you know what’s funny to me, that when large organizations manipulate the apparent consensus on Reddit about a topic, that’s “clever marketing” and “innovative campaign techniques”.

When a bunch of random people collectively organize to do it suddenly it’s a “dangerous”

public companies do not necessarily have a Fiduciary duty to the shareholders, let alone one to increase value. Any that they did have (based on the laws and how they are incorporated in a given jurisdiction) would also be applicable to a private company. Private companies also have shareholders, the shares are just not traded publicly.

You’re probably thinking of the theory of “Shareholder Primacy” but that is a theory not a legal reality, although some insist it is based on a questionable interpretation of the precedent set by dodge vs ford motor company.

Public companies can be run in what ever way the board/shareholders see fit.

Plenty of privately owned companies do the same things so I don’t think it can be chalked up to an issue with publicly traded companies.

Because then tech would have to admit they’re moving in to a period of stability rather than a period of constant growth.

The big companies and start ups need to prove they’ve still got “revolutionary” potential otherwise the stock values start to drop. And lower stock values means less bonuses for leadership.

I love the flying car example because it reveals a huge issue with the whole “tech will get better” idea. People are still trying to make flying cars happen but it’s running in to the same fundamental issues; large things that are mechanically complex, energy intensive, and moving at high speeds in a crowded urban environments are just too expensive and dangerous.

There is no way around the physical realities, no clever trick or efficiency that will push it over some threshold of practicality.

How much will it affect ranking in the search algorithm? When will they announce the asking price? What about legitimate sites that cannot pony up that inevitable price?

Call me conspiratorial but this seems like a way to further subjugate civil society to cooperate society. . “Oh well, they couldn’t make a profit to pay for the blue check, so they’re not legitimate”

I mean there are huge issues with tech, but like, they’re in no way limited to kids… nor does it seem to affect them particularly strongly.

Shocker, self driving “taxi” service is a nuisance.

Almost like the solution to car based issues isn’t “more advanced cars”, but “less cars”.

I could definitely see how cotton could be used in some pretty heinous ways, maybe not by definition slurrs, but still. Given the historical context of the United States In particular.

Ugh, this is all so pathetic.

Bending over backwards to accommodate the loudest idiots in the room because they complain when they face consequences for their actions.

I wanted a primary, we didn’t get that, and the media is pushing Harris hype really hard right now, just like they pushed for Clinton.

To me, this feels like 2016 all over again, that’s MY visceral reaction. Fucking weird to accuse some one of being an AI because they disagreed with your assessment.

I’d really like details on the kind of policy she would support.

Clinton did win the primary (even without super delegates), so “forced on democrats” is only true in a sense. She was certainly the preferred candidate of party leadership, and they did everything they legally could to help her win. Major center and center left news outlets also seemed to do everything they could to help her win.

But I don’t think harris is any better in that regard. She has not won a primary, Clinton at least managed to win the primary. Arguably Harris has been even more forced upon Democratic voters.

I suspect that this is going to become a huge issue and talking point later on.

I’ve seen Harris put out plenty of her own BS. equivocating and avoiding question she doesn’t want to answer. Again, I want to see real commitment to policy I care about. Not showpersonship, Fingerspitzengefühl or rhetorical capability.

I don’t care much for good personality in politicians, plenty of politicians with great personalities have gone on to do awful things, plenty with awful personalities have done great things. I care far more about the issues they campaign on and policies they’ve pushed through in the past.

Haris seemed to drop and pick up policy positions during the 2020 primary purely based on what her team thought would advance polling numbers. Which makes me skeptical of any claimed positions without concrete evidence of commitment.

I will vote for Harris in that case, but I will not be happy about it. I’d rather be voting for Biden, my mind could be changed on Harris, but she has not earned that yet. After the threat of trump is off the table, the party has a lot of work to do if they want my support and Participation again beyond that.

Honestly, I prefer Biden to her. Haris’s historical political positions are questionable at best to me personally and I don’t trust her in the slightest to implement progressive policies or challenge corporate power. She has co-signed a lot of letters, and sponsored a few bills that sounded good, but never when there was a real chance of them passing, and I’ve seen very little from her that would convince me that was anything but performative.

I’m not crazy about Biden and I think he gave up far to much on a lot of the bills he managed to get through, not to mention that his foreign policy had been a mixed bag, to say the least. But, I’d still rather him be in charge of things.

This is my biggest reservation about the whole replace Biden thing. Suddenly the party is worried about Biden’s electability now? Not when they could have run primaries and had voter input? To me it feels like they always wanted to pick another candidate, but they didn’t want to run a public primary campaign. Perhaps it’s because they wanted to give the right wing propaganda machine less time to demonize the chosen candidate, or maybe insiders at the party were worried the voters in primaries might choose someone they didn’t approve of.

The first seems… I dunno, somewhat reasonable? The second ticks me off though. This all stinks, especially because most of the left of the party is still voicing support for keeping biden. If the party wants to replace Biden with Harris’s they should have had a primary about it, and not just slipped it in last moment.

I had an idea recently of describing these chatbots as holograms.

Complex ideas and concepts are being flattened. Depth, a dimension if you will, in the form of context and conception, is being removed.

Like how a 3D object gets flattened on to a 2D plane, a hologram.

drives me up the wall with how expensive no frills body and bath products are. Like, I have to pay premium prices for products that have less ingredients.

They talk a lot about the housing crisis in California as the result of over regulation of development, but I think that’s only part of the problem. Even if you stripped out all of the regulations that slow down the process, I doubt we’d be in a much better place in a few years.

Rather we’d have a bunch of new shiny buildings sitting nearly empty because they were built as assets more than as homes, and filling them would depress the price of housing and thus decrease the value of them as assets.

We see this in places like Vancouver, and all over china. China built housing like mad, way to much even, and yet, the cost to buy a house or rent is still sky high in the places people need to work for their jobs.

There is a shortage of housing, and we do need to build more capacity, but, we need to choose how and where we build based on a larger number of metrics than what traditional for profit developers are willing to consider.