Meanwhile in reality, undocumented immigrants in the US paid an estimated $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes - over a third of that to programs including Social Security and Medicare that they are barred from using. They are subsidizing you. They aren't "eating the food in your fridge and pocketing your paycheck", they're being forced to put food in your fridge and subsidize your paycheck. You live off the sweat of THEIR brows.

As for pushing down wages, studies consistently find that's bullshit - immigration raises wages for locals:

1) First off, low-wage work faces chronic labor shortages, and labour shortages undercut the economy. For example, the construction industry in the US alone is forecast to have a half-million person labour shortage this year. That sort of thing is devastating in terms of lost potential economic growth - the absolute worst thing you can do is deliberately make that shortage worse.

2) Secondly, economies are not zero-sum games. Work creates wealth. Which then gets spent and taxed, and that creates new value; jobs don't get "consumed", they just create more. Depending on your economy, lowering the cost of production does one of two (functionally) equivalent things as a net whole: either they lower the cost of goods and services (e.g. meaning your existing wages buy more), OR the cost of goods and services remain the same but wages rise. Or to put it another way: if you grow the economy in a manner that the lower-wage jobs are being filled, then that economic growth involves shifting everyone else on net average into higher-wage positions.

Furthermore: immigrants have higher rates of entrepreneurship than the native-born. Less than 1 in 8 native-born people will start a business, but 1 in 4 immigrants will. This sort of "economic melting pot" environment has fueled America for its entire history. Immigrant-started businesses have similar rates of success as native-started businesses, but are less likely to imitate and focus more on R&D.

Yes, many employers of undocumented workers are exploitative, but they're exploitative of them. The proper response is to create a regularized legal framework for immigrant labour. The reality is that the US absolutely relies on said labour for its economy and quality of life, while at the same time providing no legal framework for said labour to arrive and exist in the country. It's a legal absurdity.

You have to understand how your economy works. Your economic success has overwhelmingly been built on two things:

1) "Brain-draining" other countries (H1B, attracting foreign college students who end up staying with their advanced degrees, etc); and
2) Low-cost labour, to keep the cost of production down.

What you want to do is kill off your entire economic success model. It's utterly insane self-foot-shooting on your part. These things flood money into your economy and into your government coffers. And you want to turn off the spigot. You have every right to be mad about the low end of this being structured around an undocumented economy, but the way to fix that is to make it into a documented economy. You accurately identify a problem, but have an entirely backwards "solution" to it.

You're confusing statements about value with statements about price. If you want your device to perform in the market, you have to offer both things. Apple has cachet for some reason, this doesn't.

I thought the answer was no, but I had to see how much you would deflect to be sure. Thanks.

"people don't understand what a wavefunction is. Not the interpretation of it, the actual hard mathematical "this is what it is.""

Except that doesn't exist, you have to approach quantum effects through probabilities. That makes it literally the opposite of what you said!

Magnets, how the fuck do they work?

Seriously though, car driving is based on things which are good for survival that we were already good at. And the controls evolved to match those skills, we didn't evolve to be better drivers. We started out with a collection of levers loosely connected to the activity and now we have mostly wheels and buttons, and the levers we operate with our feet aren't really operated like levers either.

We are both what he thinks they are and you are a well known CCP troll.

Hahahahahahaha Trump pay rent hahahahahahahahaha

No amount of editing of Trump's answers will make them make sense, but editing Harris' answers down to simplify them for people deliberately made into idiots by Republican action on education since the Reagan era can make them make more sense to those idiots.

So you can easily provide an example right? Since it was obvious to everyone?

In this case the two companies met about making this game together, then decided not to, then one of those companies that wasn't originally already developing it made a copy of the game already under development. You might not know this from the summary, but that's why reading the fine article and also other materials about the same story is valuable.

There are only really three solutions to this problem.

1) Butlerian Jihad. I put this first because I like it most. If we ever do actually teach computers to really think then we're cooked. Just teaching them to mimic parts of thinking is already causing big problems for society which are definitely going to get a lot worse.
2) Laws which say you cannot replace humans with software. This is not happening, because capitalism.
3) Abandon Capitalism. I put this last because it's even less likely.

As long as capital controls the means of production, which is the definition of capitalism, then the goal will always be to eliminate workers from the process so as to make more profit. There is no solution that doesn't involve seriously limiting capitalism or eliminating it altogether. Optimization is a capitalist imperative.

I used to look down on containers, but so much modern software is bitchy about which versions of libraries it works with that they have become a necessity.

I'm an indie game developer. My games have budgets of a few hundred bucks at best. Before AI, voice acting was simply impossible. There was no way I could pay a voice actor for even one language.

Now, with AI, I can have voice-overs in half a dozen languages easily. It has opened up something for me that was never possible before.

Yes, the AI voices are mediocre. Yes, I would prefer having an actual voice actor whom I can tell that I want THAT word stressed, or what emotion to convey. I'm sure in a few more years, the text-to-speech AI generators will allow for that as well.

But I'm not lost business. I'm still hiring the exact same number of voice actors that I did before AI. Zero, in my case. But if I had a budget, I'd still hire voice actors instead of AI because a good voice actor still beats the best AI.

There's still time enough to learn something new and get a different job, guys.

Oh no, you're sadly mistaken. The difference is obvious. The answer is that IDGAF. The people who need their power to be that reliable should be investing in storage, including The People investing in enough for domestic needs. But nobody should be getting their image of a furry with five boobs on their own schedule in a way that impinges on existence for the rest of us. Make hay while the sun shines.

Did you think you deserved real effort spent on conversation with you?