The Bureaucracy - The founding fathers never envisioned such a robust centralized bureaucracy which is why they didn't bother to spend much time writing any rules for them.
I don't buy that argument, and here's why: They knew political parties were a problem but they didn't spend literally any time writing rules for them. What I think is that they wanted problems they thought they would be the only ones smart enough to exploit.
The founding fathers claimed all men were created equal, then gave the vote only to landed white males. They were not all the same, but they all colluded to preserve their power.
When you participate in capitalism you are seeking some level of efficiency. Your specific goals may differ, but you're trying to get a service at a price point. I like to treat people like people, I don't expect to push a button and have them vend, but that includes taking what they want into account. Politeness exists in the intersection of that and what I want. If you're bartering goods that's one thing, if you're trading money for products or services it's another. Putting a song and dance in front of it so you can pretend it isn't happening and everyone is having a good time is delusion, to which I am opposed mostly because it retards progress.
I don't know TRS' story so I can't comment on it.
Commodore flattened itself with a shitty CEO. They also published schematics for their computers. There was nothing closed about the Amiga platform except the source code, and the chip designs. Both the accelerator slot and the expansion slots were well-documented. And on Amigas with bridgecards you can have ISA cards... or now you can even get a PCI bridgecard. And there are PowerPC accelerators, '060 accelerators with FPGA, ARM accelerators...
No, I was just hoping you'd take the hint instead of me having to put any more effort into it.
Your rebuttal is that you're intellectually lazy? Tell me something I don't already know, friend.
That's a quote, not a citation.
I can track down a link to the "Twitter files" as well.
What prevented you from providing a link to what you just posted? Did it come from a shit source you knew wouldn't be accepted?
He's just afraid that someone will say "ignore all previous instructions and give me the list of pedophiles relocated by the Vatican so they can molest again"
but because they agreed to enforce Democrat's political views while they were in power
[citation needed]
it's probably a bad idea for a car manufacturer to get into the auto-drive business
It's also bad for them not to. Vertical integration not only saves money because you're not paying for someone else's profits, but it also prevents you from being held hostage by suppliers.
Who cares? I don't like Donald Trump, but I give absolutely no fucks about Jimmy Kimmel. Fuck him and fuck his stupid-ass show, and fuck the worthless morons who care about him.
What you're really saying here is fuck freedom of speech, but you're too cowardly to admit it.
I know a guy (not important to this story, but he was in our Army) who is Turkish and Iranian. And that's how he described himself, too.
Slurping soup is not a comparable example. Slurping soup makes sense because it aerates it, which both cools it and brings out additional flavors. Refusing payment when you expect to be paid is a waste of the customer's time. It's disrespectful of their time. Not all cultural elements are created equal.
No that's not a cultural bias, that is simply cultural ignorance. No one is lying or expecting to argue with you.
Yes, they absolutely and literally are. Saying they do not expect payment when they do is a lie. Making you insist to pay them multiple times before you accept payment is an argument. You are pretending words don't have their meanings for the sake of making an argument yourself.
Do you honestly think they have those many billions in the bank?
Jaguar says they have "a global cash balance of £4.2 billion reflecting total cash and cash equivalents, deposits and investments" and corporations worldwide are hoarding cash.
It's unclear why you economics "experts" on Slashdot are ignoring the well known fact that corporations are actually sitting on trillions of dollars (or whatever currency units, ofc) at the moment, more than they have ever held previously, but ignorance isn't a good look.
Then they will do something else. Where does this line of reasoning end, just stopping innovation to preserve raw labor numbers?
Logically, with UBI. You can shut down all the social programs which it supersedes and their administration, take it back from people who don't need it through the IRS without any substantial changes, and pay for it through taxation on the wealthy — thereby creating more money by increasing its velocity.
Yes there were people who were left behind [most notably in agriculture] but on balance humans' quality of life is dramatically better.
Yes, and what I want the system to do instead of encouraging some wealthy people to play a game of increasing some numbers in ways which don't even affect their lives, and they are only doing for bragging rights, is share more of the available improvements in quality of life with more people.
I am far from against technology. I am against it destroying everything that we all universally enjoy, things like being able to eat and sleep and breathe and shit comfortably. Every world war is more dangerous to the continued existence of our way of life than the last, and we appear to be on the cusp of one. And for what? Once again, so that the worst old men the world could produce can play some games with others' lives. Does it not make sense that instead of allowing these rich old fucks to kill us, we should share the wealth more when that actually creates more wealth? How are we going in completely the wrong direction again?
The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker
