Fuck, I’ll look at code I wrote like a month ago and be like, “what was I thinking?”. So I try to fix it, run into some stupid issue and be like, “oh, right.”
And this is why comments are useful on code who’s purpose or reasoning isn’t super obvious or even looks counter intuitive.
It doesn’t have to do with Star Trek. That’s just the name of the Lemmy instance that uploaded it. The community it’s uploaded to is comicstrips@lemmy.world.
Over the top is the correct way and I will die* on this hill.
I think you’re missing a glaring obvious issue there. It’s right there. Just look a little harder.
-cis gendered white guy (only sort of old)
The dog’s grammar isn’t great. Maybe the dog is stupid.
I feel like they have poor track records in choosing books. They seem to only ever choose Young Adult Fiction… which isn’t bad, but if the ones they tend to choose, they’re usually very tropey.
And we have A24 studios. They seem to be doing a pretty good job lately.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Tbf, if a job posting like that goes out, that is not a company you want to work for. It’s a lot more rare for that scenario. The more problematic situation is a bunch of companies simply wanting years of experience but for entry level jobs with entry level pay.
You understand that the better version of your argument is better regulation, not less regulation, right? That’s really the core of my point. Plus, the items you mentioned still have other benefits that need to be weighed against (and lack of contractors isn’t even a regulation, it’s a possible outcome of some other regulation, which is probably the licensing, but that is even closer to the whole FDA argument I made, and let’s be honest, you needed more items for your list).
Edit: and it being a seller’s market is absolutely caused by demand for purchasing, so in the end it’s still landlords fault. They’re converting too many non-rentals to rentals. They’re buying up houses at high costs because it becomes more affordable with more units, therefore driving pricing. It truly is the biggest influence in purchase price. Regulating that would absolutely have a far better effect than deregulating other areas (which still sounds more like they just need better regulation).
I mean, food can be made cheaper with less regulation too, that doesn’t mean that’s the right answer or even a good answer. Most of that stuff you mentioned has been in place for a long time. The more recent blowup in cost isn’t directly related.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm. The housing market is suffering due to “real estate investors” just buying out and renting houses that used to be non-rental. Investment is driving up the cost of housing significantly. There’s going to be a reckoning as wages are kept down and mortgages keep going up though. Eventually rent to cover mortgages are going to be too high and it’s just going to push out the small time real estate investors, and either more companies will move in or there’ll be a small drop in pricing.
You’re confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.
Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn’t concerned with anything as it’s not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn’t incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.
For someone who gets paid hourly, I’m only willing to go so far with unpaid work past when I’m supposed to stop.