Everything will be better when humans are out of the loop.

assuming this is not a joke i donâ(TM)t get (likely) there appear to be two women. pregnancy was also my first guess. And it might actually be a legit experiment (ethics aside).

iâ(TM)d just love to have falling and flying simulations from Lawnmower Man.

This is a really interesting g question to me. And the question is, did the .com create the rot? Did web 2.0? Or was it inherent in some way? In my view, the problem is exclusivity and monetization/privatization. In the early days much was run on public servers, very much was publicly accessible if one knew where to look and what buttons to mash. Privatization made that more accessible to the massess, which is generally good. But it put everything behind a wall for everyone, which is bad, without keeping the best generators (think, e.g. basic researchers, investigative journalists) properly resourced and basic information properly accessible.

As you suggest, debt at the US Federal Government level is so much more complicated, not least of which enforcing collection as a result of default is problematic for debt holders. It's extremely complicated, perhaps so complicated that no-one really knows, but the short answer is that since the money is technically a part of the US federal government it simply doesn't have the same meaning as household, business, or even state/local government debt. It's really more a tool for managing international finance than it is actually money owed.

We can and should look at discuss and adjust how it works, but merely calling for a 'balanced' budget is really meaningless without defining terms and mechanisms.

Man I long for the usenet of yore. Reddit is as good as it gets, and it is sometimes an adequate replacement.

Incidentally, AI *could* be awesome for technical questions if there were decent documentation out there for systems (plus source code for software systems) and the LLM had access to it.

concur. there was some good information there, but asking and answering was a really onerous process to figure out, and i never did quite get the hang of answer vs. comment.

This statement, together with labeling residentsâ(TM) assertion of local preference as âoe community, political and regulatory disruptions,â really signals the executive classâ(TM)s complete disconnection from and apathy toward the real people living as citizens in the world. They seem to hold the assumption that their being at the forefront if aome kind of business movement is assurance they are good people doing good things, and that insensitivity to the needs of actual other people is an asset.

Itâ(TM)s a tremendous sign of hope that community disruptions are actuall a problem. for them.

This study smells funny to me, likely agenda driven to assuage capitalist consciences (or those of the policy makers and implementers).

But the conclusion does track with my own (limited) observations: the real issue is not wealth, but dignity. Individuals who have their needs reasonably met, plus a sense of security in those needs being met for the forseeable future, plus some sense of authonomy and opportunity for self-expression, will be more or less happy regardless of relative economic circumstances. See, for example, people who have a decent but not excessive savings and retire to costa rica and love it. See also people who are decently fed, clothed, housed, health-cared, and have robust families. See also clergy who have needs met.

The problem is, those with money and power are chiefly interested in gaining more money and power, and at some point that comes at the expense of those who would just as soon live life with "only" enough money and power. This is the curse of enshittification: consumer and community benefits are sacrificed to financial expansion (I won't use the word "growth," which to me implies not just getting bigger, but also getting better).

>Look, no one steals jobs

Several million citizens of the First Nations would like to have a word . . .

Your post is a neoliberal screed that exemplifies the social ignorance of the 1990s-2010s, whereby the decoupling of finance from material wealth of the world displaced many people of all stripe and ability and sacrificed the individual to expansion (to be distinguished from growth-which implies some kind of progress, where is expansion is simiply that, getting bigger, without necessarily getting better. See also enshittification). The end result of this is many people being left behind, folks who were hard working but lacked education and resources to adapt to changes that left them economically sidelined. Some of that education is spiritual-learning to overcome the phenomenon of experiencing equality as oppression because of living in privilege.

The real issue is allocation of wealth. Despite the preambulatory pronoouncments of founding documents and weightly legal opinions, not to mention political blather, America has been about concentration and consolidation of wealth and power. To the extent that the laws that support this were written by democratically elected leaders (hint-there are none such), the people have acquiested and voluntereed to be raw materials subject to exploitation by the ruthless and the privileged. But to the extent they are not democratic (small-d), and they aren't, people have been forcibly separated from their dignity, income, and means of survival at a time when the world (not just the US) has way more than enough resources to provide a decent material life to every one of its citizens. Of course, I operate under a sense of morals that is in fact Christian at its root, and one that assumes the community, and every member in it, is due an equal measure of dignity. As such, it is immoral for one member of the community to have too much so long as any member has not enough.

Side note, most federal government jobs are pretty well-paid. Personal resentment there because I can't get one because I am in fact too ornery and independent minded. Nevertheless, I can set personal resentment aside and recognize that society works better when it is governed by well-resourced professionals, but who are also strongly encouraged and supported in serving with nobility.

Strongly agree. I also wonder if this ruling is motivated by creating a government backdoor as well.

this is what I mean by publicly vs âoebehind the curtainâ. if you track major politiciansâ(TM) net worth during the times of their terms they realize immense gains. far more than any of my etfs. sure, maybe they keep am âoearms lengthâ fro. the transactions, but there is a *lot* of growth there. Trump is doing it maybe to a higher (and tackier) degree, but way more in the open. The loopholes he is exploiting are weaknesses in the system exploited by all players, that i at least have been largely ignoring until now. accuse me of both sidesing all you want, but go look at the data first.

In a way, this is a gift ti the American people. Trump is doing publicly what every president has done, except for a small noble contingent maybe. His gross and public transactions reveal all the weaknesses in the system (perhaps installed intentionally) that everyone has been exploiting behind the curtain all along.

Iâ(TM)d be curious to see how well true black hats are faring using ai tools.

Relevant Star Trek, A Taste of Armageddon.

>of idiots

If only that were true. They are very smart at acquiring wealth and influence off the backs of regular, honest folk.