PeepinGoodArgs

Also underused. Especially in lists. Like, if I want to go to Tokyo, Japan (again); Seoul, South Korea; (<- an Oxford semicolon??) and Bordeaux, France then semicolons are ideal rather than a bunch of commas that make it unclear.

I actually looked up how to use them and this site provides good examples.

That's what I'm talkin' about!

Why are we so shitty to each other?

Outside of the internet, I ask this question.

It's bizarre to me how billionaires don't how to else to use their money other than engaging in a space race. It's mind-boggling that people get into relationships only to beat and kill each the person closest to them. It's discombobulating how a society largely directed by the whims of men rejects the anguished, depressed cries of other men before they kill themselves. It's morbidly fascinating that a homeless epidemic is unfolding in developed nation and the response is to...withhold resources from them, destroy what little they have, and essentially do nothing to address their problems.

Why are we so shitty to each other indeed.

From the article:

Take medieval windmills, a very transformative technology. It changed the organization of textile manufacturing, but especially agriculture. But you didn’t see much improvement in the conditions of the peasants. The windmills were controlled by landowners and churches. This narrow elite collected the gains. They decided who could use the windmills. They killed off competition

Except technological innovation didn't benefit "us", it benefited elites.

Der Spiegel's implicit argument (in the one sentence of ("But it is true that humankind has indeed benefited a lot from new technologies") is that technological change benefited "us" over time and, therefore, technological change is good. Acemoğlu offers a different amount of time to survey to determine the effects of innovation, which challenges the idea that technological change is always good.

But that's not the point. It did have a significant impact. Acemoğlu's point is about the distribution over time of that impact. Elites tend to accrue for themselves the benefits of technological change.

In terms of AI, it makes some people more productive that others. So, right now, only some people are benefiting from the introduction of AI. Jobs with a $1 million salary are being advertised to replace striking Hollywood writers. It's easy to say technological change creates winners and losers as I learned in my econ classes. But in the midst of such change, how long winners remain winners and losers remain losers matters a great deal to both.

In other words, the transition to cleaner energy sources puts coal miners out of a job until the sun goes out and the wind stops blowing. And it's foolish claim the trade for higher quality air and a decline of associated respiratory illnesses is worth a miner's despair and depression because they're forever unemployed, their skills worthless.

What I like about this interview is that it demonstrates the absurd, thought-terminating clichés that modern elites use...and Acemoğlu just steamrolls them. Like this:

DER SPIEGEL: But it is true that humankind has indeed benefited a lot from new technologies.

Acemoğlu: That is the reason we have to go so far back in history. The argument that you just gave is wrong. In the past, we’ve always had struggles over the uses of innovation and who benefits from them. Very often, control was in the hands of a narrow elite. Innovation often did not benefit the broad swaths of the population.

There was no argument. A sentence does not an argument make. But regular people trying to argue from a similar perspective would say "...well, yes, but..." whereas Acemoğlu is just like "Nope. You're wrong."

Edit: After a several hours and many responses, it demonstrates that the terminating cliché of "...but humanity has benefited from progress" isn't a counter-argument. What are the premises of the asserted conclusion? Had Der Spiegel been more clear about how he'd arrived at that conclusion in context, the conversation would've been significantly easier to follow. So, remember that: don't just assert shit; explain yourself.

Which just shows how far the Heritage Foundation has fallen.

This is the kind of thing I'd read as alarmist and extremely suspect.

Except it's very real. Coupled with their "Mandate for Leadership" (PDF), they will fuck shit up.

Here's a quote from The Heritage Foundation, who created helped put it all together:

In November 2016, American conservatives stood on the verge of greatness. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency was a triumph that offered the best chance to reverse the left’s incessant march of progress for its own sake. Many of the best accomplishments, though, happened only in the last year of the Trump administration, after our political appointees had finally figured out the policies and process of different agencies, and after the right personnel were finally in place.

Sorry this hasn't been thought out too well

You shut the hell up! This is fantastic analysis!

It's been a few years, but I really liked Linux Mint and Xfce. The former is more friendly for beginners. But XFCE is responsive...like...you click and the computer responds immediately. It feels like the computer is really yours. Don't get me wrong, though, Linux Mint is really responsive, too, particularly in comparison to Windows.

You can always try them out, too, before you commit with your current computer. In the past, I've used VirtualBox to virtualize Mint/Xfce. Here's a tutorial. It sounds fancy, but it's pretty easy.

I tend to buy subscriptions at the yearly rate because it saves money over a monthly subscription (except Adobe...fuck Adobe). The affordability of monthly installments is bought, in a sense, by paying more over time.

So, no, you're definitely not alone.

Lol no. I take it out when I don't need it.