If you wanted to nip Scientology in the bud, you could do so by fighting their lawyers to make it safe to expose their wrongdoing. But preventing blackmail and protecting whistleblowers isn't in line with the wishes of those in power.

According to TFS, It looks like it's primary usage is in telephones. You should stop being obtuse and realize that saying something has military applications is just some bullshit to add on to make it scarier.

Actually the US government does very little to no industrial espionage

You should do stand-up

So you are saying they have to be smarter than average by definition. Curious argument you have there.

More specifically, they have to be smarter than average in the area of their sales. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that above average doesn't mean you aren't an idiot.

The sales reps for my company all have engineering degrees and are probably more competent with CAD and product design than 99% of the people reading this. The sales reps that sell equipment to my company know in exquisite detail how their products work and are quite capable of repairing it when the need arises.

My experiences have been quite different. Perhaps it is something that varies greatly by field.

In all fairness, the sales and marketing folks just have to be smarter than the general public/potential customers (typically a low bar), and aren't always entirely honest. More importantly, their domain of expertise is not in how things actually work, but in how to sell something to someone, so paying them heed in regards to public policy is probably not wise.

The FBI apparently found that screening out pot users hurt their recruitment, although they backtracked on that statement once they got orders from above that they can't be that honest publicly. It's a competitive disadvantage to needlessly remove a pool of employees.

And this differs from what we have now in what way, exactly?

And currently, neither is 80% unemployment. When machines can do 80% of our current jobs, production costs are going to be very different. It would also mean that there is a very different dynamic in manufacturing. These would all be changes greater than a shift to an 8 hour work week would be.

Use doesn't imply addiction. It is unwise to conflate the two.

How is making a living off of 8 hours of work only achievable in a utopia? This could be accomplished with only a fivefold increase in productivity. Higher standards of living result in lower birth rates, which means that there can be an increase in the ratio of resources to people, and there would be considerable gains due to the Flynn effect and a more well rested workforce. Cut out the fat from the military-industrial and the prison-industrial complex, as well as their effects on our policy, and we've got a good head start already.

There actually is a value in poor people not being so damn poor. People who are able to live healthy, comfortable lives are more capable of being highly productive members of society. That added productivity means that we can have more and work less, and thus, all live happier lives. Socialism is one means of dealing with the problem of poverty, but it's not the only one. So, the appropriate question is, what is the best treatment for the disease of poverty? There's room for serious debate on that topic, but I don't believe "Fuck it, I'll just buy a gun" is a strong contender.

No, I'm referring to basically everybody who has ever lived, from Hitler to Hawking. However, I didn't say that they were incompetent, I said that they don't have anywhere nearly as much agency as we claim to have. Our idea of what a human is capable of is wrong to an extent that would be hilarious if it wasn't so often depressing. That's why all that 'bootstraps'-type talk, such as your post, is so misguided.

Given the limited practical social mobility in the US, it's hard to say that we are that far from feudalism, and an apprenticeship would probably be preferable to an internship. But it's good to know that we shouldn't complain until we are literally back in the middle ages.

It's not an inherently positive force. However, rationally questioning an assumption tends to have a fairly low cost and potential for high gains. Questioning assumptions is a big part of how scientific advances occur. The assumption is that because Bill Gates has given a lot of money for a charitable cause, that the effects of his efforts are positive. If, however, the only people that ultimately benefited from this were Pearson employees and other businesses, then it's hard to say that his actions should be seen as a good act, regardless of the Gates' motive.

No, I'm saying that you can do bad things even if you intend to do good things, and that throwing time and labor at a problem doesn't change this fact. I'll give you an easy example. Jenny McCarthy ostensibly wanted to improve healthcare when she spoke about vaccines and autism, but because she was ignorant of the facts, she has caused harm to the health of many children, and further entrenched the stigma towards autism. Even thought her intentions were noble, she has caused a lot of harm, and her actions should not be praised, but rather, criticized.