Probably just better at using AI to write papers

I’m guessing they mean like in the absence of energy, right? Because can’t massless photons warp spacetime as the get to higher and higher energies?

I read a pretty convincing article title and subheading implying that the best use for so called “AI” would be to replace all corporate CEOs with it.

I didn’t read the article but given how I’ve seen most CEOs behave it would probably be trivial to automate their behavior. Pursue short term profit boosts with no eye to the long term, cut workers and/or pay and/or benefits at every opportunity, attempt to deny unionization to the employees, tell the board and shareholders that everything is great, tell the employees that everything sucks, …

There were enough Republicans who voted for Biden in '20 to flip Georgia, which is solidly “mainstream” Republican (e.g. Reagan Republicans).

The article’s analysis of why Hillary lost is correct, and the diagnosis of the failures of Clintonism is also correct. They fail to point out that Clinton “won” '92 because Perot pulled away enough Bush votes in enough states to swing the Electoral College to Clinton, who only got 40% of the popular vote. That “victory” somehow convinced a bunch of Democrats that conservatism without bigotry (or at least less) was the key to electoral success. Clinton got reelected with the power of incumbency and BobDole being a fairly weak candidate. That cemented the conservatism lite in the Democratic Party for a generation, many of whom are still in the party.

It’s changing though. Biden is not a classic conservative Democrat anymore, or at least his team and policies aren’t.

One big thing they need to do is acknowledge that the system is rigged against the non wealthy, and that small-d democracy as it exists today in America is not up to the task of helping the non wealthy. Then they need to propose ways to fix our broken democracy, ask young people for suggestions for how to fix it, and write some binding policy proposals to implement those fixes.

Because right now Trump and the Republicans are acknowledging that our democracy is failing non wealthy (straight white Christian) people, and the solution they’re offering is to do away with it entirely in favor of Hungarian or Russian style authoritarianism.

The first part of that message will resonate, and the “help us fix democracy” part needs to be the 2nd half. Or Trump probably will get reelected.

I can imagine living in a world where this is the top point of conflict across the globe. No wars, no famine, no climate change, no oppression… Just, “can you believe this twat saying we should put salt in tea!?!”

I’d suggest guns, missiles, and militarized drones. Maybe some tanks and stuff. I’m just spit balling here though.

The answer is “vote” but not just once. Not just for federal elections. Every election, you should be there. Show up to candidate forums and bother your current electeds.

Every government is like a ship of various size, it takes a while to see the turn even start, let alone have the course actually get corrected. The bigger the government, the harder it can be to get long lasting positive change accomplished. (This isn’t a “small government is better” thing either, it’s just how large organizations work.)

If you can, run for office. If you can’t, find someone you trust who can and support them. Not just Congress or president or governor. City council, county government, school board, on and on…

I dunno it seems like there’s a pretty solid “type” for mass shooters - young, white, male - that means something is left out of your evaluation. Economic oppression (by the owner class) and easy access to guns (enabled by the owner class!) makes it easy for these disaffected people to commit mass violence on the rest of us.

I’m sure if people had more economic security there would be fewer shootings but I don’t expect they’d go away. But a lot of these shooters talk about feeling alienated or disrespected. In my estimation that comes from expectations not being met. Probably unrealistic expectations.

(Yes I know “not every shooter is a young white male”)

The problem honestly is your concept of hormones is incomplete. There are no hormones that only do one thing. They might have a primary function. But they all have secondary and tertiary functions. They all regulate other hormones. Evolution doesn’t do single functions.

If you knock down a “fight” hormone you’re probably going to mess up the homeostasis of the body in other ways. You can probably “fix” that artificially, but you’ll be constantly chasing the next side effect. Humans are chemical Rube Goldberg machines of infinite order. Disrupt one thing and it all goes out of whack.

I mean Serling and Sterling are so close it seems stupid to me to call it Mandela effect. More like humans gonna human.

We (humans) don’t need atmospheric nitrogen to survive, we just need the “other” in the atmosphere to not be toxic. My guess is any element in the same periodic table column as nitrogen that could somehow exist as a gas at STP would be fine (hypothetically).

Don’t they replace nitrogen with like helium for some SCUBA applications?

Other life on Earth obviously does metabolize nitrogen (I think we do a little bit too). So to preserve our biosphere we should not throw off the nitrogen balance. But as others have observed it’s not clear there’s any imbalance coming.

Unchecked, unanswerable power corrupts. On lemmy everyone is free to create their own sub. Heck they’re free to create their own instance. That makes the “power” of moderators pretty tame.

Compare that to the power a corporate CEO has over the typical employee. Especially since the 1970s and 1980s redefinition of the primary responsibility of the directors of a corporation to be “maximize shareholder value” instead of “maximize stakeholder value.”

Even in (small d democratic) politics, at least an aggrieved voter can run to replace a corrupt, abusive politician. Not many companies, probably no publicly traded ones, have a mechanism for the workers to replace the management. That’s where major corruption by power can be witnessed.

If only there were some way to get individuals you want to capture or kill without also killing everyone around them. Oh well, maybe one day someone will invent a way to do that.

Seriously, y’all. How is “there’s a bad guy in that hospital” somehow an acceptable justification for blowing up the hospital?!

Dear Israel: use your world renowned special forces and world renowned secret police to go get the assholes and disappear them to a prison cell or whatever without killing a bunch of innocent civilians!! For fuck’s sake…

It’s easy to focus on the negative, especially because that sells more toilet paper and beer on TV (and Internet sites).

But as Mr Rogers instructed us, when you see bad things going on, look for the helpers. There are a lot of people out there working to put the seams back together even as others are picking at them.

So far, the seam fixers have been winning. I think they’ll still win. For all its downsides, there is a huge upside to globalization: the wealthy people have more to gain from a mostly peaceful planet than from a mostly war stricken planet. Now, there’s profit in that “mostly” that is - to my way if thinking - bad. It’s something that (small “d”) democratic people should push back against.

Like, think about the American bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. We actually stopped being at war in those places in the recent past. We don’t have large deployments of active duty troops out there killing poor brown people. That’s good.

Biden also seems like the most likely guy to strongly resist the inevitable calls for war from the military industrial political media complex. Not only does he have personal experience with the loss that comes from war. He has decades of experience in government which makes him less likely to be hornswoggled by generals who want to blow shit up. (If he can purge all the white supremacists from the military that will also help.)

Don’t only look at the bad news. There’s good news out there, too.

I love how all the people talking about how semi auto guns have been around for X years and blah blah blah completely ignore the massive uptick in production, sale, and distribution of those guns in the past 30-40 (or so).

People have more or less been able to buy assault style semi auto rifles for a long time, but they only “recently” (I guess 30-40 years might not be so recent?) started actually buying them in large numbers. Mostly thanks to the NRA, if I had to point a finger.

The problem is that a really angry or disturbed or whatever person with access to a high rate of fire weapon and lots of ammo (because they’ve been told that next election Jack Johnson or John Jackson will be taking their guns) can literally just pick it up and go kill half a dozen or more people in 30 minutes. There’s nothing we can do to intercept that. (And “good guys with guns” have a terrible track record, including cops.)

We even had a little experiment in the 90s where people were buying a lot of these and then we banned them. Mas shootings (4+ victims according to the FBI if I recall correctly) had been going up but then they went down until …

W and his Republican stooges (or maybe he was the stooge?) let the ban expire, mass shootings started ticking up.

The drivers that lead people to mass violence probably are the “root” of the problem, and I would guess hypothetically that if we could snap our fingers and solve those it wouldn’t matter how many or what type of guns there are out there. The problem is that we aren’t even trying to fix those problems, and the Republican Party is actively making them worse, AND we’re making these literal weapons of war easily available to everyone.

Considering that the Muskrat can apparently be the full time CEO of 3 companies simultaneously you might be surprised.

CEOs think they’re different from us normies, and have a lot in common with other superstars CEOs such that their interests seem more shared.

It’s complex, for sure, but yes to some extent the “back to office” CEOs care that the commercial property market stays “healthy.”

It’s simple supply and demand. If lots of white collar workers are WFH, then hiring new people doesn’t require more office space. If you can grow your company without leasing office space, or by leasing a smaller office, demand for office space goes down.

Office space owners who use that for income suddenly don’t have (as much) income. So maybe they lower lease rates to attract new tenants. Well, now tenants stuck in higher rate leases start doing the math on penalties for breaking their existing lease vs the new prices.

If remote work stays popular or grows (hint: it’s growing), this CAN result in a race to the bottom on commercial real estate leases, which makes them less valuable investments, which could lead to a massive sell off.

All of this makes CEOs itchy. So they try to justify return to office policies. This just chases their best people into the arms of competitors who will support WFH (and naive pay more without high office space leases to pay).

I think the era of regular office work for white collar workers is over. Maybe a couple days a week for client meetings. But why not just go to the client site?

Office work was killed by COVID. Good riddance.

Hahahah oh man my thought of what funny stuff those sorts might lead to mostly centered around kids at school getting in trouble, but this is way, way better. :)

On the darker side of things I was also concerned about people in abusive situations with hidden phones getting outed, which probably also happened. :(

(I am not a bright guy so I can’t take credit for coming up with that on my own, I saw someone post about it on Mastodon.)

Honestly I could see this being a strategy a country might try (in fact I’m sure that the US and USSR probably tried stuff like this during the Cold War). Break up partners by sowing distrust. China doesn’t have to win, they just have to make sure we lose.

Are you comparing a person speaking and maybe even organizing with an actual (presumably armed) revolt?

Because that’s ALSO what Russia does (and China). And what most authoritarians do, too.

Unless I missed the part where the Canadian citizen India assassinated in Canada was somehow engaged in active violent resistance in India.

There’s international agreements to deal with actual criminal activity, and if there was actual criminal activity that India could prove they should have come after the guy they diplomacy not extrajudicial, sovereignty violating murder.