I think it’s not necessarily a contradiction to hold your pro-choice and anti-death penalty stance, but it’s still a contradiction to hold the pro-life and pro-death penalty stance if your reasoning behind the pro-life stance is that all life is sacred.

I agree that a person’s body autonomy and the state’s power to execute citizens should not overlap, but I still think that giving the “all life is sacred” line to justify pro-life and then being pro-death penalty “because some people deserve to die” amounts to hypocrisy.

If AI is a trillion dollar investment, what trillion dollar problem is it solving?

Why, the trillion dollars not yet in the pockets of the companies that think they can take advantage of AI of course.

The naked truth is that #4 answers #1. The biggest utility AI might provide would be replacing paid workers. That’s a trillion dollar problem if your ultimate goal is to hoard wealth and sit atop the highest pile of gold like a dragon.

So again, we have a solution to a problem only the wealthy elite have, being marketed as an advancement for the greater good of society, to justify stealing the massive resources it consumes, in order to not have to pay that directly to their workers.

Capitalism.

Oh absolutely. In Japan for example if you are unable to work or you get removed from your career, it is socially understandable for you to consider suicide. Lots of Japanese citizens put their job before even their families or the potential of having a family.

It’s actually pretty fuckin crazy what Japanese work culture does to their citizens.

Quiet quitting has always referred to the extra bullshit that employers pressure employees into doing.

In America we’ve fallen into this work culture that implies you aren’t really part of a team unless you are constantly putting forth more than what the employer is paying you for.

The undertone of this headline is that managers feel uneasy because so-called “quiet quitters” won’t take on extra work or unpaid hours or exhibit overwhelming enthusiasm, but just do literally what they have to at a passable or high quality.

The gaslighting part is that those workers aren’t doing anything wrong, but they aren’t bending over backwards for their employers, so corporate America wants to paint the picture that those workers are awful time thieves instead of just burnt out wage slaves.

INTERROBANG

1. A black market would arise. Finished with your show? Get your money back. NFTs aren’t connected to identity like that.

2. They could never pull a stunt like what they’re doing now and make people rebuy things.

3. Advertising opportunity would essentially fall to zero. Ever notice how ads play before and after streaming services nowadays?

4. A subscription model wouldn’t work under this system. Subscriptions pull in a higher net than single selling products.

The current system would be overturned in its entirety by something like this, and that’s why the people making money and holding the rights aren’t going to let it happen.

The reason that’s never going to happen is because it would be the cause of massive profit losses for digital companies.

Capitalism makes the rules.

Normally I’d agree with you, but… 6 day old account? Isn’t that a little like pulling up the ladder?

People on reddit genuinely don’t know because the L word gets the ban hammer there

No ads whatsoever on voyager. Maybe give that a shot?

We’re all clamoring to see your version. I’m sure it’s great

Come on, man. You’re really off your game today. How are you ever going to be a good troll if you can’t even lay out good bait?

This guy is a troll. He spends his time picking fights and deflecting anything that conflicts with his fragile world view. Check his profile.

Just thought you should know. He doesn’t really care about dispensing advice, he just likes feeling superior

Hey, really take what this guy says seriously. Go look at his post history, he’s a pretty prolific troll

They will say they won’t but there’s nothing stopping them. Isn’t that the actual problem?

Ok, but the solution to “lots of users don’t know the difference” isn’t “we might as well show so much less that we reduce the entire problem to a nondescript code that can mean several different things”

There’s literally no reason to do that except to discourage people from solving the problem in the first place, because the users you’re referring to won’t do it either way.

I don’t get why this is a controversial opinion?

Do you realize that those two goals go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive? For example, there’s no benefit in OS usability to putting out a single line error code as opposed to even the slightest detail as to what went wrong. That’s not “making their products easier to use to attract customers” as there’s not a single person in existence that judges an OS on how little they have to know about an error.

That’s mystificatiom of the system.

While it’s true that an overall goal of a company like ms is to sell more operating systems, that doesn’t mean that learned helplessness isn’t in the syllabus somewhere.

It’s possible that compared to the way the OP regards the average Microsoft user, they might just consider apple users more like monkeys at a keyboard and felt no need to mention them.

Sounds like something tasker could do