pjhenry1216

I didn’t say the employees wanted corporations to unionize or not. The joke was corporations interrupting employees asking if they can also unionize.

Corporations: hey guys, let’s unionize so the government doesn’t exploit us.

Employees: hey, can we als…

Corporations: NO.

This is a ridiculous analogy. It’s also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you’re doing is trying to claim I’m making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn’t communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn’t been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I’m not even claiming communism can or can’t work. Just that the arguments provided don’t support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn’t give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I’ve even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

You act as if it’s been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it’s not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn’t devolve into it. It’s simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you’re unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don’t know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn’t devolve into authoritarianism. They’re not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It’s like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn’t devolve into one. They’re not the same thing.

Income share isn’t actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn’t mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn’t buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you’re unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you’re actively misleading people.

You’re technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don’t believe communism would work either. Communism isn’t the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren’t actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.

Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.

I’ve seen a sudden influx of memes all about this and I don’t know why. It’s suddenly the new trend and I don’t understand it.

What did they convert to? I can’t tell if this is a joke I just don’t understand or what

ChatGPT is why the public is scrambling about AI. AI art has been around awhile and there’s always been complaining because its lame compared to real artists. This has fuck all to do with it suddenly being open source AI.

I’d imagine it’s something that can be turned on and off, just like it’s stealth technology.

Edit: to further expand on this, finding the downed plane is a lot more important than it sounds. This could technically be classified as spillage considering there is classified tech in an F35. Foreign agents would benefit if they found it first. I’m pretty sure there are recon teams trained to recover downed aircraft in military zones. Considering they still are equipped with radio for communication, I’d imagine even just an encrypted message at time of impact could be useful.

Losing a plane over friendly zones shouldn’t have to worry about having a beacon that’s always on. I fail to understand why it would be silly to believe one could be useful in a jet fighter, stealth or not. I’d imagine it’s likely even present but just defunct for whatever reason in this scenario and details can’t be revealed about that, as again, it still contains classified technology.

Still about some Canadians. You are still splitting hairs. The lessons aren’t specific to Chinese heritage people.

Do they not put beacons on their seats either? How did they find the pilot? I’d imagine if it were an issue, it could be deactivated in wartime or over enemy lines.

Anyone who thinks that was the main plot point didn’t actually watch it and just listened to crazy people complaining about the movie.

Pretty sure the main character was born in Canada making them Canadian.

Don’t black boxes have beacons of some kind?

I’d also imagine an airtag is useless in this scenario as if it crashed and no one knows about it, it’s likely not near someone’s Bluetooth enabled phone either.

AI can very easily be abused and I don’t see how this is related to the tech being open sourced or not. Fighting to ensure you aren’t exploited is fine and I support anyone to fight against exploitation.

They could easily make more money with the same image by limiting how much revenue goes to the charities. You can choose to not give them anything.

I’m not saying they aren’t in it for the money. Most people need to make money to survive. But I think it’s disingenuous to say they don’t care at all. I think they do good and I feel many others agree.

A corporate marketing tool that costs such a large portion of your revenue is an inefficient tool. There must be some other value in it for them.

Honestly, I could see it being both. HB isn’t entirely cold-hearted corporatism.

Oh boy, reddit is gaining in numbers on lemmy it seems. They can’t have folks supporting lgbtq, amirite? That sounds just awful. Fuck people looking for acceptance and inclusivity. The “average hater” (not average lemmy user, let’s get that straight) doesn’t want to hear about that.

Let’s keep this hate off Lemmy, OP.