Comment Somebody asked what problem (Score 1) 12
Wages. The problem AI is designed to solve is paying wages.
Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.
To be fair they were against the entire world. At the time there was a generalised policy idea pushed by American economists that by enriching a nation it will naturally tend towards a stable democracy. The people most shouting against this were among the poorest and they were dismissed on similar grounds.
Buying Russian gas, investing in Russia, and China, and the middle east, all of this was seen as a way to enrich the people. With riches comes education, with education comes resistance against autocracy. That was the theory anyway.
And it was only a theory.
It's easy to point the finger at Merkel, if you ignore literally everyone else in the world. But the reality was this was effectively western world policy. Merkel's gas policy just happened to seal the largest monetary deal.
And indeed, life can be comfortable as a kept woman
That it yadeyaddering a WHOLE lot of history. Europe wasn't so much a kept woman as much as she was married off unwillingly due to a war. Much of the continent was devastated not just by the way, but by the terms agreed to by the losing team. E.g. limiting the amount of armoury, the dismantling of industry, the resulting economic disaster that followed. A "beaten woman" may be a more apt description.
There's a reason LULUCF is included in climate change estimates around the world: deforestation and the use of land is a huge emission source. It's easy to be quick to dismiss Australia's efforts, but the reality is LULUCF's inclusion should be applauded because Australia had a fucking horrendous historical track record on deforestation, and despite still being very bad it's encouraging to see the rate reduce since 2008. Excluding it as a source of emissions doesn't help anyone even if the accounting can be a bit more questionable than direct emissions.
Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy?
Because monopolies and oligopolies exist only to make the maximum amount of money, and the maximum amount of money is achieved by stuffing the global catalogue with global appeal. For that you still look to the USA movie industry, despite the fact they produce less movies per year than Australia on a per capita basis.
Australia seems to understand that a healthy market is maintained through regulation. Many Slashdotters on the other hand haven't seen what an economics textbook actually looks like. If they ever peaked into one, they'd realise what a horror show a truly free market is.
Tumbleweeds, dying reefs and spiders? We've had enough of that already.
You're so clever showing the world your ignorance. Australia used to have one of the largest film industries in the world. Even now on a per capita basis they release more local movies than the USA does with an average of one movie every 3-4 days. The local series industry is also quite massive though America has them beat on a per capita basis there.
I can't completely fault your ignorance, you're probably a Netflix subscriber and only know what Netflix chooses to show you, and guess what, they will preference making movie deals for general world wide audiences rather than your local content.
in the old it's not physics or chemistry that will doom humanity but economics, aptly called the dismal science
Here in Canada we were able to stay on track with our targets until our neighbour and former friend the USA threw us under the bus while at the same time shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm not sure if you can call the actions of the American government "economics." I certainly don't.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken