Yeah, “global elite” my ass. He found the perfect opportunity to protect his funders and give a speech that caters to idiots.
Side note: as a non US person, hearing US officials talking about a “global elite” makes me chuckle. My friends, you were the global elite since WW2 ended and possibly still are
Well, the French Revolution wasn’t really that goes for the people of the time either. It was an extreme event which punished innocents too. The eventual changes in society were the beneficial ones. The same is true about WW2 I guess.
If it happens gradually, then some will go out of business while others will modify the ordering to appeal to those with money. If it happens suddenly that people don’t have money to spend, then governments will try to bail them out with public money, thus accelerating the public’s descent into poverty and then some will go out of business while others will modify the offering, etc.
But the thing is, people who have the financial power or political influence to prevent common people from going into poverty don’t stand to loose from this collapse. People with power and money increase their power and money both when thighs go well and when they go bad. Unfortunately more so when they go bad.
Unless, of course, the French Revolution happens.
Is it a scam? How does it work?
Yes, but paid content is not the norm and the reason for that is that blatant advertising and shoving malaware down people’s throats on grandma’s recipe website is not only legal, it’s a predictable business model.
Yeah, that’s fine, but at some point we need to start talking about alternative methods of monetization for websites. On the one hand, compiling a list of recipies on a website and maintaining that website is not easy or cheap and the owners should be able to make money out of it. On the other hand, the user should be able to pay for this comfortably and have a nice experience on the website.
This ad model doesn’t serve any of the two, business or consumer.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply to my hasty, poorly put together message. The point I was trying to make was that the original meaning has been lost when the word became popular. It is a somewhat obscure word with a loose definition based on an obscure reference and it describes something for which the language was more than ready to describe anyway. I think that instead of telling people to try and use the word correctly, one should tell then to not use it at all.
What does it mean? It’s a relatively new term and I’ve seen it used to describe everything from accidental logical fallacies to being short-changed at the liquor store
It’s not sweedes who are doing it. It just happens is sweeden.
A Christian man who immigrated from Iraq to Sweden stomped on a Koran then burnt it on June 28, 2023, in front of Stockholm’s largest mosque on the first day of the Muslim holiday of Eid.
He was denied citizenship, by the way.
Who’s we? Did those “we” really manage to exhaust the subject of
This case of al-Ghamdi’s sentencing appears to be the first instance of a death penalty being imposed solely for online posts in Saudi Arabia.
?
I don’t think hanging on to a prediction that didn’t come true makes sense even if it is painful to accept it. It’s much better if you accept the reality as it is and form a new world view based on it. Some people left the platform, myself included, but a lot of other people subscribed. It turns out password share wasn’t that big of an issue and it didn’t alienate too many customers.
To be honest, it didn’t matter to me either. I left netflix because they started charging 20Eur/month in my country and that’s just outrageous. To put it in perspective, AppleTv+, Disney and Prime cost me a combined 16Eur/month and I get free deliveries too. Fuck netflix.
The article published the new total number of subscribers which is growing nicely. It’s less relevant how that number is growing for netflix. The databis taken from their quarterly report, by the way. You can read it yourself too. Here’s the letter to the shareholders. By the way, presenting false information in those reports as a public company is a criminal offence.
That information exists in the article
Why would they lie about the user count? Netflix is a publicly listed company. A lie like that would be a criminal offence.
That’s called leadership. You put the right people in the right places and you don’t get in their way.
But when the process improves and the end product is the same, it just takes less money/time to make it. So the only way common people would benefit from it is if manufacturers decided out of goodwill
The industrial revolution improved the process. Before that, for example, knives were traditionally made by a skilled blacksmith and were very expensive. After, they were made cheaply and much better and made their way in every home. Just like pots and pans. And clothing and carpets and chairs and literally all the goods which required a skilled crafstmith and were expensive and scarce became massed produced and became cheap.
Same with computers: things that were hard to make because they required skilled workforce became easy to do and cheap with automation.
It will be the same with AI: another round of things that are expensive because they require skilled labour will become cheap and available to everyone. This time it will be even more complex things than before, things that require a bit of ingenuity like medical diagnosis, maybe driving, maybe teaching, maybe writing (but more probably editing rather than writing). Think cheap basic healthcare for everyone. Think free, good, reliable public transport for everyone. Think reliable press. I don’t know what form it will take and where we’ll find applications for it.
It’s not clear what capabilities this technology has at the moment and what is its future. However, it promises a wonderful thing: the ability to scale up for free things that couldn’t be scaled because they could only be done by people and people are in short supply.
As for the work hours comparison between now and the medieval times, that comparison is not correct. It compares working hours, but doesn’t add in the effort required for just living. When work is done, you have to make food from scratch always because you can’t store it for too long, gather firewood, clean the firepit, bring water from somewhere, make tools, make clothing, wash and clean the house, constantly repair a host of poorly built things that require attention, a million things to do always. We really can use our down time for leisure nowadays.
That’s not what I’m debating. What about healthcare? What about acces to education? What about infant death rates? What about travel? What about not having to worry about starvation? Clean water directly into your home? Hot water too? Electricity? Have these not improved the quality of life greatly? You must not know history if you think your average peasant was living a better life preindustrialisation.
I’m not sure what work you’re doing at the moment but you seem pretty burned out by it. Maybe it’s time for a change
You probably don’t know history.
The whole population will benefit from AI and not just people who already make way too much money like it happened with pretty much every other technological innovation right?
Humanity benefited from the invention of the printing press. Humanity benefited from the industrial revolution. Humanity benefited from the invention of computers. Humanity will benefit from AI too, greatly so. This is not what is up for debate. Some people made fortunes from it, but does that matter when you compare it to how much good it brought about?
I was the car they were waved into a few hours ago. But the car doing the waving was from the incoming lane (left lane on this picture) so it didn’t even register that they stopped. I wasn’t even looking left, I was just suddenly cut off and hit the brakes as a reflex all the while wondering what happened and why my car is slowing down.