Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out.
I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here.
This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian.
If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here.
Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing.
Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.
You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying.
This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are then made. The result would be a society where there are two classes of "employees" - those worth hiring because they are already better than most and those who aren't. This creates a feedback loop that traps the poor in poverty because they can't improve at the same rate as full-time employees.
Companies have a responsibility to train their employees so that they can "contribute work of sufficient quality". Making this entirely the problem of the workers until a certain standard is reached is really the "insidiously genius" ploy of companies in redefining their relationship with their workers. Transferring risk and investment in training entirely to the workers themselves is not a path towards a compassionate and equitable society.
Some people, in some jobs at least, aren't productive enough to support themselves. It's not about "deserve".
Some people have a lot of potential but need a chance to prove themselves and gain experience. Maybe they would start by bussing tables and eventually own their own restaurants. They need a ladder to success with rungs that are actually climbable.
If we mandate that you must be able to support a family of four and save for retirement to work bussing tables, we won't have prosperous people bussing tables. We'll just have more self-service restaurants, sit-down dining will become more of a luxury service, and we'll have more wait staff struggling because they have to have fewer tables that they have to bus themselves.
The training you yearn for can happen by virtue of the economics of the industry. It's like apprenticeship or interning. Except it's working at entry level jobs and earning advancement. And it's egalitarian because anybody can be an excellent busser. Not everyone can talk someone into funding their education on spec.
You're right, lots of exploitative jobs will be destroyed, and businesses will have to adapt. Thing is, they will adapt to the new market conditions, or else they'll be replaced by other businesses catering to the market's demands, or the market's demands will change.
In the painful transition period, lots of exploited "employed" people will become unemployed, and lots of businesses that can't survive without exploiting people will fail. That's the unfortunate "cancellation fee" we should pay before moving to a more ethical economy.
It's not exploitive to pay people a modest wage for modest productivity, especially if the role can be part of a successful career.
You also ignore the point that entry level jobs provide advancement opportunities that are sometimes better for disadvantaged folks (or even folks changing careers) compared to expecting them to (re)train at four year universities, etc.
People talk a lot about apprenticeship these days... Apprenticeships are entry level, low paid positions.
You're not wrong as long as the definition of "modest wage" isn't subjective and is instead collectively agreed within society (i.e. a minimum/living wage).
I think you're saying the same as this Economist article[0] which says that "the workers who are most vulnerable to losing their job as a result of the minimum wage are those whose productivity is low". Empirical data on this also shows, perhaps counter-intuitively, that a "minimum wage can sometimes lead to higher rather than lower employment".
Entry-level jobs are important but so is human dignity and freedom. I don't think you need to sacrifice one for the other here - we can (eventually) have both.
Why do companies have to train you? Is this law or God's mandate? Is there even evidence that providing some safety net for your employee somehow creates a better employee and/or company?
Ultimately this is about controlling others vs. not wanting others to control you. IMHO people need to fail in order to learn properly, and safety nets remove this risk which in turn also removes the learning, effectively preventing those who would otherwise be successful. We think we are helping workers by forcing them into some contract that is supposedly beneficial, but really people are the ones making those choices. Safety nets and forcing companies will just reinforce the bad decisions some people make and will affect the whole industry in the long run because quality will go down and prices up.
I got into software through a paid internship at a webdev company that was spinning out a startup on the side. The founders were great folk who invested a lot into the tech/startup scene in the city. They also invested in their employees and into me. Without them, I wouldn't have had the head-start that I did. I'm not suggesting that companies should be compelled to behave like this. I am saying that there's at least some social/ethical/civic responsibility a company has towards its employees.
If you've hired someone and they aren't doing a good enough job, it's in both of your best interests for that person to be trained and supported appropriately to help them improve. If they still aren't up to the job you should part ways but at least you've both tried to make it work. Employers and employees cooperating in the pursuit of aligned interests like this has nothing to do with control. Independently deciding what's good for people and how they will best learn sounds like it has a lot to do with control but that's what you're suggesting, not me.
I do agree that failure can sometimes be a great teacher. In my experience, the best work happens in places where it's acceptable to fail and where failures can be recovered from. Safety nets exist to allow for more risk and more failure, not less.
Of course it's better to train and all that, I'm saying it's probably not a good idea to somehow have a global solution to all kinds of relationship between every type of company and employee. Every industry and every company will have different solutions to what they need and they'll know best how to set their employees for success. This is all done in a mutual agreement. A better strategy is having everyone understand their options in order to make better decisions when it comes to choosing an employer/employee, and again all of this is specific to the industry.
The problem with fighting worker rights is that not all workers are the same, and having a small group of people decide all the intricacies of the system for all industries is unrealistic. At the very least there would be a concerted and visible effort to adapt solutions for each industry, but that's not what happens, it's always some global abstract mandate that has unintended consequences. Politics is the ultimate solutioning by committee, so it's always inefficient and often hurtful to use politics to solve societal problems which are really the collection of the decisions people are making. Encouraging businesses is one thing, but deliberately blocking actions and forcing decisions on ALL business is almost never a good idea.
> They [Uber and Lyft] don’t pay the cost of their capital.
> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.
> These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills.
> This sharing economy shit works in a shitty economy. In a good economy, where people have what they need, it doesn’t work.
And it doesn't matter. Now it's a fully consensual relationship between Uber and the driver (and the customer), where everyone involved agrees to the terms voluntarily. The law changes that, and will simply result in the loss of jobs.
How much choice do the drivers have if that's where all the customers are?
It sounds to me like you're confusing the willingness of drivers to relent to market forces outside of their control for their consent. Some are definitely happier than others but none have the degree of agency you seem to suggest they do.
And someone can consent to working in a chemical plant without protection but OSHA won't let that happen. Worker rights need to be protected by law, or it is a race to the bottom for the working conditions of the poorest.
The deepest separation of labor is female and male. The female energy is associated with empathy for the child. Male energy is protecting territory.
Some combination of both these energies exist in all of us.
You can say humans have the capacity for love, and also acknowledge there are people out there who gain pleasure from power over others.
You cant say one is natural and the other is learned.
Even the people who gain pleasure in causing pain, are useful in the right situations. Hence the trope in fiction of the jailed entity being released to combat an even greater foe in a dire situation.
The allure of free speech and debate is that the best ideas win.
But what I have often found is that the best debater wins.
And some debaters are so good they can win both sides of a debate.
This wouldnt be that much of a problem if you assume verbal iq is an independent variable uniformly distributed through the population. But I have often found verbal iq is highly co-related with other biological traits and markers. This creates a biased situation where debates often lead to erroneous conclusions and bad results.
I'm not sure how much verbal IQ has to do with it. Everything in life is a matter of practice and study. For instance, there's difference in musical ability between people, but the guy who practices guitar every day is going to be better than the guy who doesn't, 100 times out of 100.
I actually have a considerably higher test verbal IQ than mathematical and have perfect verbal section test scores to show it. However, I used to really suck at debates because I was naïve and unpracticed.
I went through a few years of spending too much time on reddit, though, and now I can wallop most average people. The most important thing BY FAR is to immediately establish definitions and frame the debate. You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you probably know more about them.
> You force your opponent to operate in the tiny amount of air space that you've given them, and constrain them to talk about things that you've chosen so you probably know more about them.
That's a good way to repel people from ever engaging with you and instead find ways to work around you. Moreover, you can't actually "constrain" the discussion unless it's deliberately structured that way (like what lawyers do in a court).
You've got to respect and address any alternative framing that your "opponent" is operating under, they're not going to comply with an arbitrary framing of an argument that you provide, just because.
I find it's pretty easy to frame the debate, generally, though. When they bring up off-topic points, you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question."
Now, you become an annoying ass when you try to turn every discussion into a debate, and try to win every time. Don't do that. Sometimes it's better to let other people win or just feel heard. But if you want to win, that's how you do it.
> ... you say "There's plenty of room to discuss those issues you brought up, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on my original question."
But you just said your M.O. is to deliberately force the opponent to operate in a "tiny airspace" that you define. So, there's not really "plenty of room" to discuss those issues they brought up.
That pisses people off, it's seen as an aggressive move and can easily backfire.
Framing the debate is perhaps the most difficult task towards "winning" a debate.
I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm actually describing. I agree -- you should not try to debate people in casual conversation with the goal of winning. Even if they're logically incorrect in a few places, their underlying values are still valid, so you need to work with them to find a solution that works for everyone.
Trying to "win" can definitely backfire, so you should do it sparingly. In truth, the only place I really debate people is on the internet, most visibly with my pro-Trump relatives on Facebook :).
However, the person I was responding to was talking about "how to win debates," and that's how you do it. Yes, if you want to win, you do need to be hard nosed and aggressive (I prefer gently guiding them down the garden path until they realize it's too late to turn back). Whether or not you should do it is a different point entirely, and to be frank, I completely agree with you there.
(Meta note: do you see how I'm actually making a belated attempt to frame the debate right here, and it's not necessarily as aggressive as I describe? Really sometimes it's just needed to establish clarity.)
You have natural talent which becomes exponentially better with training. But a guy who struggles to even find words will be trounced by you 9 times out of 10. Regardless of who is right.
Interestingly those type of people will rarely venture on message boards, because this requires a lot of reading and writing and they would rather spend their time on other pursuits(maybe more visual?). Its interesting to imagine the section of viewpoints that dont even get represented at this level.
I doubt that has much to do with verbal IQ, though. When I was a kid I also had trouble finding words, so I made a lifelong habit of learning them. As a result it made me an excellent writer and reader, but still didn't improve my speaking.
If you're feeling verbally blocked it's probably more likely that your problem is some form of social anxiety. (That was mine.) If you become much more talkative when drunk, for instance, then the problem is inhibition.
You can meet plenty of garrulous people who can talk circles around you, but it doesn't mean they're necessarily bright.
I think that is partly because most debates are unfortunately laden with time pressure and performance pressure. Underneath all that distraction is an actual argument, that given the premises and valid reasoning, should stand the test of time. And if they don't have those, they won't. It's amazing how many arguments by "good debaters" start to fall apart and dissolve once given a second look.
I am guessing its because the hackers are not gaming fakespot's detection systems.
If amazon adopted fakespot's algorithm, the hackers would circumvent it within a week. This would also happen if fakespot reaches a critical mass of audience.
A couple go out on a picnic with a young man. The moment they set out, the young man begins predicting rain. The couple begin to hate him for his gloomy disposition. They meet an old man on the road. He scrounges up his face, looks up at the sky, and says there wont be any rain. He has seen many days like this in his long life and it usually clears up. The couple cheer up at once and praise him for his wisdom.
No sooner had they set up their picnic, then it begins raining heavily. On the drive back completely drenched, they look at the young man with anger. Like somehow he was responsible for the rain. They think of the old man fondly, "well atleast he tried".
This actually happened in the 1988 Mexican election. The PRI was losing the vote and their opposition was predicted to win using live vote tabulation. They hid the results by saying the system crashed and then declared themselves as winning. This kept many people from bothering to even vote.
However, they went much further and burned legitimate ballots and even made fake ones.
The difference here is the PRI actively used (fake) predictions to discourage voters.
Recently someone asked if the fraud of 88 had been as depicted in the series. This was my response. Which I think it is important since there are not many testimonies of what really happened.
"It definitely didn't happened the way it was portrayed in the series. I saw it first hand.
The election was managed from Gobernacion (Ministry of Interior) which was subservient to the PRI. We didn't have the same controls as we have today. The PRI had representatives in every little town in the whole country. My father was one of these and I accompanied him that day. The evening on the election day, they gather all the booths in the region at the mayors office. They had a team of people changing the paper votes. Removing some and adding some and changing the minutes accordingly. The PRI already had this election fixing infrastructure. In 1988, they had already been in power for 59 years. They knew how to fix the election. They had it down to a science. But in 1988 my father told me that this was the first time they had to do it because they may lose. All years before that, they did it just to get better participation numbers.
The PRI was a state Party. For many, many years it had complete control of every town, every state, every district. All the Governors, representatives, senators, mayors, judges in the country belonged to the PRI. May be some Narcos helped in some regions. But the PRI didn't really needed them. They had comprehensive control of the national territory. And they were able to manipulates the votes, specially in the rural areas.
The way it is portrayed in the series is really stupid. Gobernacion was in complete control of the computer systems, they didn't need a Narco to tell them how to break it.
TLDR; The fraud happened but it wasn't organized by the Narcos. At most they had a minor involvement."
Before 2004, I was a "victim" of voter fraud after signing a petition at my university in a swing state. (I put victim in quotes because I did not feel particularly wronged, just annoyed.)
They registered me as Republican, and I received an unexpected voter id with my name misspelled on it in the mail.
I view this as similar to polls or predictions. They'd use the same data, e.g. "In Florida, 29% of voters are registered as Republicans," in an attempt to make other people feel 'safe' joining them.
With voting, some people want to feel a moral victory, that they voted for the winning team, and knowing that there are 29%, instead of 26 or 24 or however much they'd have without cheating (I'm making these numbers up for the example), would have some marginal psychological effect on people to believe that Florida is a partly Republican state, and you're not a complete nutball if you vote for a Republican in Florida.
As an aside, I was actually able to vote with that id, and I'm not sure if that should have given me more or less confidence in the system. More in the sense that, despite someone else messing with the system, I was still able to cast my vote. Less in the sense that, I voted with an incorrect name, and I wonder how easy it might be to conjure up nonexistent people or use dead people to vote.
Just wanted to give another example of how this is true, and the scummy lengths people will go to, to affect an election outcome.
I often notice this trend in my country. No obvious contender one year before the presidential election. Then some random politician is favorite in some poll. Then a feedback loop happens, media focus on this politician, who becomes more popular and so on...
I suppose there are PR firms acting in the shadow to sell their candidates to the media, but nonetheless it seems there's a lot of randomness at play.
Just make the whole service distributed. Cut out Uber. Connect me directly to a driver through open source software.
Person A exists who is willing to drive from point a to point b for x price. I am willing to pay x price. An open source software exists to connect us both in real time.
Who will the government regulate in this scenario?
I think that you’re underestimating just how much infrastructure goes into running something like Uber. A friend of mine does ML work at Grab (South East asia ride hailing company) and the amount of data processing that goes into getting a good fast and cheap ride is incredible.
It might be possible to somehow distribute it and pay people at home for spare compute time, but it would still run into latency and spike problems.
If this existed, there would be a much stronger case for the drivers being independent contractors. Uber employees are employees specifically because Uber dictates most aspects surrounding their work outside of their hours.
Imagine if the internet was started by one corporation.
Instead, the internet is an open source set of protocols.
The answer lies in converting companies which abuse becoming the standard due to network effect, to an open source set of protocols.
Maybe give them a period of 10-20 years to profit. Then they have to expose a public set of standards and protocols which can be used by everyone else.
For instance microsoft windows after 15 years, would be forced to release a freeware version of code, which contained all functionality they had at that time.
Other companies and users could build on this code and thus microsoft are no longer the standard. Just a version of it.
15 years ago was 2005. Imagine MS would open source Windows XP SP2.
I don't think anyone would build an OS better than modern Win10 from that code. 15 years is a long time: that WinXP was primarily 32-bit (64 bit build technically existed, but no one used that), it wouldn't support modern hardware, and won't run modern software either. I see why some people would like to have that code (education, research, maybe some embedded applications or servers), but I'm pretty sure Microsoft would remain the standard.
To stop being standard, in addition to that law MS need to screw up Windows in a huge way. I wouldn't expect that to happen ever, they're large company managed by reasonable people.
> Imagine MS would open source Windows XP SP2. [...] I don't think anyone would build an OS better than modern Win10 from that code.
Uh, yes they would? It's literally trivial - you just hit compile. As you note, a 64-bit build did exist, so it's not even limited to now-obsolete hardware, although unless you want to call some of the things at [0] automatically better than XP just because they run on amd64, even that wouldn't disqualify it from being better than windows 10.
That's not correct, it is limited. The primary reason being GPU drivers, Vista switched to hardware compositor, as a side effect they reworked kernel API of GPU drivers. I don't think Intel, NVidia or AMD ship drivers for WinXP x64, or Server 2003, for their current generations of products. To lesser extent, same applies to the rest of the hardware: I don't expect it's easy to boot XP from NVME SSD, or support modern flavours of wireless like 802.11n or BT4.
Software is even more diverse, vast majority of modern apps won't run on XP64. For the software that I currently work on, the largest missing pieces are Direct3D 11, Direct2D, DirectWrite, Media Foundation, and .NET framework. These components are huge, Microsoft spent many millions to make them.
The driver is called “basic display adapter” or something like that. Modern Windows is barely usable without 3D GPU acceleration. Too many pixels to render and doing that on CPU is too slow, especially so on laptops. Vast majority of modern software, web browsers included, normally use a 3D GPU to render. And since Vista, windows desktop compositor, dwm.exe, uses a 3D GPU to compose windows into desktop.
Old Win32 apps working on XP will be OK, though. WinXP shell didn’t require nor use a 3D GPU, and very few apps of the era were using GPUs. Unless you have too many pixels in the display, or the app in question renders 3D graphics of any sort, the performance probably gonna be adequate.
> Modern Windows is barely usable without 3D GPU acceleration.
That is a specific example (admittedly only one) of why Windows XP is better than Windows 10, so I'm not sure why you're citing that as if it supports your point.
Other hardware requirements are much lower too, XP will work on Pentium 233 MMX with 64MB RAM, Win10 requires at least 1GHz CPU and 1GB RAM. Some old software, and many old device drivers, won’t run on Win10 even if the OS is 32-bit.
> why Windows XP is better than Windows 10
The hardware evolves just as fast as the software. If you run XP on modern PC with a 4k display, I don’t think it will do great even if you’ll manage to install a 3D GPU driver (you probably need some GeForce 900-series GPU to try that, or maybe virtualized VMware GPU will do). If you run Win10 in 800x600 resolution, will probably work OK even with that basic unaccelerated driver, will render on CPU.
I have found if you have nothing constructive to do, then twitter sucks you in and is very addictive.
But after a few years or so of constant nonsense, you become adapted to the addiction and just ignore everything on it. Atleast thats what happened to me.
I went from constantly checking twitter to deleting my account and just going to the feed of one or two people once a day to keep informed.
I now laugh at how worked up everyone gets, and all the play acting and rival factions involved. Its almost like an iq test, where you pass if you dont play the game.
The problem is a lot of people are staying indoors right now with nothing to do and are discovering twitter/reddit for the first time.
Imagine a person not only new to social media, but new to the internet as a whole with no bs filters built in. He/she would be such a mark.
The real herd immunity is people understanding over time how emotionally manipulative social media is and learning to ignore it like we do 99% of advertisements.
I've mostly avoided the really bad platforms like Facebook and Twitter, but I caved and started going on some of them for the past week.
They are so awful. It feels like they were built from the ground up to discourage thoughtful conversation and to just create outrage. On all of these (and with youtube comments as I recently realized, although they have a placebo downvote) there is no way to downvote trolls (or bad/misinformed/useless opinions) and there is no real moderation. The only way to deal with it is to create your own angry response and then it shows up on peoples feeds as so-and-so vs so-and-so... pick your side. It is terrible.
Like in the article, one of the people tweets "stop retweeting #dcblackout" which promotes it further. These platforms feel like they are designed to profit off of humanities worst impulses and I wish there was something I could do to stop them.
> It feels like they were built from the ground up to discourage thoughtful conversation and to just create outrage.
Indeed, they’re built from the ground up to promote engagement with no regard for positive or negative impact. It so happens that humanity’s worst impulses drive a feedback cycle that’s wonderful for engagement but terrible for humanity.
It’s a classic case of amoral objectives leading to immoral outcomes.
I think one of the ways to stop them is to create a platform that the influencers/posters find more attractive so they jump ship. Apparently only like 1% of users post the majority of content.
What are the main features you'd like to see on a new platform?
I don't think it's fair to lump Twitter in with Facebook. Sure, if your feed isn't curated or you're looking at the replies to a Trump tweet, it's going to be a dumpster fire. But otherwise it can be a tool for keeping people informed without having to rely on the news.
It does require a critical eye, which the majority of people don't have, but I'm not sure what the best way to solve that problem is. Moderation at that scale doesn't seem feasible, and a downvote system to silence people, as you suggested, would be easily abused.
> I now laugh at how worked up everyone gets, and all the play acting and rival factions involved. Its almost like an iq test, where you pass if you dont play the game.
Isn't that social media in general? I admit I got sucked in this weekend (I don't have an account) and it was... alarming to say the least as it coincided with an amazing successful mission and milestone by SpaceX and subsequently one of the more darker sides of what people flagrantly toss around as 'Anarchy:' to be clear, wanton violence and looting have nothing to do with the ideals and principals upheld by Anarchism that has spanned millennia.
Instead what we've seen is the failure of all Nation State's to respond adequately to it's populace demands after having been violently disenfranchised, marginalized and subjugated to such a degree that protests rapidly turn to riots when the Police use the violent tactics that have been upheld as the norm to maintain order.
Personally, I thought this weekend was a vastly missed opportunity for the entire Human Species to get some much needed Perspective and come together and realize what we can accomplish when we collaborate. I'm still pretty down because of it, if I'm honest.
I spent the better have of my life studying cultures and how people interact within those cultures. Twitter has been a very interesting petri dish for me to see how people interact with each other when they feel like they can say and behave any way they want.
Its interesting to see how Twitter (and social media in general) transformed from something positive where you could find community within a large subset of people and then all patted each other on the back and it was really cool place to hang out but then it slowly became this cesspool of negativity. Twitter just let it happen and now we're at at a tipping point where you have to decide if you want the government to intervene and regulate, or simply let it slide into oblivion.
The even more interesting thing is all of the people I know and worked with in those early days fled Twitter for Mastondon. Now they're saying the same thing is already happening on that platform as well.
> Twitter has been a very interesting petri dish for me to see how people interact with each other when they feel like they can say and behave any way they want
It is very self selecting though, isn't it? You even acknowledged that mentioning people fleeing Twitter for Mastodon. It seems Twitter (etc.) attracts the people who want to make a lot of noise without repercussions, who then proceed to make the most noise. And studying behavior on Twitter just studying this small subset of Twitter users, who are a even smaller subset of the general population. Or are you able to adjust for all this?
> The problem is a lot of people are staying indoors right now with nothing to do and are discovering twitter/reddit for the first time.
Don't forget YouTube. My mother in law started with YouTube videos on Bible studies in her native language and somehow got spun into some kind of conspiracy theory black hole. We worked to talk her down from the more crazy stuff (apocalypse predictions, Qanon, etc) but it's been years and she still watches her YouTube "news" on the daily so she can keep "informed"
Lauren Sanchez(bezos' new girfiend) along with her brother Michael(who is also her agent), leaked the story to force Bezos to divorce his wife and get along with her.
Explanation 2:
The crown prince of Saudi Arabia personally sent a trojan file, downloaded all the data, distributed it through a gossip rag he happens to be friends with, for some kind of revenge/message
I get why Bezos has to go with explanation 2 because explanation 1 would indicate the girl he wants to have sex with or her brother is manipulative. I dont see why the rest of us have to go along with this. Even this anonymous source says he has "high confidence" not anywhere near certainty.
A country like Saudia Arabia is going to use every tactic possible to combat their asymmetry with the West. It's not the crown prince personally having someone cook up a trojan for him -- it's their national apparatus deciding that free potential leverage over influential Americans is a worthwhile pursuit.
The motives for explanation 2 are currently not known. MBS might have had numerous reasons, ranging from WaPo or AWS. But regardless, there could have been many reasons to target Bezos. The part that doesn't sit right with me is the leaks, since it would have burned the 0day and connected Saudis to hacking phones which I doubt they would have wanted.
Isnt this a self correcting problem? I guess the first time advertisements were introduced, people were incredibly susceptible to misleading advertising. Overtime you learnt that almost everything they claim could be wrong and you tune them out. They become much less potent.
We are just living in a perfect storm, with the internet just taking off mainstream, and people are susceptible to believing online trends translate to reality. If you are in niche communities, hiring an artificial botting firm might provide insane rewards. But over time, as more people see the disconnect they will understand not to trust anything online.
I feel people getting burnt and changing their behavior organically is far better than a benevolent organization stepping in and making arbitrary decisions to protect us. Because these organizations do not tend to be benevolent and even if they are, their decisions often have disastrous second order consequences. While the public never learns or evolves.
Its like the body's immunization system. Just give it time. Sometimes it may take a decade. People should really stop trying to make drastic solutions for things that will likely resolve themselves.
From a systemic perspective, this makes sense, but what about the individuals who get burned in the process? Not everyone is willing to write off collateral damage without some kind of repair for the damage.
The problem is, most methods you propose to correct for individuals getting burned, may create more systematic problems, which may result in more individuals getting burned in the long run. These are incredibly complex systems which are not suitable for intelligent design.
The best solution maybe is for individuals and the shared culture to get wiser, and this often happens only when there is enough collateral damage.
I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here.
This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian.
If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They will have a smaller roster of higher quality of drivers and be more expensive to use. It will be perfectly fine for most of the people commenting here.
Who it will destroy is the "riff raff", the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder on both ends. Those who cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits. And those who cant afford more expensive ride sharing.
Basically a way to ask people of a certain level to leave the state because they cant participate in the economy anymore and appear compassionate at the same time. Insidiously genius.