CPLX

7 ms·

61.
by CPLX 3mo ago
> I, who don't have or plan to have children, should spend my money to protect other people's children from the Internet. For the same reason your taxes pay for schools even when you don't have kids. Because we live in a s
62.
by CPLX 3mo ago
> If you don't have an answer to the question of why someone should have to pay again to use the Internet Of course I have an answer. To do something about the unlimited firehose of porn, violence, divisive, and addictive content th
63.
by CPLX 3mo ago
I'm not disowning it at all. I think paying a recurring cost to prove you're an adult for purposes of accessing the internet is completely fine, trivial, and unimportant. You have to pay a cost to go out in public, since there are
64.
by CPLX 3mo ago
I mean, if you really want to make the government subsidize an ID verification scheme or mandate that certain real-world locations provide age verification as a social service for everyone, that's fine. It's orthogonal to the disc
65.
by CPLX 3mo ago
If you call pornograpy and violence delivery to children "providing them with information" then sure but most normal people just consider that a bad thing that we'd like to avoid and definitely would like to stop sociopathic
66.
by CPLX 3mo ago
No let's not. Let's actually create and maintain a society. There are still places in the world where you and your family can literally fend for yourself against nature and rival gangs and so on if you're just super attached
67.
by CPLX 3mo ago
Yes there is. You need to pay for a drivers license or a passport and so on. So there is an intrinsic cost to prove who you are where you are from and what your birthday is already. You have to pay for all sorts of small things to participa
68.
by CPLX 3mo ago
Why should you pay for an internet connection, or a computing device with a screen? This isn't a serious counterargument.
69.
by CPLX 3mo ago
This comment should not be downvoted. The original article lost me in the first sentence with this: "The literature on harms to kids from online platforms is complex and nuanced, rife with people citing small, ambiguous studies as iron
70.
by CPLX 4mo ago
There must just be 8 million of us that haven't figured out how to leave, huh?
71.
by CPLX 4mo ago
It wasn’t a net win for the consumer. The consumer is now much worse off than before and our country is weaker. It was just a mistake to allow ourselves to be ruled by the financial sector.
72.
by CPLX 4mo ago
It happened over a longer period obviously, and what happened is the US adopted a failed industrial policy that saw our core manufacturing base shipped to China for the benefit of Wall Street and the financial sector.
73.
by CPLX 4mo ago
We are seeing results. The rich have it better than ever. That's the results.
74.
by CPLX 4mo ago
Bilderberg, the World Economic Forum, and Bohemian Grove are also cabals of elite crazies trying to run the world.
75.
by CPLX 4mo ago
It’s not possible to prevent these same children from getting alcohol or drugs either but we certainly don’t permit it.
76.
by CPLX 4mo ago
Perhaps then you could at least vaguely understand the desire of people to avoid having slimy, rightwing, greasy friends of Epstein and other known abusers to ID and surveil their children. I definitely see both sides of this argument but t
77.
by CPLX 4mo ago
These companies are clearly calling things that are R&D that aren't R&D. If you're building a model that lasts a few months before it's no longer the most current one, and maybe a year before it's completely unus
78.
by CPLX 4mo ago
You just explained it. You can get a Chinese made car in China. That's kind of the point. They are smart enough to protect and support their domestic industries. We also have to do that, it's necessary for sovereignty.
79.
by CPLX 4mo ago
We agree on quite a bit. You're wrong about protectionism though. It is an essential part of industrial policy and heavily employed by every industrial powerhouse country including Japan, China, Germany, and yes the US. China uses it e
80.
by CPLX 4mo ago
> then new more competent US automakers would pop up, similar to Tesla. A company that literally is collapsing as we speak because it's more profitable to be in the business of stock inflation and financialization. A coherent indust
81.
by CPLX 4mo ago
No I don't understand your objection. My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival, and that limiting imports is necessary but insufficient to achieve that goal. Banning stock buybacks would be another
82.
by CPLX 4mo ago
Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours. Which was the original point. They don't let western businesses overwhelm their domestic industry at all. For us to let them do it to us would be un
83.
by CPLX 4mo ago
This is just an example of the fundamental nature of asymmetric insurgent warfare and the nature of proxy conflicts. It's not like Vietnam was more powerful than the US economy either. You seem confused. In an all-out existential battl
84.
by CPLX 4mo ago
> explain America's world-wide industrial dominance. > Europe was devastated and bankrupt. Asia was devastated and bankrupt. Well yeah. Because America's world wide industrial dominance soundly beat the shit out of everyone,
85.
by CPLX 4mo ago
What does the Russian economy have to do with anything? First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy, and second of all they're still one of the top 5 most militarily powerful countries in the world. I don't even know w
86.
by CPLX 4mo ago
You're confusing cause and effect.
87.
by CPLX 4mo ago
If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power then I don't think we're really having a serious conversation here.
88.
by CPLX 4mo ago
You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities? Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll gi
89.
by CPLX 4mo ago
Every single load of bullshit shuffled into our faces has been presented as a benefit to consumers. Google gives away their search and Gmail for free, don't you know? So it can't possibly be a monopoly. And so on. It's just p
90.
by CPLX 4mo ago
Of course it is part of an industrial policy. It is, however, not nearly sufficient, and if it's the only thing we do, it will become increasingly untenable and eventually fail. But it's an essential first step to prevent our audi

More ›