jaco6
Simply track all citizens' writing patterns throughout their life, from cradle to grave, then diff with any given text's signature--you'll know if it was human written or not.
Better--opt in--install a "personal text signature" on your devices, sign things that you wrote yourself with it.
But I suppose that's just like the image provenance chips on cameras.
Either way father fascism is more with us than ever, praise him!
AI’s triumph in the white collar workplace will be gradual, not instantaneous. And it will be grimly quiet, because no one likes white collar workers the way they like blue collar workers, for some odd reason, and there’s no tradition of solidarity among white collar workers. Everyone will just look up one day and find that the local Big Corp headquarters is…empty.
The answer is that parts of the country that have enjoyed homogeneity the longest are the most upset about having that homogeneity violated. If one lives in Berlin, which has been heteregenous for a long time, the introduction of mass migration was less upsetting. If one lives in a village or small city that was 100% German for a long time, and now has the pleasure of “welcoming” strangers with a higher crime rate, alien social customs, and different appearance—your response is different.
For the man it’s good because he would otherwise be married and constantly tempted to cheat, as any very high value man is when he is married. For the women it’s arguably also good because they would have to get the high value man to cheat, or they would be the wife of the high value man who gets cheated on.
In the future, it will be increasingly normal for high ranking men to be polyamorous and have “polyamorous” partners, while lower ranking men will continue to be monogamous.
There will be plenty of women who will choose to date only the lower ranking men. But I find it hard to believe that many powerful men will choose to commit to only one woman and deal with the moral and practical difficulties of infidelity that powerful men have had to deal with for thousands of years. Instead they will just date from the pool of “polyamorous” women, that way they don’t have to cheat. Women will go through “polyamorous phases”, where they sleep with a powerful man who is sleeping with other polyamorous women. When they get bored of it they will switch to being monogamous and not speak of the polyamorous phase.
Even the “cool kids” are staying inside and using their phones all day. Cool used to mean you were at the party, now it just means you have a high snapchat score.
Other thing is genuine fear of accidental fentanyl consumption. They’re making fake Xans with fentanyl in them, fentanyl is being found in coke powder. Plenty of people aren’t taking the risk with street drugs anymore. Jelly Roll said so in an interview, he’s a big recreational drug user but doesn’t trust the supply anymore. Good job dealers!
I think this because measures like what we did with tobacco—-public health demonization of junk foods and junk food consumption, banning advertisement of junk food, warning labels on junk food, and high excise taxes on junk food—are unlikely to ever be accepted by the healthy population that has no problem restricting its junk food intake to stay below BMI 30 (60+% of the population). They won’t want to pay double for chips just because obese people can’t stop themselves from eating two bags instead of one.
The only alternative is to charge the obese population on the back end—when they pay for healthcare. Obese people would be made to pay a health insurance surcharge to compensate for the additional healthcare resources they consume. This measure will be decried as “insensitive” and “cruel.”
Alternatively we could do both.
By the way—ozempic et al are unlikely to solve the crisis as some hope. Studies show average long term, sustained weight loss of 10-20 pounds. Good, but not enough to help people who are hundreds of pounds overweight—a sizable portion of the obese population that costs the healthcare system so much.
This will bring an end to crime and herald a massive revival of public trust and socialization.
Furthermore, your assertion that the defense industry doesn’t provide value is questionable. Until you can convince the various state governments of the world to unite in a global superstate, defense spending is a necessary deterrent to invasion and exploitation by other states, so it is, in fact, valuable.
And while I agree that suburbs aren’t the ideal form of urban organization, they aren’t actually the cause of all the social ills that you imagine them to be. Depression and addiction are driven by loneliness, and loneliness is almost as high in urban societies as suburban ones. Obesity may be slightly aggravated by car dependence, but it is still historically high and a major problem in the walking/public transport countries of Europe.
So no, the demon of suburban car dependence does not provide the explanation for all ills.
Is it selfish when a centenarian lives past 100? Is each additional year of life obtained by a centenarian “selfishly” stolen from some hypothetical unborn self?
This is because the entire goal of the sentient consciousness is simply to preserve itself as long as possible. DNA has the essential goal of replicating itself in reproduction. Consciousness, by contrast, appears to have no goal other than self-preservation. People sometimes choose to sacrifice themselves, but usually only when death is inevitable and they wish to save someone else from it (Lily/Harry Potter and Medal of Honor type situations).
To me, excessive negativity about the possibility of immortality smacks of weakness and defeatism. You either love life and want as much of it as possible, which makes you a friend of humanity, or prefer death, which makes you an enemy of humanity. I take a stronger line than the neuroscientist in the article. “Death positivity” like that of Viktor Frankl, anti-natalism, even faith in magical spiritual resurrections—all are anti-human viewpoints, only excusable in the past because they were copes with the inevitability of death. Now that we have reason to believe it can be averted, we owe our potential future selves every possible effort to save them from oblivion.
But at checkout for carryout orders the card terminal also now opens a tip menu. I would never tip on this screen because the employees are already paid a true hourly wage, albeit a low one, not a server rate that is below minimum wage.
Furthermore there is no way for the customer to know if the employee they are tipping is even one of the bottom paid line cooks or a manager or driver who are already making $20/hour at my restaurant—what most servers make after tips. I am a driver and sometimes accept payment for carryout orders and end up receiving credit card tips that should really go to the line cooks. When we aren’t busy I make an effort to reach over and click “no tip” for the customer, as checkout employees at other restaurants sometimes do for me, but sometimes it’s busy and I get tips anyway.
As others have said I think doing away with tips altogether would be best but it seems unlikely that will ever happen. A compromise would be to somehow ban “customer facing” tipping for things other than delivery—no tips at cash registers, only for “pay at the table” establishments.
The problem is actually worse in the world of work than in school. Even workplaces like Amazon warehouses would greatly benefit from IQ testing of new hires, with fast track promotions for those in upper percentiles. It doesn’t happen because of beliefs about racial and social equality. Dumb people end up running places out of nothing more than inertia and fear of acknowledging excellence.