I mean, even with a union, if a company crumbles the laborers are out of a job.

Is that the same story as the movie by the same name?

deleted by creator

Looks like forced perspective. I think the hawk isn’t looking at the little bird, but from our angle it looks like they’re face to face, so we assume they are much closer than they are.

Love your optimism

You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.

I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.

If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.

That is not what free speech means.

Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.

I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.

This is the way.

Command statement = an action

Question statement = a status

I get the sentiment, but this is a pretty strawman argument.

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

What is the easiest way to look that information up?

I heard a hypothesis that the first human made consciousness will be an AI algorithm designed to monitor and coordinate other AI algorithms which makes a lot of sense to me.

Our consciousness is just the monitoring system of all our bodies subsystems. It is most certainly an emergent phenomenon of the interaction and management of different functions competing or coordinating for resources within the body.

To me it seems very likely that the first human made consciousness will not be designed to be conscious. It also seems likely that we won’t be aware of the first consciousnesses because we won’t be looking for it. Consciousness won’t be the goal of the development that makes it possible.

I think you two are speaking about different steps in this hypothetical transition. You are talking about the long term goal, the other person was talking about the transition from now to the long term scenario. There is very real danger that the power vacuum left by the x-billionaires could be gobbled up by a small group of people. This cannot be dismissed even if we all agree on the end goal.

Secondary critique, set the wealth cap in relation to some other moving metric. I think a multiple of minimum wage would be great, give incentive for the wealthy to increase minimum wage to achieve a higher cap.

Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.

They all have access to the Internet now. This would be much more detrimental to learning if other resources weren’t in everyone’s pocket.

That guy is not lacking in any way!

Hold up, what?

(Also, Samsung makes their own chips.)

Example holds up better with Google (for Pixel line).

I agree that planting trees is generally good, but doing so can’t sequester the amount of carbon released by humans since the start of the industrial revolution. We need other avenues to do that. If we returned forests back to how they were 100,000 years ago (untouched by modern humans) the new trees that would grow wouldn’t be able to soak up the CO2 released. Returning the forests to that state with the current world population isn’t feasible either as we need some of that land for agriculture.

I get your sentiment, but we’re beyond a ‘plant trees’ solution.

Semiconductors are used for transistors because they give us the ability to electrically control whether they conduct or resist electrical current. I don’t know what mechanism you’d use to do that with superconductors. I agree you don’t ‘have’ to have resistance in order to achieve this functionality, but at this time semiconductors or mechanical relays are the only ways we have to do that. My focus is not in semiconductor / IC design either so I may by way off base, but I don’t know of a mechanism that would allow superconductors to function as transistors (or “electrically controlled electrical connections”), but I really hope I’m wrong!