Sadly he's right, and you can see the beginnings of it in these very comments.

Folks who reduce everything to a dichotomous battle aren't going to see nuance here, they're going to see "scientists think they are better than god". The fact no scientists needed to consult with or even think about an authority on their god anywhere through this process just makes it worse.

It might be a ridiculous claim that shows their hand, but they're already in denial about the relevance of their religion too.

Did you... not read the comment you responded to...?

Sadly it is referencing the same article

You should probably look up the name "Paul Benioff" by the way.

And be thankful that some other people are less critical of minor mistakes than you are.

Depends what you mean

The 'health' portfolio was bundled into an old Thompson Reuters brand and sold off unceremoniously. It's now called Merative L.P, it's basically a company that builds medical research and diagnostic pipelines with limited real world success... This was after the actual funders, a group of cancer research centres in the US, pulled the plug on ~7 years of promises that never eventuated about training models to do analysis of diagnostic images...

That is... the models and pipelines existed. They just didn't meet the sales pitch of "better, faster and cheaper than a real oncologist".

The rest of the brand they still have kicking around in the back, and sometimes wheel it out so people can remember when they spent 9 months training it to work out how to respond in the form of a question.

what ARE you talking about

why would 'left leaning' or 'right leaning' sources be the ones I'd favor?

why are those concepts anything other than constructs. I don't live in your country. What if there's something you've missed?

I'm not in the target audience for your right wing media, I'm a foreigner. What do you think that means for how those messages are intended to be received? You want my experience of my own life to be silenced so that only one of two corporate endorsed sets of talking points can be entertained when both of those perspectives cast America as the center of the world? Find someone else to buy your domestic entertainment product.

Yeah this

there's a definite sense, from an abstract systems perspective, where a corporation is just a form of mobile government that doesn't have to worry about silly things like 'territorial defense' or 'population growth' or 'persistent environmental damage'.

If you don't hear people who want to wedge so they can continue to raise points that have been settled using a phrase like this, I don't know what to tell you...

Considering that we're talking about Fox news here, and the subjects given as example are "flat earth, climate change, evolution"... Yeah sorry I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Can you please explain why there's a choice here between 'left' and 'right'?

Do you even understand that you're explaining that the evidence doesn't support your philosophy, and to cope with that you're trying to claim the evidence must be politically motivated... when you don't actually understand how the evidence was produced...?

There's nothing 'left' about empirical evidence being used to determine veracity. Claiming that opposition to your philosophy must be politically motivated without appraising it, or demanding that it be considered purely by a political, moral or emotional metric is explaining the size of the world you're capable of engaging with.

Sorry, that's simply incorrect.

Please take it from someone who actually lives in one of the countries that describe themselves as socialist instead of trying to reinterpret things.

That's simply not true.

Those things have been debated, but that's irrelevant. Debate isn't the mechanism we use to determine veracity for a number of reasons. Not even in archaic places like the legal system.

While we can debate around concepts for colloquial reasons, or just for fun... we should not have to engage with the same, settled, debates over and over.

I shouldn't have to say this, but debates are also not the same thing as listening to people who are disenfranchised or need assistance... and the fact their complaints don't change is an indictment of us, not them.

It'd be so much easier to have this conversation if Americans weren't so conditioned over the word 'socialist'.

Trying to have a conversation about hierarchical relationships and efficiency ends with someone flipping the table because nobody praised a millionaire for facilitating the conversation by existing in an adjacent space

Scientists have been saying that Europe will cool down with the shutdown of the Gulf stream... as far as I can remember they've been predicting this for at least twenty years. What happened?

I also wonder whether maybe people spend too much time obsessing over individuals and their places in history.

It's worth noting that many of the people who popularised the use of the term Marxism were not endorsed by Marx himself, and some were denounced by Engels after Marx's death. His name is a flag that does not necessarily represent, for example, Russian style dictatorial authoritarianism any more than the writings of Nietzsche represent post-weimar Germany... regardless of its popular use.

That said I still agree with pretty much everything in your post, and am curious about the same things... I just think his observation is less revolutionary than perhaps people seem to think, and someone else would have made it if he hadn't.

There are some obvious problems when you take a step back.

For example, it imagines that society is already structured exclusively around the relationship between factory workers and industrialists, and creates policy to that end. In the process, it may accidentally reinforce a stratification that isn't naturally the only one in society, and in doing so simply create a different kind of two tier system dominated by middle managers. As it did in the USSR.

Marx's observations about the workers controlling the means of production were accurate, from a functional information-oriented perspective... that doesn't mean his other ideas about social organisation were.
I find myself wondering what he would have thought of modern Social Democratic nations... or of computers.