So it will run at reduced efficiency and productivity compared to a robot-staffed company because hiring three shifts of workers plus spares for each position is less capital-intensive than buying a robot for each position? Keeping in mind, of course, that robot-built-robots will theoretically be as inexpensive as everything else robot-built (ie cost of raw materials plus whatever margin the bot owners can eke out as profit), plus the added overhead of having to outfit your place of work for human occupation eg lights, bathrooms, potable water, etc.
As for "processes", at this point, just about any assembly process is well understood and well automated. The ones that aren't are waiting for computer vision to finish baking. Which, like everything else, will remain 5-10 years in the future until one day it isn't.
I really don't think plumbers are going anywhere anytime soon either.
Someone will eventually miniaturize the oil-pipe cleaning pigs to fit in household plumbing and sell you a $450 poomba. Pays for itself in just a few $100/hr plumber calls.
people without the past jobs can work for people who start new businesses
Why should a person starting a new business hire people rather than using automation?
So you have thousands of slaves and an unlimited supply of sex partners?
He's a temporarily embarrassed king.
Now ISPs can be regulated just like cable or phone companies because they are no longer pass-through entities. Remember, ISPs keep saying they shouldn't be regulated like those others, but now, since they are controlling what you can and can't access (through deals they cut with Netflix and such), they are no different than cable companies.
Now that they're collecting data, similar to what cable companies do when they know what you watch, ISPs can now be classified as common carriers.
Even better, since these folks will now know where you go, they can be held responsible for not reporting child pornography and other criminal acts. Nor can they claim ignorance. After all, they're no longer a pass-through entity. They're watching you.
Buying is heaps cheaper
That tends to be true no matter where you are. If you're renting, you're paying the landlord's mortgage, HOA dues, insurance, etc., plus a bit more on top of that for profit (because who wants the hassle of being a landlord without being paid for it?).
The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government.
That's a a very narrow view. Guess you're middle-class, huh?
Can you name any government program that involved a transfer of more power and private money to any private industry? No, of course you cannot. The government just essentially gave the health insurance industry license to print money.
The GOP would have happily voted in favor of it if only the white house were occupied by a republican; they opposed it because they didn't want a democrat to get credit for health care reform.
Events from the last 2 weeks would seem to undercut that argument quite a bit.
I suspect you meant to say "thoroughly support that argument". Can you find the profound differences between the ACA and the Ryan proposal that just fell? No, because it is still largely the same. Just because the mandate is gone doesn't mean the industry will be making any less money, indeed it accelerates their ability to make money in several important ways.
but the bill did largely the opposite of that.
There are, at minimum, 24 million of your fellow countrymen who think that argument is full of shit.
24 million people are now buying health care on the market because the law says they have to. Are they getting the health care that they wanted? I know plenty who are not; they are paying for what the law says they are required to buy.
He gave the GOP the bill they wanted.
That's a bizarre statement to make, considering that not one single solitary GOP congresscritter voted for its passage.
I already laid out exactly why the ACA was the bill that the GOP wanted, and they supported that by drafting a bill that was 90% the same as the ACA and then we saw the majority of them tripping over each other to be the first to vote in favor of it. They just couldn't get a few others of their own ilk in line to ram it through.
No, it wasn't. He was kicked out because his sexual proclivities include the domination of women, specifically. To quote Buytaert word-for-word:
Then he's a fucking moron, and he's going to be in for a shock when he gets condemned by the wider social justice community. Acting out Gorean fantasies doesn't mean you believe, in real life, in the subjugation of women any more than acting out Star Wars fantasies means you believe in The Force.
You are correct that traditionally it'd be conservatives making a stink about someones sexual proclivities. That has changed, and is no longer true
Conservatives still seem to be where the majority of attacks on sexual activities, especially non-"normal" sexual activities, comes from.
Do liberals do it? You'll find one or two, just as you'll find any large community has its outliers. But in reality, it's telling that the major schism that lead to the end of Second Wave Feminism and the birth of Third Wave was sex, and the degree to which Second Wave leaned towards prescribing right and wrong sexual behaviors, something unsustainable given human needs. Third Wave is known as "Sex positive", and it was the result of a sizable amount of debate involving everyone from sex workers to the BDSM community that drove Third Wave in that direction.
To put it another way: it's always been the case that the two groups have had people within them that want to control other people's sex lives. Liberals have traditionally done that less than Conservatives. And Liberals are less prescriptive than they were, not more.
Except if you are into BDSM involving fantasies of sexual slavery of women
That's right. Women and men acting out fantasies which are entirely consensual and, by definition, involve no real transfer of power, in private, are entirely fine, because nobody is subjugating anyone else.
Or you're a muslim
I've yet to hear a single so-called SJW argue that Muslims are right to subjugate women.
What almost everyone on the left believes is that simply being a Muslim doesn't mean you're deserving of hatred, that you should be dehumanized, that you should be blamed for terrorism, that you should be attacked, or that you should be forced to live in countries governed by extremists.
Kinda like we'd defend conservatives too if we were told they all inherently support terrorism, or that they shouldn't be allowed in this country if they're trying to escape a fascist regime.
Bondage, Discipline & Domination, Submission & Sadism, Masochism. (The "&"s are where the same letter is shared, not any linking of the two concepts.)
It's a generic name for all that stuff where something resembling power is exchanged in the context of a sexual relationship, in much the same way as LGBT(*) is a generic term for sexual relationships where gender/sex norms are unusual.
Within the BDSM communities, you'll find they usually use the letters "SSC", which stands for Safe, Sane, & Consensual - essentially do what you want with one another, but make sure everyone consents and that lines of communication remain open so if consent is withdrawn it can be communicated, practice safety at all times (it's relatively easy to accidentally injure or even kill someone if you restrain them, for example), and, well, snuff scenes are probably not sane.
Contrary to the grandparent's assertion, there's no opposition to BDSM from the majority of people interested in social justice - in fact, attempting to suppress someone else's sexuality is generally frowned upon by social justice types.
Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.