Are you a part of the solution, or a part of the problem?
Competition is good for both Apple and for Android. The existence of cheaper options puts pressure on Apple to keep their price low. The privacy, low advertising, ease of use and high quality build and performance puts pressure on Android producing tablet makers to pretend like they care about those things. If either of these two sides completely wins then consumers lose.
because they will have no food or place to live
Then the "unemployable" could work at growing food and building housing? These are both low-skill, high-labor activities that almost anyone can do.
We need to face it sooner or later: Only talented people are going to have work in the future. Education can enable these but it cannot create them. Whether it is STEM graduates that are actually good (!) at what they do or tradespeople that are. Obviously, some service and entertainment jobs will remain, but these will not make a large difference. Now, how do you design a society where something like 50% or more of the population is basically not employable?
Repeat after me: your job is not your life. Your job is not your life. Your job is not your life.
If people are "not employable," then they can go about their lives spending that time enjoying themselves. Hobbies. Travel. Entertainment. Volunteering. And so on. What's wrong with that? Why do you assume that people who you call "not employable" will have to die in your version of the future? You can have a meaningful, good quality of life without having to be "employed" every waking minute of every day...
Are they unalienable? Hardly, they get alienated all the time. As far as taking rights away, you most certainly can!
Strawman fallacy. I never said rights could never be taken away. In fact, if it can't be taken away, then it can't be given or received, so then it isn't anything at all.
The idea of something being a right means a person should have access to *thing* because they are human; not because they are rich, from a certain race, from a certain country, a certain gender, etc.
If we continue on this track, you won't be allowed to eat meat, as animals will have "rights" as well. We already have some jurisdictions that give "rights" to bees.
Slippery slope fallacy. Saying people have rights doesn't mean that we have to give the same rights to all animals or creatures. It makes no sense for you to say that because children have the right to not starve to death, that somehow means people will be prohibited from eating meat. Nonsense.
Human rights are merely social norms for the times. 1000 years ago, we had different social norms.
Nope. Rights are not norms. There are many places in the world where a majority of the population would not agree with one or more of the rights described in the Declaration of Human Rights.
1000 years from now, we will have different social norms
Perhaps, if there still is society. But whatever it is, people will need to eat, have a place to sleep, to make decisions about their own bodies...those all seem pretty universal, no? I don't get how the idea of adequate nutrition as a basic human right is framed as nothing more than a "social norm"?
Show me where in the American constitution where you have a right to privacy
It is implied in many parts of the Constitution, (https://constitutionus.com/constitution/rights/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-constitution/), and many rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution would be difficult or impossible to achieve without a right to privacy. For example, your right to freedom of religious practices is difficult or impossible to achieve if the government were to listen, record, and track every religious expression you made.
Who gives you rights? This entire concept of "human rights" is very recent
The most well-known expression of human rights is the UN Declaration of Human rights which was approved in the late 1940s after the horrible violation of people's rights during WW2 (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). The fundamental premise of this document is that rights are not bestowed by a government or by a leader, but rather all people should have these rights because they are human. And, therefore, any government or leader that violates these fundamental human rights is in violation and should be held to account (which is usually easier said than done).
You have no rights in prison
Incarcerated persons still have rights. There was a significant section of the Declaration of Human rights that deals with incarceration, such as when it may be used, the conditions that incarcerated persons are allowed to experience, and how governments make decisions about who is sentenced.
In terms of privacy, it is not explicitly discussed in the Declaration of Human Rights, but there have been many proposals to include it as an explicit addition to the Declaration.
I've been to jail. I assume as a cop accused of this level of misconduct, one day probably means he spent from 11.59pm to 12.01am in a holding cell at the police station.
Do you blame them? A cop in a general population would not do well, even for a short amount of time. Many of the prisons in the U.S. are abusive, rights-violating places that fail to recognize that a vast majority of the inmates will be released back into the population, and having abusive, criminal-producing prisons is about as far away from rehabilitation and prevention of future crime as we can get.
They never stop with "billionaires". That's not where the money is, not enough of it. It's going to be you; your house, your 401K, etc.
Huh? They already do this by updating the valuation of my home every two years. And 401(k) already are subject to some taxes (some at withdrawal based on your situation, some based on the investments themselves paying taxes, and some if you withdraw before a certain age).
Billionaires have already sucked way more than their fair share of the world's wealth into their own coffers. It's time they give some of that back.
People who care about their employees, who pay a fair living wage, who behave ethically in business practices, who contribute to their communities, who care about sustainability and the next generation do NOT become billionaires. So I have no problem forcing those billionaires who have exploited, destroyed, coerced, cheated, and grabbed their billions to give a portion of that back.
Free speech just died in Britain. Sad. Something has to exist for it to die. Britain never had free speech as an absolute right.
Speech on social media isn't free speech. It comes with a significant cost: having your data sold to the highest bidder, having ads shoved in your face, and having algorithms (set by billionaires) force the content they want you to see on your eyeballs. If you want free speech, write a book, open your own website, or (ugh) host a podcast. Those are much more free forms of speech than social media will ever be.
Starmer has clearly given up on the youth vote and is now trying to appeal to the Boomers.
Most young people do not see social media positively, with only about 30% believing social media has been a net benefit to their lives and society.
And, young people can't vote, so what does Starmer care?
But it's also true that a room full of thousand-dollar tablets doesn't necessarily improve performance either
It improves performance if the goal is to teach students how to use the latest and greatest in tablets, and if you have teachers trained in how to use them effectively, and if you have support resources, repair services, etc.
Lots of technology spending in schools is wasteful because the tech companies overhype their products (shocking, I know) and teachers are not trained to use them effectively, and too often they are used for entertainment or babysitting while the teachers try to put out fires (not usually literal, but sometimes).
If you look at historical graphs, there's a very strong negative correlation between US school spending and outcomes over the last few decades. The more money spent, the worse the results.
Then we should remove ALL funding, and watch the learning outcomes skyrocket!
There's no doubt - none - that school spending affects outcomes.
If school spending did not affect outcomes, then why is it that rich parents send their kids to schools that spend WAY more than the average per pupil than poor parents? Are rich parents just dumb, and enjoy throwing away money? It can't all be for a fancy name or manicured lawns, either.
And there's no way that a school with old, beat-up, tattered, damaged books, leaky ceilings, smelly, mold-filled rooms, with poorly trained and low motivated teachers will perform as well as a clean, safe, comfortable school with updated books, and well-trained and motivated teachers.
As nerds we should not be surprised that poorly done statistical "studies" can be manipulated to in such a way to hide these truths.
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson
