenal. I would also point out that, at least in the case of my son, he is much more socially and temporally present when watching TV than when using his mother's phone (I do not share my devices with him). There's the additional annoyance that when using the phone, he wants to watch one of us play. He doesn't want to play the game himself or with us, he wants to spectate. So, TV is usually my preferred option for screen time.

"First, opponents claim that plaintiffs are better served by acting individually than by joining a group lawsuit."

Then why should it matter if plaintiffs want to act collectively (ie, put themselves at a disadvantage according to the quote above)--wouldn't that benefit the opponents?

Superpositions!

I think parent was referring to children that can read, but in any case, children don't come preloaded with tablets, etc.. If my son decides to get crafty and throw a fit because I will not let him play with my phone (ever) or a PS4 controller or whatever, his ass can sit in his room and figure it out and/or cry. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

You're right that businesses presently are not charities or good-will missions, but perhaps they should be. The way most businesses are currently run (ie, as profit mills chasing growth at any cost) is detrimental to the environment, society, and the economy itself. Business for its own sake is stupid AF.

I think it is important here to draw a distinction between equivalence without type conversion (eg, ===) vs. equivalence with type conversion (==).

While it may be the case that a robonanny can change a diaper or administer a bottle with a precision greater than or equal to a human human nanny (==), it is not the case that the robonanny understands viscerally what its connection to its charge is (===). Humans are a product of biological evolution and as such, there are certain features of our cognition that are very, very difficult to overcome, not least of which is our collective hangup on our own internal categories (ie, types). This is precisely the reason many people experience possiveness, nostalgia, a fear of the "other", etc., and I believe it also goes a long way toward explaining why so many folks speak of interacting with robots as if they were human as 'icky' or otherwise suboptimal.

That said, I personally believe that we are doing ourselves a disservice by dismissing the humanistic value of providing, on a cultural/societal level, a means for most of us to keep ourselves occupied, fed, and sheltered, regardless of whatever impact such activity may or may not have on the finances of giant corporations.

To quote Daft Punk, "We are human after all".