I have no idea what your point is at all. Seriously, are you OK? Just to make it clear - I am against governments, I am against governments using any technology to make it easier for government to oppress people and this is one instrument of oppression.

Isn't much of the point here the cultural shove? Sure, there's the line-go-up stuff; but that doesn't explain the companies gutting quite profitable software development operations to shovel money at Nvidia for things that have no demonstrated ROI; if it were nothing personal, just business, the level of enthusiasm for taking on poorly characterized risk would not be as fervent as it is. It's absolutely about resentment of the human resources that has been running at least as long as the demonstration that it would actually take some shoving to get them all to come back to the office, likely significantly longer.

It's the significantly less common case, for some combination of a lot of high-visibility stupidity being lethal and lethal accidents being public in ways that the details of nonlethal accidents aren't; but destruction of gonads under sufficiently foolish circumstances qualifies a living recipient.

They already pretty much are. You have to do at least a little performative fretting about the risks, which spoils the enjoyment of pure cheering at the best crunching sounds; but there's no way we'd justify the level of recreational head trauma something like football produces if we didn't fundamentally regard the players as relevant only the the way racehorses are.

and radio ads that claim such should be sued to Pluto.

There was a tech slump around 1983 due to the video game crash, and again in 1992 due to mass "Glasnost" aerospace layoffs. There probably would have been one around 2009, but mobile devices were booming, taking up the slack.

Save up, the "business cycle" ain't going away.

I mean you are cherry-picking experts' opinions of that time after you know the outcome. Let's say there were 100 experts with an opinion back then. Let's say 20 predicted it was not transitory. You now quote the 20, pretending the 80 didn't exist. A propaganda trick.

A buffed Darwin Award

That was the rebound year from Covid. It's a statistical anomaly, and chosen by a lot of news reports to highlight the severity of whatever point they're making.

Comparing today's employment against, for example, 2019 is also difficult due to the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants that entered under the Biden administration. For example, today there is about 4.3% unemployment, the average is 5.7%, so we're doing pretty good on that front.

Statistics can lie. Our 4.3% represents 7.4 million unemployed workers, while the 2019 3.5% rate represents 5.8 million unemployed. When you bring in 10 million undocumented people, it's easy to see how 5.8 million unemployed can swell to 7.4 million.

Statistics lie by comparing our employment to a year that had record values because of an anomaly, or compare the number of unemployed by number to a year before we closed the Southern border.

You are cherry-picking opinions after the fact

So all the well-educated economists just magically ignored that knowledge?

I do not dream of labor.

Curtis Yarvin laid it out: biofuel. That's the one we're almost certainly getting, because the guys telling you we need UBI today are not going to open their hands tomorrow.

Most probably thought they were talking about a TV series.

Pandemic consumer psychology was poorly mapped at the time.

Hadn't been a world pandemic since 1917, when trade was different.