Kbelicius

> Not the parent, but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

Didn't reason much. But I think that you misread what I wrote.

> You download firefox. In firefox, you go to settings->Extensions to download extensions and get exposed to google analytics, is that correct?

Yes.

> If that's true, how is it not insidious that in order to download the thing that blocks google analytics, you have to get exposed to google analytics?

I never said anything in my post about what I think about mozzila using google analytics on their webpages.

All I said is that firefox never came with google analytics. Which is true. Extensions page just loaded a webpage which used google analytics. If that is enough to qualify firefox as coming with google analytics, well, you could always go to google.com meaning that firefox started coming with google analytics the day GA was created.

> "thou shall not kill" is specific to only two big monotheistic religions.

Nonsense, it is present in pretty much all religions, monotheistic or not.

> I love the bit where a programmer always proudly chimes in with this statement as if it means anything.

So you knew that fierfox never came with google analytics but you decided to claim it anyway...

Because it did not. Extensions page used them but nothing else.

Then why would you claim that capitalism is the largest driver of poverty reduction when China was the largest contributor to poverty reduction in the last 100 years? Add to that USSR and it is clear that you should be thanking socialism and not capitalism.

You don't need a fb profile for quest. I'm sure that you could use one but you can create a new meta account for which you just need an email.

SED was Marxist–Leninist and Die Linke isn't. In what universe are they the same party?

It is natural to not see something that isn't there. The article isn' comapraing the two in application or functio

> I think that's a thinly veiled excuse for a much more mundane reason this is happening; their government stakeholders asked them to find a way to retaliate as part of the arguments around trade going on, and Airbus figured this out as a lever they could pull without angering any airline customers.

Even more mundane reason would be the USA threatening war.

> it's only a problem if you're not willing to go and strike up conversations with people.

It is not a problem if there are other people willing to also go and strike up conversations with people. That is why GP wrote that it is a systemic problem that can be solved on a personal level.

> Expecting society to come up with "systemic situations" to your personal problems is a fast path to a lifetime of disappointment.

It is not a personal problem. It is a systemic problem. Are you conflating on purpose or do you not understand the difference?

And it is a systemic problem, all you need to do is look at the data.

> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first.

But google did change how they do things thanks to this case thus making everything you wrote some anti-government fiction.

Why can't it be both? After all GP did not give any definitions. He simply and clearly stated:

> The end goal shouldn't be "monopolies, but European", the end goal should be no monopolies.

Ha, you just reminded me of something that I read a long time ago. Some history book which relayed a story from some part of islamic world from centuries ago.

A king goes hunting but fails to catch anything. Hungry, he goes to a nearby village. He enters the inn and orders some quail eggs. After finishing the meal, he goes to pay. The innkeeper tells him that the meal costs ten gold coins.

"I did not know quail eggs were so rare in these parts," says the king.

"They are not," replies the innkeeper, "but kings are."

> -> More people have died in the EU from heat waves due to lack of air conditioning than gun violence in the US. Ratio is worse if you remove suicide gun death.

That is mostly on how heat deaths are counted in eu vs usa. In usa heat must be mentioned as a cause of death on the certificate but as those who die in heat waves mostly have underlying issues heat is rearly put as cause of death. In the eu you don't need heath mentioned on the death certificate to count it as a heath death, they count excess deaths.

Downvoters aren't being silly, it's about you not considering the context of the discussion when writing your first reply. Deepseek wasn't mentioned once in this thread before your second post and AI was mentioned once in a list of different industries. Those should have been a clue to why your first post was downvoted. Basically, you wrote a non sequitur post and are surprised that it is being downvoted.

Never heard of Gazzaniga before reading above comment, its quite fascinating.

The brain, its left hemisphere, makes up the narrative.

Go look directly at the sun without any protection or go listen to sounds of 120dB if you want to test your hypothesis that light and sound can't be unhealthy.

Or maybe you aren't being litteral and are just saying that what children see and hear has no influence on their developmemt. Either way, total bullshit.

Not all schools have those and not everybody can practice those at home while every school can teach cursive and every student can practice it at home. It is simple as that.

Ok, so i guess that personal caes don't play any huge role in modern civilization and its logstics so i was right to be shocked by your statement.

As do I. What is your point?

Nobody said that that individualism is toxic

> THIS! I am shocked that some people don't realize that modern civilization and our modern quality of life depends on cars to a huge degree, even for people don't personally drive. Such a lack of knowledge about modern industry and logistics..

I'm more shocked that somebody thinks that modern civilization and logistics depend on personal cars. Can ypu expand on your statement that modern industry and logistic depend on persobal cars?

> Who controls an automated system and whether enough automated systems exists to fulfill everyone's needs are separate things.

Again, nobody said that they were. You are arguing with yourself.

> You could have one person providing for the entire needs of the world by scaling themselves using AI.

Sure, and if one person owned all the automated system he could blackmail others, choose not to use those automated systems to fulfill the needs of some... it is beyond me that in the world we are currently living in somebody doesn't see it.

> These can't be simultaneously true.

Nobody said that they can.

>The techno utopia we imagine is a world where nobody has to work. All our needs are taken care of and we live a life of leisure.

All our needs are taken care of in an imagined techno utopia.

> But as long as there is ownership of the automated systems, those owners will hoard all the wealth generated by that automation.

That utopia can not come if there is private ownership of those automated systems.

> Can you name me another time when humanity has run out of useful work to do? > > Was it when we tamed fire, invented the wheel, writing, or double entry bookkeeping? All of which appear more consequential than current AI. > > We’ll always have something to do. And humans like doing things.

History doesn't predict the future. I can't tell you about another time when humans ran out of usefull things to do. What I can tell you is that we humans are biological beings we limited cognitive and physical abiloties.

I can also tell you about another biological being whose cognitive and phyisical abilities were surpassed by technology. Horses. What happened to them then wasn't pretty. The hight of their population in US was in 1915.

And sure, humans like doing things and so do horses, but you can't live by doing things that aren't useful to others, at least not in the current system. If technology surpases our abilities, the only useful things left to do for vast majority of humans is the same thing that was left for horses to do. Entertainment in various forms and there won't be enough of those jobs for all of us.

> You'd have to be crazy to go into radiology

People were saying that a decade ago, if not more, with machine learning outperforming radiologists. Today we don't have enough radiologists. What has changed since those days that one can again say that so confidently?

Nobody is saying that you aren't paying more for electricity. What they are saying is that you reasoning about why that is is wrong.

> All things unquestionably better than the past. What's there to complain about?

Taste and nutritional value a worse then in the past. Arguably the two most important things when it comes to food.

> I do not choose books over podcasts out of ignorance.

I cannot read minds so I have to go with what you wrote. What you wrote in the post that I replied to is that the reason why you don't listen to podcasts is ignorance. You gave no other reason. This post of yours also gives no other explicit reason besides ignorance.

> I'm just not interested in wading through mountains of garbage to get to what you insist is worth listening to.

Well, there is also a mountain of garbage books so that is not a very good argument for books. Yes, libraries exist so do podcast libraries.

I'm not insisting on anything.

> However, our time on this earth is finite so if I am to choose between ephemeral content and things which have made it through an editing process

Podcasts can cover many of the same topics that books cover so they aren't necessarily ephemeral. Most of the books are also ephemeral. Many podcasts go through editing process.

> When you encounter people who seem incredibly smart, I all but guarantee that your first thought is never going to be "this person must listen to a lot of podcasts!"

It won't be but then again, I never thought "this person must read a lot of books".

> If podcasts make you happy, then I am happy for you.

I don't listen to podcasts. Maybe once in a blue moon as background noise.

> This statement feels like a farmer making a case for using their hands to tend the land instead of a tractor because it produces too many crops. Modern farming requires you to have an ecosystem of supporting tools to handle the scale and you need to learn new skills like being a diesel mechanic.

This to me looks like an analogy that would support what GP is saying. With modern farming practices you get problems like increased topsoil loss and decreased nutritional value of produce. It also leads to a loss of knowledge for those that practice those techniques of least resistance in short term.

This is not me saying big farming bad or something like that, just that your analogy, to me, seems perfectly in sync with what the GP is saying.