IcePee @ IcePee @lemmy.beru.co

Posts

9

Comments

239

Joined

2 yr. ago

If Farage gets in he'll scrap the country for parts and make off like bandits.

I don't necessarily think it was bribery, more public and private pressure. Maybe even legal.

Fine words, but does he have the credibility to back it up?

if you want to read without paywall

In that case they would be locking down their subsidiary even further to just one client. I guess it all comes down to the plausibility of their argument for making this investment, rather than, say increasing dividends or ploughing that money back into other investments for the business. I guess they were able to justify the OpenAI investment along these lines. If I could hazard a guess, it would be something along the lines of:

This is a new market. We need to get in at the ground floor.

I suspect, OpenAI presented itself as a turn key solution to get a foothold in this brave new world and maybe steal a march on Google.

But Microsoft does. And those shareholders would want to know why money that could be going to them is frittered away on a startup that is constitutionally set up to leave money on the table.

Doesn't that go against Microsoft's fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to maximize profits? At the very least, it would be contentious among the shareholders. Leaving money on the table? This is the kind of thing would need a very brave (or cavalier) CEO to risk a personal lawsuit.

The problem is it doesn't solve the core issue. What's to stop an AI data center buying up all the startup's stock and future stock also.

Not so, if you look at their website, you'll see at numerous time through the decades they actually decreased the risk of Armageddon. I fear your sentiment of complacency is precisely the danger they're warning of. To pull a quote:

    
In an urban society, everything connects. Each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric. But the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable.


  

Threads

It just takes one thread, whether it be food, water, environment, radiological or biological to snap, and down goes civilisation. As civilization becomes more complex, the threat surface also become exponentially larger.

Let's see if Trump will succeed in getting a foetus on the bench.

Basically, each half of the peninsula wanted to absorb the other half under it's legal, monetary and language and naming systems. Both halves wanted a reunification under their terms. Both halves believe they are the real Korea. To the south, the northern states a rebel states. To the north the southern states are capitalistic pig-dogs in hock to the USA.

New approaches from the south is looking to reconciliation and respecting the north's self determination.

With that summary of my understanding of this article out the way, maybe a model for their relations is the devolved UK.

While I think a, devolved union is better for the world, it can't be under a reactionary dictatorship. I fear this red line is too much for each side to come to agreement on.

Basically, it sounds like you are seeing this as a systemic failure. However, while I agree with your analysis, fuckery at the voting stations can only take you so far. The last election saw Trump win beyond a margin where election interference would have mattered. It wasn't marginal. I would also argue this analysis runs the risk of disenfranchising the electorate. They have agency. To be clear I don't think the blame can be heaped totally on one side or another.

I think I covered this. In FPTP during a two horse race anything other than voting against the winner is effectively voting for them. I make a distinction between effective and active (or, inactive, as the case may be).

I think it's OK to blame voters, for they do have agency, but not exclusively. I think the military industrial complex as well as the politicians and political parties (but, I repeat myself) should probably shoulder at least two thirds of the blame.

"TACO Tuesday". One can only hope. The alternative is ghastly.

The tragedy is: join the military and get 3 square meals a day and have your education paid for. You just need to risk everything.

I say: Por qué no los dos? Since they are both prospective kings.

You neglect to consider adopting parents.

Regrettably, this focused flexibility has an unintended side effect. It makes people with children less desirable in the job market. If it is a universal right, then it has the effect of pulling those with kids into parity with the non parents.