You say you don't despise them but your wrote like you do. And going for the free beer isn't compartmentalization.

You only need to make people more productive and then they need less people!

I've seen IT boost productivity for decades and the result is that it reduces jobs or gives more value to the owners while the wages stagnated.

Sure, people counter that existing employees can remain and they get more value out of them, I've heard that plenty. Well, you'd have needed to hire new employees to get those benefits and were able to avoid; perhaps the added expense was not worth paying more but it certainly then the productivity was worth the LOST savings of reducing employees. If any gains were made, they didn't go to employee raises; at least not more than the inflation rate.

Replacing entry workers creates a long term supply problem; which is solved simply by pushing entry workers up the chain! This results in upper workers who could be completely immune from AI being in over supply... So the "safe" jobs get screwed indirectly!

Yeah but the kickbacks aren't as good.

I suspect the reason for empoyers being very reticent to hire someone with an unsual past is due to all the job-protection legislation there is now. I'd love to take more risk on people with somewhat unsual backgrounds but, working at a university in the public sector, once we hire someone it is exceptionally hard - to an amazingly ridiculous extent - to fire them which makes it a massive risk.

As a result it is a lot safer to hire someone whom you know has been at a similar job and is working well there. While we clearly do need legislation to protect employees if it goes too far it makes employers extremely risk adverse because they know they are going to be stuck with whomever they hire.

At least a wheel works.

Though I'd sat patenting a scammy thing that cannot ever work is not as bad as patenting something that does work. Obviously he did it to make a point, but so many obvious things get patented.

Spam out patents, as long as they are perpetual motion machines they will probably go through

Didn't someone patent their variation of whatever the latest reactionless thruster idea is?

Not to mention CA has about 12% of the population of the USA.

VOTERS don't care about land management. politicians on some level always represent their voters.

Like how Americans are fat ignorant corrupt selfish greedy bullies who lie and have no idea why hypocrisy is shameful. They identify with their president for a reason; just distance themselves from a few characteristics they don't want to identify with. If you are the embodiment of every human flaw, everybody will have something in common with you.

Victimless? This is CA which is constantly on fire as it's climate becomes drier. You want to allow smoking next to gas pumps next?

Now who can be sure?

Was at a 4th of july party in one of the "elite" towns outside of Boston where every household has several postgraduate degrees hanging on their walls and shops at whole foods without even looking at the prices.

Given you appear to despise everyone involved, it's odd that you were (a) invited to such a party and (b) chose to go.

My suspicion is that many, if not most, people with the lawn signs are similarly uninformed about the specifics of the controversy they feel uninhibited in expressing a strong opinion about.

Your suspicion is that you're smarter and more well informed than teh lubruhls that you hate buit are partying with. ORLY?

Elitism it seems is quite nice for preening in the mirror

You're positively dripping with a sense of elitism.

RATs can also provide just about enough power to run the hydraulics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Though as you come in to land and the speed decreases, so does hydraulic power making the approach get more difficult as it completed.

People here in California just love electing incompetent politicians

No, it's you not them. The majority of land in question is run by the federal government, so the buck stops with your Daddy.

Literally nothing that you said in that entire post is true.

AI is not eliminating jobs it is changing them, just like computers and robotics has in the past and the assembly line did before those. Everytime we have had a leap in technology it has made some jobs obsolete but the reduction in costs leading to cheaper prices has increased demand leading to more people being employed to run the new technology.

Yes it is disruptive and it will require people to retrain for different jobs but that has been the case with all leaps in technology: short term disruption but longer term higher employment and increased quality of life. There is absolutely no reason to believe that AI will be any different.