I think it is a bit more involved than that.

It can be good and entertaining without the persona of Carlin, so why go digging up the graveyard?

Not to mention given a hundred years of iterations of AI Carlin and you blur the lines of what Carlin actually said and what his ideas were.

In way, that is far more insidious than the Memory Hole.

As Slashdot was one of the early and premier social media websites, I'm curious about the trail of hurt, traumatize, and vulnerable people killed in its wake. Who new Natalie Portman and foodstuff could be so destructive.

Slashdot did accelerate pointing out glaring holes in my thought processes (not so much anymore), forcing me to reconsider several sacred truths.

That aspect of social media seems to have died down a great deal, but it's available in limited pockets.

Self-aggrandizement however is in full tilt. Still can't wrap my head around "influencer" without receipts.

So is it really social media or the new crop of users?

As others have mentioned destroying/tampering with evidence, I think more a paradigm shift where NOTHING an officer says is accepted without accompanying bodycam footage (pics or it didn't happen).

I see this as being a legal standard eventually, but reform of forensic evidence standards has been tedious.

Or hackers start hitting up police departments en mass.

Oh, cool! Thank you very much!

In my mind's eye, I was thinking more localized services so there is more verification and compound affects.

It's not like there aren't thousands on plans of how to structure UBI (my own was setting it up as a percentage of GDP as a control mechanism- the wealthier a country gets, the more people get) going back to Thomas Paine, so the "how do you pay for it" (as opposed to ANY other government expenditure) just seems bad faith arguments.

Fuck 'em.

I'm more interested in teasing out comparisons of rentier states and UBI, and other possible complications rather than another round faux-libertarian arguments.

The lump sum payments seem to be more inline with business loans than UBI, and probably speaks more to having access to financial services rather than having a floor to poverty.

Now that's interesting. given how bailouts, QE, and credit scores work.The homeless will only use the money for drugs, unlike the fortune 500 companies that use it for bonuses.

Seems a possible evolution to Kickstarter is being able to invest at lower range of the scale (essentially banking and lending services for the poor). The amounts are less, so the fallout from malinvestment won't sting as much.

Wish I were smart enough to set up something like that (connecting small time investors with small business loans, and collecting a small fee on the side).

Of personal branding and mass influencers, I think we can bury the concept of authentic altogether.

So what is the end game for simulacra?

I'll further add that this was known since studies on healthcare consolidation were popping up in the early 2000s (although the focus then was the quadrupling of time it took to receive emergency care for large swaths of the country). It's not only the loss of critical care beds, but where those beds are concentrated; further exacerbated by a one-size-fits-all of the lockdowns.

Quarantine is a basic protocol of medicine, but it was interesting to compare to the early days of the AIDS epidemic when not much was known and how calls for quarantine were blatant homophobia.

This is not "follow the science".

Can't usually find EXACTLY what I typed in without going through pages of peripherally related items.

But they can identify exactly where I've shopped before.

Yeah.

Fair enough, but then how do you improve or manage how it is operated?

If private, shareholders and boards define the operations, and there is little in the way for the public to apply leverage against mismanagement (except possibly regulation, which is de facto public ownership).

If public, the concerns of energy becoming a political football (see how public schools operate) is a problem, with the specter of loads of bureaucracy and regulation.

In both, the "public" have little say beyond voting with their feet, which is after the system has been gutted of any value.

That's fine.

Give me a multi-billion dollar loan and I can also pay it back with interest, and be flush with hookers and blow for the duration.

GM circumvented the capitalist system of either going to the banks or private equity to issue the money, or selling assets to cover the costs.

This what they ask of anyone who buys their vehicles, so...

But "survival of the fittest" itself is essentially a tautology where every trait from depression to junk DNA is thought to be specifically selected for instead of not adverse enough to be selected against (these are not the same things), nevermind the selection is primarily sexual selection. It would be better expressed "survival of the most fecund".

The current "law" brings up the idea with schizophrenia "more complex systems develop more complex problems", which seems to be a hard check on how complex systems can become.

Really, given the countless ways anything can die, it's a wonder anything survives at all.

Not exactly.

Physical media may not command the revenue it once had (best numbers I see still put it in the billions), but I have yet to figure out how every streaming site seems to be losing money while many movies don't get released on physical media even though it costs pennies to produce. I guess even making a small amount is not enough when you have dreams of being The One Streaming Site to Rule Them All.

Just seems a case of do what everyone else is doing, and existing physical media becomes collectors items.

This sensibility has always struck me as incredibly patronizing.

Results vary, but I've been around people with traumatic brain injuries and cognitive diseases, and they seem happy enough. At least they aren't committing suicide en masse.

Yours strikes me as a fear of getting old.

It's a little more complex than that.

Several businesses and even government organizations either get previous PE sycophants in top positions, or pull from the PE playbook in the name of streamlining.

Initial cost savings seem to justify the changes, but the reverberations ultimately grind the organization to a halt. It will take a decade or more to undo the damage, which is heavily compounded by the tight labor market now (and for the foreseeable future).

The new rise of unions (which have their pros and cons) seem in direct response to PE and the lax enforcement of labor laws.