She ran the printing press and picked the camera lenses and stacked the books by the cash register and booked her own press interviews? Also who taught all the kids to read?
Why does she have to control the entire vertical process to earn a billion dollars? She sold her work and got paid a billion dollars for it. Who did she exploit? In what way were her earnings unearned?
That’s just back to my original point. Which was that every billion dollar enterprise is a collective or team effort and the only argument is about how the results get allocated.
Which is, as I pointed out, inarguable. No one is spawned alone in the woods to start their adventure independently of the society they are in.
PG says this in his post though. He says the people working for the startup whose founder he talked to are being compensated fairly and properly. To claim his post is a misreading you have to claim every billionaire wouldnt be a billionaire if resources were allocated correctly.
He takes that as a given but this is, in fact, the argument and you can't wave it away.
By doing so he's being disingenuous. The argument here is about who gets what. And the startup founder and its employees are not the only participants in the economy.
The revenue flowing in to his hypothetical startup is exogenous to the startup so you have to talk about where it's coming from, who's affected, and how that fits in with policy goals.
For an extreme but accurate thought experiment, imagine concluding your analysis of FTX by noting that their employees were "fairly and properly" paid and then moving on.
>Anecdotally, talking to PRC citizens in circumstances where they don't need to worry about said surveillance (e.g., when they're vacationing in Japan and I want to pester someone and practice my mandarin)
I'm not sure you are aware that China has monitoring operations for its citizens outside China.
>There are things that are clearly bugs and clearly features. And a lot of things that are somewhere in between. It’s not black or white and as such perhaps not worth categorizing?
I appreciate the exercise of taking a step back and looking at the abstractions built, really I do, sometimes people take a liking to certain bugs, sometimes people despise features as if they were bugs, but this feels a bit of a Loki's wager situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_wager
At the very end of things, bugs and features are just things the software "does", but I reckon it's worth it to sit back and think about the intentional and non-intentional result of the application of a design.
No, in very real terms you cannot hold an American corporation responsible for anything any more than you could a Chinese or Russian one.
Individual citizens simply do not have the means, and the consequences for trying are life-alteringly severe. In fact the situation is even worse. If you tried to sue a Chinese company as an American citizen, you'd be laughed at and nothing more. If you tried to sue an American corporation, they have the option to either counter-sue, or drag things out so long that the legal fees bankrupt you, or win the case with their armies of lawyers and demand compensation from you that bankrupts you.
A private American citizen simply cannot hold an American corporation responsible. Our legal system is designed to ensure this.
This has nothing to do with the discussion. Do you have a HN poster bot just acting like an annoyed teenager with gripes about everything? 20 day old new account, what happened to the previous ones?
You can't really act against neither, as the case of Meta "stealing" books, torrenting on the truly industrial scale, sharing books while torrenting, etc, etc, was ultimately deemed okay.
In the se country where downloading an album can get a person in debt or worse.
Looking forward to the outcome of those legal processes againt the CEOs, that sit behind Trump at the inauguration.
After they stole all the knowledge in the world to train their models. And the current administration is drunk on SpaceX pre IPO shares...how did they get them?
Given how little voting power these "shares" have (they are effectively SpaceX trading cards/NFTs) perhaps they were simply printed on SpaceX letterhead? If Musk says a person has "shares" who at spacex is in a position to disagree?
I would consider editing this while HN still allows it :-)) Or otherwise it may remain here for ever...until the black holes evaporate, as calibration point for the difference between confidence and comprehension...
Musk and companies have so far over 950 lawsuits and legal processes for criminal or unethical activity (yes I researched this). Even his data centers and gas turbine deployments are illegal!
Lost one lawsuit against the same AI mafia, and if you look at the legal details reason was for filling the claim too late.
He publicly called a hero a Pedophile, and got away with it...in court.
This is an argument against pardons, except that Trump has used instruments of state power against his perceived enemies (Comey James, Schiff, military occupation of Tim Walz state, etc etc).
>Resources means teachers qualified, able, and willing to teach in those areas.
Then the culture in those areas has to change.
It feels like every single other option has to be tried before considering that there's real, settled cultural issues that society ought to tackle. It is insane, and I mean "nobody who ever holds views like these should have access to power or authority on these matters" type of definition of "insane" that there is more concern about equality, or equity, or whatever the last brand of discrimination, than about the problems around not respecting authority and not valuing an education. It is utterly dysfunctional regarding societal growth.
It's not just being poor. It's not just racism. Yes those are absolutely issues in society, but equality of that degree is an affordance you can work on when you have a functional system.
There is no magic teacher, no magic principal, no magic anyone that's going to walk through the door of a school and "set them kids right" with a biblical amount of kindness and understanding. That's a fairy tale, it's utterly detached from reality and a pathetic refusal to look at the problem.
Well, depends. "Socioeconomics" has been utterly abused as a concept for political gain.
Are top schools that way for social and economic reasons? I mean what else is there to blame? Are they that way because of being different in the department of what progressives actually mean by "socioeconomic factors"? No, not really.
reply