readyman

14 ms·

121.
by readyman 3y ago
>Harvard literally isn't a “business enterprise under capitalism” It literally is. "Non-profit" is a particular way of doing accounting, categorizing funds, filing taxes, but the incentives and interests are no different.
122.
by readyman 3y ago
Sounds pretty short-sighted. Capitalism is not a system we can simply opt out of, and regardless one university is just one university.
123.
by readyman 3y ago
Socialism makes a lot more sense when you realize that all the rigging to make people feel good about capitalism results in the same structure simply because anything else would not be permitted.
124.
by readyman 3y ago
> The Federal government could But will it? No. Back to the drawing board.
125.
by readyman 3y ago
The same reasons as any other business enterprise under capitalism.
126.
by readyman 3y ago
> We humans evolved to be very flexible and naturally use what is in front of us to solve whatever problems we need to solve. Ha, yeah right. Almost all of us spent the vast majority of our time and energy just making dishonest rich pe
127.
by readyman 3y ago
> Even if true, that would imply ANY probability of a comfortable lifestyle is ~0. That is definitely the case, and it's precisely the point that parent was making.
128.
by readyman 3y ago
Material sustenance predominates every other aspect of human society, so the socialists just seem to have their priorities in order when you put it that way.
129.
by readyman 3y ago
Sure, I can accept that because it is a concept fundamentally at odds with civilization.
130.
by readyman 3y ago
This seems to presume that one's wealth is the only measure of individual value anyone cares about, which is just absurd. One can be wealthy beyond belief and still be an up-and-comer in many aspects of their life, and under socialism
131.
by readyman 3y ago
Because capitalism is an entirely different concept. Capitalism is an economic system of relations that prioritizes the right to exercise one's existing capital to accumulate more of it, hence the word capitalism . So-called "fre
132.
by readyman 3y ago
> instead of people defending their identities as business owners or employees In a political/economic context, those are not "identities" but distinct roles in a power structure. Their political and economic interests ar
133.
by readyman 3y ago
Capitalists choose the laws
134.
by readyman 3y ago
any anyone who understands how capitalism works would understand this will never change under capitalism
135.
by readyman 3y ago
> The Department of Labor would monitor adherence and fine companies a minimum of $100 for wrongdoing LMAO
136.
by readyman 3y ago
> If society is told to be exploitative and annoying to get ahead, that’s what you get. Nonsense. If a society is structured as such, it makes no difference what is "told". And who is doing this "telling" anyhow?
137.
by readyman 3y ago
> If everyone solely optimized for their own situation, society would fail. So why should we allow profiteers to exploit working people endlessly instead of building public housing? YIMBYs are precisely as insufferable as NIMBYs.
138.
by readyman 3y ago
> Fun fact: The vessel can load app 29,000 African elephants. The moment between reading the words "African" and "elephants" was frought.
139.
by readyman 3y ago
The only proper way to do this is to appropriate the grid and socialize it. There are zero acceptable excuses for privatizing an energy grid. The only reason it's done is to create another permanent monopoly to exploit the public for u
140.
by readyman 3y ago
> Build more nuclear!! The private sector is uninterested in such long term ROI so "building more buclear" would require a major expansion of public investment. Would you support that? If so, the next question is whether that
141.
by readyman 3y ago
Just like how humans under capitalism sacrifice the poor! It's always great to have another 'just so' excuse for wretched exploitation!
142.
by readyman 3y ago
Yeah, just ask the DOJ!?!?!? Is this supposed to be a joke? Unions in the US have been corrupt ever since the Taft Hartley act kneecapped them, but it's absurd to take the DOJ's word for any of this.
143.
by readyman 3y ago
The AFL was effectively an anti-labor organization and the CIO was not "pretty open". They were explicitly and actively organizing all workers.
144.
by readyman 3y ago
The labor movements of the 20s/30s were very explicitly not segregated. Any segregation in labor was always the work of the bosses, all the way back.
145.
by readyman 3y ago
Profit. The question at hand is whether LLMs can produce profit, which is an extremely different question than the questions you're asking.
146.
by readyman 3y ago
Simply because it was not in the interests of enough of the ruling class to do so. Profit is always the top priority. Nothing short of preparation for war could motivate the ruling class to uproot profitable relationships. It has taken a lo
147.
by readyman 3y ago
I don't know what it's trying to say. Making it a complete sentence would be a good first step. Don't try fancy stuff like this unless showing off style is more important to you than communicating coherently. In technical wri
148.
by readyman 3y ago
> However, human cumulative culture involves behaviours so complex that they lie beyond the capacity of any individual to independently discover during their lifetime This is the scientific argument for religion.
149.
by readyman 3y ago
> You build out HSR, local transit, and EV capabilities out all at the same time And the critique is that the US is not and cannot do so. These are political problems and our politics are dominated by the interests of capital, not the i
150.
by readyman 3y ago
It's absolutely true. The detriment of manifesting the necessary new and very nasty manufacturing processes make it a done deal, especially compared to simply building trains, which is admittedly not simple in the US due to the cruel a

More ›