The ones I’ve seen posted here seem to want all of the benefits of living in a society without any of the restrictions or responsibilities that go along with it. Taxation is just one part of that.

Some think they shouldn’t even have to pay other things, basically believing that there’s a part of loans that is voluntary and their esoteric knowledge means they can just get loans and not pay them back, which itself comes from a misunderstanding of how the rich use loans to get to spend their assets and keep them.

That misunderstanding itself is that there’s an overall fair system in place, if you have the esoteric knowledge to use it, and you just have to know what magic words to use to make judges agree with you and police back off. They don’t realize that the rich following a different set of rules isn’t based on fairness under a secret system, it’s based on the soft power that comes with being rich and having the resources to make someone’s life better or worse with a phone call.

I see three possibilities if AI is able to eliminate a significant portion of jobs:

1. Universal basic income, that pays out based on how productive the provider side was per person. Some portion of wealth is continually transferred to the owners.
2. Neofeudalism, where the owners at the time of transition end up owning everything and allow people to live or not live on their land at their whim. Then they can use them for labour where needed or entertainment otherwise. Some benevolent feudal lords might generally let people live how they want, though there will always be a fear of a revolution so other more authoritarian lords might sabotage or directly war with them.
3. Large portions of the population are left SOL to die or do whatever while the economy doesn’t care for them. Would probably get pretty violent since people don’t generally just go off to die of starvation quietly. The main question for me is if the violence would start when the starving masses have had enough of it or earlier by those who see that coming.

I’m guessing reality will have some combination of each of those.

Yarr.

Then either wait for the president to authorize those actions or, if it’s urgent, wake the president up.

Using nukes is a strategic decision, including whether to allow the use of tactical nukes.

The tactical decisions I’m talking about are pretty much the military following their rules of engagement for whatever the situation is in the moment.

I mean, if shit gets fucked up because the president is sleeping, I’d argue that some things that should have been delegated weren’t rather than it being a problem that the president sleeps. If he stayed up until 1am, what if something big happened at 2am?

The whole “what would Hillary do if she got a 3am phone call” thing was dumb. If there’s an attack, it should be military people determining the immediate course of action and the president weighing in for the longer term response. Presidents should handle strategic response, not tactical response.

Yeah, Logitech. I’m going to need to open up my G900 soon because the left mouse button is starting to do the same thing my G7 did back in the day. I hope it’s not more awkward due to the non-removable battery (or less removable, I guess), but the glide pads are larger on this one, I hope they adhere well after being lifted.

I just broke through the ones on my G7. Luckily they didn’t bend downwards from pulling the screws out.

Actually, this time I might even look into getting a better switch instead of fixing the one they put in it. If that’s even a thing, and if there even are more durable mouse button switches because it has been pressed a lot over the years.

It totally is a thing, both getting new switches on their own and the availability of a range of qualities: https://www.maketecheasier.com/replace-faulty-mouse-switches/

It wouldn’t surprise me if the way it determines how busy places are would be considered a bigger privacy violation than these webcams (which only show people in their areas while Google somehow can report on how busy many arbitrary locations are vs their usual).

Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).

An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.

Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.

And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?

The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.

For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.

Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.

It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.

Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).

Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.

Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.

Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant “stupid” instead of “smart”.

Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.

A preemptive strike is still suicide even if it’s done because early detection capabilities are reduced or lost. And a first strike against someone without early detection capabilities still isn’t a guaranteed win when the subs are still hidden and the doomsday device is still armed.

I think the play here is to make accusations about laws many on the left don’t give a shit about to bait the “who cares?” responses and then apply that sentiment to the laws Trump has been convicted of or accused of that they hope their base doesn’t give a shit about.

Meanwhile wall st seems to be out of touch and unaware the industry is currently turning on unity because this article was released yesterday, bullish on unity. https://invezz.com/news/2023/09/15/unity-stock-price-forecast-bank-of-america-analyst/