saying somethins is being sabotaged isnt the same as saying it is failing. The sabotage must be successful for it to fail.

there isnt so much incentive. No advertisement. Upvote counters behave weirdly in the fediverse (from what i can see).

It seems weird to me that the null-hypothesis there should be that dogs are non-sapient. It seems to be common for scientists to default on non-existence until evidence of existence is found. But in some situations existence and non-existence should have equivalent weights. In the field of mathematics, the existence of a thing can be logically equivalent to the non-existence of another thing, and we dont know which of the two exists, but we cant default to assuming neither of the two. Science is a bit different from pure mathematics though, but im not sure in what ways.

Very well said!

This is exactly what puzzles me. Or at least you seem to be talking about what puzzles me. The problem is that when I mention this to others, most missunderstand what I mean by "being aware" or "conscious", and im not sure its possible to refer to this phenomena in a much better way. But that is exactly the argument i usually make, that an automata could behave exactly like me, following the supposed physical laws, but without being aware, or having any sensation, without seeing the images, hearing the sounds, only processing sensorial data. Processing sensorial data isnt the same as feeling/hearing/seeing it.

cant you read the content?

I feel like dogs tend to to give us the benefit of the doubt about everything, never jump to thinking we're crazy.

Revenue and market cap are two different things. The 2 trillion you mentioned is market cap, not revenue, much less it is profit.

I agree it would be a prettier picture if companies paid their workers fairly. But the companies would grow differently. Maybe they would grow better, but differently and more distributed. Comparing absolute values between our world and this dreamland seems silly though.

And I hope that in a world where we are paid fairly we would produce less crap, pollute less. Workers wouldnt be desperately making bad/useless products in order to just survive. A smaller gdp could be a good thing.

If they had to pay them that much, they would have never hired most of them.

exactly. A company tant doesnt overexplore its workers cannot grow like alphabet did. The underpayment of the workers is an essential feature of alphabet, and part of what makes its market capitalization that high.

This implies that the answer to my question is "no": if the workers had been paid properly from the start, there wouldnt be the discrepancy that makes the founder billionaires.

dont blame me for the opinions of someone else. Just note how hipocritical you sound by dismissing criticism of the us while criticizing russia. Why not both?

Would that market cap be so high if all those employees were paid that extra million yearly? Market caps depend on more than the actual value of the company's product to society.

No, thats not what im saying.

Just that if everyone involved in the process of making something was paid fairly, there wouldnt be enough money to make the end node billionaire.

your conditions are too specific. what the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Korea,... is already bad enough. But these dont qualify because they arent neighbors of the us, and the intentions arent exactly what you listed. still, these are already bad enough.

well, i simply dont agree that googles worth comes down to the work of those two people. what they did may have been necessary for the success of google, but so was the work of a lot of their employees.

again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production. the end of the chain is necessary for there to be a product at all, but each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.

2. Ever since internet and software became a thing, they can. It is absolutely possible for one person to create sw worth billions.

Name one thing that one person created that became worth billions. Something that is rightly credited to a single person.

the base structure of the movie is just one of its many components. the originality may be on the meat, rather than the skeleton.

people become billionaires through wage theft. that money should not be his to give in the first place. Plus, the starving are unemployed because the unemployment rate is artificially controlled economically in order to pressure the working class into accepting bad work conditions.

plus it was another data point for profiling people based on their browser settings.