We live in a capitalistic society that builds wealth.

Historically, hand-loom weavers complained when automatic looms were first introduced in the late 1700's, and ultimately they all lost their jobs.

...but at the same time, the cost of clothing and cloth in general came way down, making high quality clothing affordable to many, many more people. And the relative low cost of cloth gave rise to new uses, such as tarps and tents.

That's what building wealth is about: putting something in place that can reduce the cost and/or effort for future generations.

The fact that some people were put out of a job isn't a flaw, it's a feature. Making things more affordable and available raises the standard of living for everyone.

If you want to help the poor, if you want to solve some of society's problems, then that's a fine conversation to have. And I'm on board with it, I'll happily support your efforts... so long as your proposed solution doesn't involve changing capitalism.

If you want to help society, it has to come from a different place. UBI might work, government assistance is well intentioned but inefficient, communism is a complete disaster. An indexed wealth fund of $2 million would give out a dividend of $50,000 each year in perpetuity by gaining more value than inflation plus the disbursements, so maybe we should start setting up individual wealth funds for selected people, single mothers and doctorate students, perhaps. Start small and start taking people out of the workforce, and salaries should rise.

Other ideas are also welcome.

The idea that "workers and communities become afterthoughts" was well explored and described by Karl Marx himself in the middle of the 1800s, we don't need a Harvard Professor to remind us. Marx's mistake was to blame capitalism for the problem, we know that doesn't work.

We need new ideas and new institutions, but don't change capitalism.

Capitalism didn't cause any of it.

A few years back, I bought a new Evolve III laptop at Microcenter for $60 - $67 with tax and all.

Unlike a Pi, which is just a mobo and cpu, the laptop includes: power supply, battery, monitor, keyboard, pointing device, storage, and case.

A Pi 5 with 4GB Ram costs $70. Is that a great bargain?

These are not systems intended for economic every day drivers.

This is a supercar. You use features like this on an autobahn or similar road where there are no obstacles of that nature.

This is a feature like a maximum speed unlock on Veyron. You don't use it unless you know exactly where you are.

I'm unconvinced that rear and side facing thrusters will be road legal due to problems they will cause to other cars around you. As for jumping thrusters, I can already see some old rich boomer stuck in an overhead road sign because he thought he was adjusting music when he told the car to jump.

Fans sucking car to the road on the other hand are an excellent idea.

Technically you can still die from rupturing of carbon fiber pressure vessel with this thing.

This car uses them to store compressed air after all.

I dunno...

You have a point about parental control, but the reality is that most of a child's waking time is away from the parents in state-mandated schooling. And I strongly suspect that the supervision schools use on their students is much less strict than the direct supervision that parents would use on their own kids.

For example, should we keep guns, alcohol, and tobacco out of the hands of children, or should we rely on the parents to impose rules?

We teach children to swim, but we also make people put fences around their swimming pools.

It makes sense to put restrictions on some of the obvious dangers kids might find in their environment.

I suppose your question is rhetorical, but the answer is...

Congress tells the White House what to do, but almost never says *how* to do it. For example, congress told the White House to start protecting food safety, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938, with a mandate to "protect and promote public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, the nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation".

Thus, the FDA has a specified mandate, but the White House has considerable leeway in how to implement that mandate. There have been amendments to the instructions over the years, but it's basically "keep the people safe" from perceived risks.

The FDA mandate applies when an AI is acting in anything related to a medical capacity, and the FTC can step in when "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" happen in the AI sphere, and the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act" covers various misuse of the computers of other people.

That last bit, CFAA, sounds like it might apply in this case.

The executive branch also has sweeping "emergency" powers if it believes something is or might be an immediate threat. It can also create new powers "by default" when they believe there is sufficient danger - such as when the EPA was created by Richard Nixon because Congress did not pass a resolution of disapproval within 60 days. (It was later given funding by congress, which effectively validated its existence.)

Congress is notoriously slow to act, and hesitant to act until a real threat is demonstrated. In the meantime, the executive branch can respond quickly to individual events with individual actions (which is what this sounds like), giving Congress time to consider the issue.

All of this is as it should be.

You may not like the current administration, but responding to potential threats is one of its functions.

Just imagine, if you could be taxed more for unproductive infrastructure. Everything in the world would be solved, if you would just pay everything to the government, and they could re-distribute all of your income to others.

The entire reason why industrialization has delivered the promises of socialism, while socialism brought mass scarcity everywhere, is that productive activity generates resources that can be spent elsewhere.

Meanwhile taking more and more from existing industries, only to fund unproductive things (i.e. electric lines that don't allow for more production to offset their costs) improvershes everyone. It's why PRC has as many problems with useless infrastructure they built as they do. It's why their property market collapsed a few years ago.

Loudoun county is a well known example. There are several others.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprogresschamber.org%2Fin...

This isn't really new or interesting. If you manage to get a lot of new industry in, you can tax that industry instead of your residents. Meaning you can fund more services, while taking less tax.

Air quality collapses. That's a new one. What exactly do they do to the air?

Gas turbines? Water vapor poisons the air now? Man, people living near oceans must be all dying from water vapor poisoning. Reminder that methane burns into H2O and CO2.

Chinabots are going really hard nowadays.

This is the other PRC sponsored talking point that is nonsensical. "They bring noise".

They have fans pointed upwards, and usually shielded with noise shields on the sides. As a result they emit far less noise than most industrial applications. Whatever noise they emit usually travels upwards, not sideways.

But crazy witch with 50 cats says that noise killed her latest litter. Tiktok said so, so it must be true.

Quick question: Is she wrong?

The previous post made a point, which you totally sidestepped.

I have no opinion on Sabing Hossenfelder either way, but I get the impression that physics has largely stalled over the last few decades.

So... I'm just wondering, Is she wrong?

Yeah, anti-datacenter propaganda really worked well in some places. Not many, but some.

In real world, data centers are currently reviving a lot of remote towns. Dilapidated infrastructure? They will rebuild it because they need it to work. Insufficient infrastructure? They'll finance the build out. Everything already fine? They will pay enough taxes to cut residents' tax bills by a significant chunk.

It's why the propaganda is focusing mainly on a handful of cases of corruption (i.e. officials getting bribed to offer better terms than necessary), as well as just blatant lying (oh my god they consume so much water, we're going to run out).

Mostly what is needed is for more small towns to realize that they can rebuild a lot of dilapidated infrastructure and lower property taxes if they make a good deal with a data center. Not to mention minor perks like fast potential to pull fast broadband access in a rural town, or build something that will be productive for a long time, like a new power plant.

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

Thank you for sharing this meme, which is completely unsuitable for this case.

In a Free to Play game, customer isn't a product. In-game purchases are the product. To get the customer to the product, customer must first install and play the game.