Using AI to write your complaint is a perfectly valid use of AI. It maintains your points, cleans up the language, and makes it impossible to say who the author is just by the writing style.

The question is entirely whether the accusations are true.

And gig companies are absolutely exploiting workers and customers, while the specific details listed may or may not be true.

If you work 40 hours a week and can't afford a house, a car, a family, putting your kids through college, and an annual multiweek vacation, you're being robbed by your boss.

As far as the people of Venezuela, they seem be dancing in the streets and waving American flags.

Their total profits have been roughly equal to the revenue they get from membership fees, which suggests the customer experience (rather than marked up goods) is what they are really selling.

You evaluated the claims and considered them probable enough (presumably familiar with the egregiousness of the state's failure to act on behalf of citizens in the Rothertham child exploitation coverups) that you wanted to protect yourself from egg on your face by caveating a "Likely" on your doubts.

However, with the same weighing of evidence in which you hedge on your own behalf, you feel comfortable proclaiming someone else guilty of depraved sexual perversions?

Interesting principles to live by.

This accounting seems pretty close:

Doesn't mention directly assaulting the rapists so if it's what OP was referring to then he may have mixed up that detail with another story.

But given these rape cover ups spanned decades and involved over a thousand cases it's hard to say certainly if it's not just another case.

Did you notice where the summary said "Most of that growth — 73% — happened in red [Republican-leaning] states. Eight of the top 10 states for new installations fall into that category, including Texas, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, and Arkansas..."

Turns out that "We think solar is stupid but there's land here if you morons want to build it" is much less of an impediment to clean energy than "Oh we loooooove solar let's start the 10-year environment impact review process right away so we can get you your conditional permit."

Alarming that this is quote is allegedly from the person listed as the lead author on the study.

The study didn't perform any measurements that could establish a rate of change of DNA. It didn't even look at DNA or any heritable differences between the bears, it only looks at RNA expression of markers it said were correlated.

More specifically it only looked at RNA expression *in the blood* for *17 bears* and used the average temperature of the nearest town to the bear population. So temperature was just a proxy for population with lots of confounders. The study did nothing either to show that those were *advantageous* changes for bears in heat-stressed areas.

About the only actual take away from the study is "there were differences in blood transcriptomes of bears at different latitudes." Any further meaning is an unevidenced hypothetical.

Which could certainly be a starting point for further research. But that's about the extent of it.

If AI could replace humans, it also replaces corporations.

AI is not taking jobs. It's just the latest excuse to outsource. The myth is that Idiot + AI = competent worker. But that isn't the case.

If corporations were run by smart people, they'd be using AI to speed up their roadmaps and rush ahead of the competition. Or come up with new pet projects for people to work on.

If Zuckerberg can build wealth with AI and not workers, then the workers can build wealth with AI and not Zuckerberg.

If AI replaced corporations, they'd shut it down. And it already is. But not yet to the degree that it upsets them.

The problem is not AI. The problem is not paying people. If you create a product people like and it makes you money, pay people to displace your reliance on AI.

Wanting a "people's car" was inevitable.

That's the business not investing in the people and the resources to move ahead. "Missing deadlines" also often stems from demands exceeding resources.

From the 1990's to the 2020's, Intel was more focused on profit and shareholders than investing in people and R&D.

It’s telling that Gelsinger described a culture where “not a single product was delivered on schedule” — and yet, that might be more of a symptom than the disease. In many industries, the obsession with arbitrary timelines and “on-schedule delivery” metrics becomes corrosive. When deadlines are treated as fixed points rather than guides, quality and innovation become secondary to appearances of progress.

Artificial timelines often create environments where teams are punished for realism and rewarded for overpromising. Engineering — whether of chips, cars, or code — demands time to iterate, test, and refine. When leadership values the schedule more than the product, people cut corners to meet goals that were never grounded in the reality of the work. Over time, that behavior institutionalizes mediocrity.

What Gelsinger called “decay” often begins when organizations forget that timelines are supposed to serve the work, not the other way around. Real engineering discipline means being honest about what’s possible — and having the courage to move a date if that’s what it takes to deliver something that lasts.

Is this about Trump, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Cotton, Cruz, and Vance all saying that people should stop going to college?

Even the summary says

How you got from "cross-demographic survey results" to "conspiracy of all republicans" seems a bit of a leap. If the Republicans *actually have* found a way to exert that much influence on the views of every demographic group, the Democrats might as well just pack their bags and go home, they're done forever.

I think in reality this is just a survey detecting people noticing exploding tuition costs and feeling bleak about the future job market, especially being displaced by technology.

Slashdot itself has had a bevy of articles over the years (such as
this) about the harms of social media to developing adolescents.

Is Slashdot part of the propaganda campaign to wipe out digital anonymity?

The data on harms is at least a big chunk of the motivation. Maybe the response to it is a moral panic or maybe the response is proportionate to the evidence. But I think it's going to win out in terms of policy.

If you don't like the proposed solution, I think you better start promoting a better way to implement this kind of intervention that still preserves the protections you care about.

Or people are going to go with the not-better way.

Corporations don’t exist to hand out jobs — completely agree. They hire people because human creativity, judgment, and problem-solving generate more value than they cost. That’s the foundational engine of economic growth.

But saying “companies don’t create work to hire people” assumes the amount of work is fixed, like slices of a pie. History tells a different story. Every major leap in technology — electricity, assembly lines, computers, the internet — didn’t eliminate work overall. It created whole new industries, new products, new forms of demand, and millions of jobs that never existed before someone imagined them.

The real question today is: will companies use automation to expand opportunity, or will they let fear and short-term profit pressures shrink their vision to whatever fits after payroll cuts? Treating workers as a cost to minimize is the fastest way to shrink your own future. Redeploying them to innovate, build, support customers, and explore new markets is how productivity becomes prosperity.

Humans haven’t become too expensive. What’s become too expensive — at least in the corporate mindset — is patience. Investment. Shared success. The belief that people are not just an expense line, but the actual source of value creation.

If we want a thriving economy, the answer isn’t fewer workers. It’s smarter, more meaningful roles that turn technological progress into shared wealth rather than shared precarity.

It’s definitely true that a lot of companies are cutting workers right now — and that creates real anxiety about where things are headed. But I think the narrative that “humans have become too expensive” flips the real issue upside-down.

Labor isn’t what’s skyrocketed in cost. CEO pay, shareholder expectations, and relentless targets for profit growth are. Companies keep raising prices even while laying off thousands, not because they can’t afford workers, but because they prioritize margins over stability for the people who actually create value.

The biggest missed opportunity here is that automation doesn’t have to be a replacement strategy — it can be a redeployment strategy. When new technology lets humans spend less time on low-value labor, companies can empower them to drive innovation, serve customers better, develop new products, and ultimately create more wealth. That’s how productivity gains should work.

But too many businesses think like accountants, not builders. They treat labor as a line item to subtract, instead of a force multiplier. They cut payroll and congratulate themselves for “efficiency,” even as they shrink their own future potential.

AI and automation could give us shorter weeks, better jobs, and broader prosperity — but only if we stop treating human well-being as an inconvenient expense and start seeing workers as the engines that turn technological progress into shared abundance.

The future isn’t precarious because humans are too expensive — it’s precarious because profit has become priceless, and imagination too cheap.