I don’t disagree that social media has played a massive role in changing the world in a negative way. This is a very far reaching claim though and one that kinda misses the forest for the trees. The problem is that fundamentally capitalism demands that companies find more ways to siphon more money from customers every quarter or they fail.
Social media is a perfect storm for the elites in this system. It’s a CIA wet dream. It’s literally a globalized and hyper personalized propaganda distribution platform. This is the inevitable outcome of capitalism and human behavior. Meta’s whole purpose is to create the most optimized pipeline for accepting money from 3rd parties in exchange for convincing as many people as possible of what they want those people to believe.
Social media is evil but it’s also the natural course of what happens with current technology and the incentives of capitalism.
Wall Street makes those demands. Those demands are backed up by court cases and precedent. Nothing about this is synonymous with "capitalism."
> It’s a CIA wet dream.
And they spend a significant amount of money. Is this "capitalism" still? Or are there more specific terms that would apply more directly to this arrangement?
> Social media is evil
The US is the largest manufacturer and seller of weapons in the world.
I started college 10 years ago and all of my homework was computer based, including Calculus and Linear Algebra. Of course for those higher level math classes I had to use paper and pencil to get to the answer but absolutely everything was submitted through an online portal. For any other classes the work was purely done on the computer.
Maintaining and updating your own hardware comes with so much operational overhead compared to magically spinning up and down resources as needed. I don’t think this really needs to be said.
It’s absolutely not a one time cost. Once you have it you need to hire people full time to maintain it and eventually upgrade it. Hardware fails constantly
I mean its fair to say that its deliberately on the nose. However, I would argue that despite being definitionally correct, Palantir still represents a misinterpretation by discarding the works in their whole. I brought it up because postmodern does correctly imply a reaction to what is "modern", but its also a body of work in its own right.
This is not to say that Tolkien's authorial intent is final, nor necessarily discernible, but we are obligated to examine the palantirs' presentation as not just a passive object with certain, defined qualities, but as devices that have their own consequential histories within the narrative. Thiel naming his company after a tool presented textually as fallible, misleading, and myopic (in addition to its obvious power) with ostensibly no desire to attach such connotations to the company requires, in my mind, at least a superficial reading. We can even disregard the fact that these were mostly tools for an evil opposed by Tolkien, and not make the (valid) argument that their presentation within the text is could be considered direct argument in opposition to their creation. I personally think that to build a company and name it after a work that argues against that company's mission/purpose requires misinterpretation of the reference material, both in terms of poor comprehension of metaphor and as a poor response to the text and the body of discourse that surrounds and infuses it.
Hosting a developer environment remotely that you SSH into is very common. That’s how you would approach working with a monorepo that has any serious size to it.
It seems that UBI arguments are all about "fairness". So it naturally should extend to other countries it seems. Otherwise you are just creating another greedy / protected group.
Of course people usually try to draw the UBI Venn diagram such that they are a net receiver of funds.
What would be absurd about a global UBI? It's amazing how fast people jump off the high horse of equality when you point out that on a global scale they are incredibly rich and privileged.
Equality to them means them getting more material goods, not them giving up more material goods.
It's about impracticality, not morality. It doesn't make feasible sense to fix the whole world's economy in one go. And we shouldn't let imperfection get in the way of progress.
It is hard to say "I want UBI because inequality" and then fail to recognize this.
What they are really saying is "I don't want anyone to be richer than I am but fine with people being poorer". So the default human position on things.
Atlassian is well positioned to release a coding agent. If they leverage the integration with the rest of their cloud ecosystem it could turn out to be a very cohesive dev loop.
Social media is a perfect storm for the elites in this system. It’s a CIA wet dream. It’s literally a globalized and hyper personalized propaganda distribution platform. This is the inevitable outcome of capitalism and human behavior. Meta’s whole purpose is to create the most optimized pipeline for accepting money from 3rd parties in exchange for convincing as many people as possible of what they want those people to believe.
Social media is evil but it’s also the natural course of what happens with current technology and the incentives of capitalism.
reply