pjhenry1216

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 420 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Corporations: hey guys, let's unionize so the government doesn't exploit us.

Employees: hey, can we als...

Corporations: NO.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The potential for AI to grow into something much more capable, unbiased and fair then any of is can be is obvious

It absolutely is not obvious. AI, especially today, is usually either generative based on past examples or evolutionary based on given goals. Both of those come with obvious and extreme bias. Bias is actually an integral part of machine learning. It's literally built into the system and is defined and controlled to achieve the results desired.

AI is and always will be biased, moreso by its creators, but absolutely by the information and frameworks provided to it. We have absolutely no idea how to approach the concept of an unbiased AI, or even defining what unbiased would look like. It's philosophically extremely difficult to define what an unbiased person would think or do.

Edit: somehow I missed that last sentence fragment. I don't think we're in disagreement of the conclusion, but possibly just the details of how one arrives at it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Oligarchs aren't necessarily rich, they just achieved power in some fashion. Plutarchs achieved power through wealth. It's the main difference between plutocracy and oligarchy. While oligarchy and oligarchs aren't technically incorrect, they are less accurate. Especially if you're trying to drive the point of wealth as being the source of power. Not criticizing, just letting you know there's a faster route to saying what you want to say.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

This is a ridiculous analogy. It's also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you're doing is trying to claim I'm making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn't communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn't been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I'm not even claiming communism can or can't work. Just that the arguments provided don't support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn't give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I've even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You act as if it's been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it's not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn't devolve into it. It's simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you're unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don't know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn't devolve into authoritarianism. They're not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It's like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn't devolve into one. They're not the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Income share isn't actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn't mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn't buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you're unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you're actively misleading people.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (16 children)

You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

I'm skeptical of any claims when they're only touted by the one selling it. I'll wait to see if it actually gets implemented anywhere and is verified by a third party.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

instead of creating an Android app, iOS app and a desktop app.

Why do that when you can just have a buggy and crappy experience taylored specifically for each device?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In things where I can't avoid an account, I use an email alias (personally I use Mozilla Relay, but Proton Pass offers logins as well if I recall.

Edit: for clarity, this adds at least a level of abstraction from my actual data. It's not the only thing I do, such as blackhole DNS via PiHole, VPN in other scenarios, Tor for others (for those curious, pihole and Tor don't work at the same time, and pihole and VPN generally doesn't either without extra work and it's not compatible with every VPN).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I just googled it. It seems to be the mortgage lock-in effect that's the number one driving factor for lack of homes. Mortgage rates are too high so people aren't selling. They do mention construction under-building, but it's not really the main cause. Also in 2021, California passed a law allowing single family homes to become up to 4-family dwellings... oh... this lead to a bunch of companies coming in and paying cash for homes to convert to rental units. And there's actually been a lot of push to make it easier to build more and further deregulate and that seems to be having none of your expected outcomes.... because it's not really the biggest reason. And again, it has even had some of the opposite due to zoning deregulation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm trying to wrap my head around "invagination". Like I'm pretty sure I get the general gist of the meaning, but it's really making me realize I don't think I know the etymology of the root word at all...

view more: ‹ prev next ›