rexpop

Yawn. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum. The lines are drawn. I'm over it.

I think for some businesses, it's reasonable to make hay while the sun shines.

> “That’s bullshit and loser thinking. Of course it’s possible to be fast and secure,” Yen wrote in the channel at the end of August.

What a jerk. I agree that security doesn't have to be given time—like all software, implementation takes the time it takes.

But he doesn't have to be such an asshole about it. In my book, there's nothing more representative of "loser thinking" than casting petulant aspersions like "loser thinking."

> 3: Michael Nygard commented: “There you really aren't trying to communicate thoughts from one person to other people. You're communicating with a process rather than a human. A human may open the envelope but that person is acting as a component in a cybernetic organism.”

But of course: manufactuting itself creates " productive mechanism whose parts are human beings, as Adam Ferguson describes the industrial workshop: "an engine, the parts of which are men".

Can't we ask on behalf of one another?

I guess I view a general strike as the inevitable precipitation of labor organizing critical mass.

And I also think of it as pretty esoteric to the mainstream, TBH.

You're right—happiness is meaningful, and the pursuit of eudaimonia may well be the most moral act.

Can you truly be happy while billions suffer unnecessarily?

Labor organizing?

Calvinist "work ethic" is a problematic doctrine, but it's still more moral than a structurally oppressive synecure.

You're comfortably ensconced within a powerful economic inequality machine, and you're fighting for your right... to party? It's a bit gauche.

At least I tell myself I'm keeping the lights on for many families.

Major state interventions that altered labor supply or rebalanced wealth (eg such as standardizing the 8-hour workday, establishing public pensions, or funding universal education) were won through waves of union mobilization and working-class political pressure.

It's not one or the other. Unionization is literally (figuratively) the hand that pulls those levers.

Why don't we enforce labor laws? Why is it legally permitted to do business with slavers?

Yeah, buddy. The structural collapse of workplace sociability is just one facet of the overall dismantling of long-term relational social contracts in favor of contingent, hyper-mobile labor arrangements.

In-person, copresent time spent with friends has _also_ collapsed by roughly 60% over the last two decades. The social fabric of our civilization is thinning out!

Have you seen _The Matrix_? That's pretty much where this is all headed: total corporate mediation of human experience and relationships. You are forced to passively contemplate as an audience member the very concepts of joy and creative agency that oyr current economic architecture denies you from living.

Your nostalgia is valid; you're being cheated! Swindled! Thieved blind!

Dense, multi-stranded local networks and informal support structures are an obstacle to the Capitalist imperative to enclose every non-monetized "commons" and turn every facet of human life into an immediate site of market extraction.

The only solution is engaging neighbors and co-workers in direct conversations to name our concrete, everyday grievances.

Directly! And not on moderated forums like these, where powerful techno-elitists can continue the project of mediating our reality. (Hi, Tom!)

Not at all what OP is talking about. Re-read the comment. They're lamenting the isolation and atomization of current working environments.

I'm attending in-person local political organizing meetings and we're all just locals concerned about, among other things, Flock.

I would like to personally register my own homegrown, organic, hard-working American backlash.

This line of argument is popular bullshit.

Technology is not linear. There are many paths it can take.

Your contributions are somewhat unique. To a certain degree, if you don't make it, no one will.

What's "and such"?

What does it choose when choosing? A name? A party? A platform?

> Each model ran through its maker's own API with that maker's web search.

Oh, so quite open-ended.

LGTM, haha. Too abstract to critique. XD

That's the most frustrating aspect. They act as if we've trampled on their rights, but all we're doing is conserving our own energy and not carrying water for their ideology.

Since when is anyone freely entitled to my time and attention?

When you say "teach them empathy," you're talking like empathy is a fact which can be gifted.

Who is the 'we' that is teaching empathy, and who is the 'them' receiving it?

Are we possessors of moral wisdom, and they deficient, empty vessels?

Sorry, I forgot pastors existed. I assumed OP meant "God".

Freire also said:

> With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed.

Yes, I support capital punishment for federal crimes committed as acts of governance.

Yikes! Way to raise mammon up to the altar of God.

CEOs are psychopaths.

I didn't say renewable energy—I said "sustainable infrastructure", and I was principally thinking of public transit, but there are countless more dimensions above and beyond energy generation.

Even still, fossil fuel revenues dwarf renewables by ×3-6.

Yes. Not immediately—firstly, because the finite speed of light in a vacuum precludes simultaneity—but eventually, when relieved of rent-seeking intermediaries, we'd be free to invest in sustainable infrastructure.

This is some quaint editorial work, and compelling, but this totalizing historical assertion is smuggling a lot it assumptions into the conversation.

> Avoid generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage.

See: Hacker News Guidelines

> Now, let us enjoy the end, however it may come.

This sort of nihilism/defeatism always irks me. It's so selfish, so privileged.

Tell my starved, murdered ancestors "let us enjoy the end" of their era of stability's denoument.

And, truly, it is not the end. Inconveniently, many—if not most—of us will survive. Will continue on. And it's for the betterment of those who come after us that we ought to toil a little, and not indulge in this childish, self-interested to nihilism.

marginalized populations have repeatedly survived past "apocalypses" not through aesthetic surrender, but through the deliberate, daily reproduction of the commons, ie through pooling resources, sustaining life for its own sake, and preserving collective memory.

Yielding to fashionable doomism merely validates the oppressor's narrative that the future is already decided. A superstition of doom is no different from a superstition of inevitable progress; both models rely on an abstract determinism that strips humans of agency, that encourages the us to accept suffering as unalterable destiny or "the will of God" rather than an artificial, historical barrier.

So, I agree with a lot of what OP is saying, but I think they're a jerk.

Yeah, and the Iowa Writers’ Workshop and Jackson Pollock were promoted by CIA as a psyop—but that's a fact. We don't have to speculate and insinuate.

What sort of "infiltration" is that?