Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.

It’s not a threat of violence, it’s a preferable alternative to violence, for both sides. Revolts aren’t great for those in power, but they are catastrophic for a significant number of those not in power.

And you are missing mine.

Removed by mod

The government gives the working class a way to have their grievances heard and addressed in a way other than starting a rebellion.

Yes, it serves to keep the powerful in power, but that’s irrelevant to my point. It also serves to make sure the little people get taken care of well enough that we don’t kill the ones in power.

For a more specific example, see unions. The alternative to unions is plant managers getting killed.

And explained that he was using AI to do a part of the job that needs to be done by humans, because it helps them figure is the solution.

That’s not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.

They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.

AI slop can be bad but this Bradley doesn’t understand that businesses exist to make money.

This is generally done by making a quality product, not a pile of shit.

You can get awry with selling people shit, if you charge shit prices. But the kind of assholes described in the article are gonna try to sell shit at AAA prices. Then they are gonna blame their team for not AIing hard enough.

Violence is almost always the solution. Civilization is an effort to find a better solution. But people who reject the systems we’ve built up seem to forget why we built then.

This is how you know the Navy isn’t like Star Trek.

Looked to me like an attempt to pull off an in-line bulleted list.

Shot in officer involved shooting?

Shot by a police officer.

Yea, this guy tap-dances well, but if he wasn’t lying to Congress right there, ill eat my hat.

Why the duck are they making a MTG movie instead of Transformers One 2?

As I understand it, these sweatshop jobs do resist the standard of living in the areas they are in. The people there don’t have the option to work a job that we would consider good. They work the job we consider terrible, and they get paid more than they would doing other jobs.

To make a moral judgement, we must balance between “terrible working conditions, no protections, maximum wealth extraction,” on the one hand, and “no infrastructure, no job, no money” on the other. Sadly, there is no profit in making the world better for everyone.

Are you using the US or China as your “here?” Because I don’t think it’s quite that bad in the US, but I don’t think anyone blames the voters in China.

I think it refers to being being out at work, or at a major event.

If I shit myself at work, I’m going home. I’m not coming back, either.

If I’m out hiking, same again.

If i’m running errands, I might have to go back out to finish them. The groceries aren’t gonna buy themselves, and now I really have to do the laundry.

Narrator: he did not, in fact, know what the hell he was doing.

I mean, I’m not 100% opposed to some of the things he claims he’s trying to accomplish. But I’m not what you’d call an expert on the topic, and I might have some bad ideas about how the economy works. But even if I’m not barking up the wrong tree, the things he’s doing are not how you accomplish the things he says he wants to accomplish.

Why do we keep electing stupid old men to office?

Right. They are just gonna let anyone sell anything.

My wife is artsy, and I’m sciency. Maybe we can go into snake oil.

Ah, you forget the alternative. Instead of quicker review, we could just reduce oversight, and remove safety regulations.

Agreed, but that was kind of the premise of the discussion, I think.