Well… What about blaming the passengers?
Now, I would like to imagine the legal case of an accident involving a self driving robo-taxi transporting another robot to a facility (owned by the company).
Maybe they can blame the humans who suffered the accident?
I hardly can see how the theory of value is highly flawed.
How is it possible to have gains in value that requires zero labor without having something shady behind it?
I’m not trying to introduce a novel concept.
I’m trying to bring up to the forefront the old concept surplus value from Karl Marx.
money isn’t just a replacement for battered goods, but also a way to precify the value of work.
Work is the real value that runs through the world.
Now, when we talk about taxing the rich, we are talking about the State getting back the value of our work (money) that the rich stole from us by underpaying our jobs.
And for those who says “The rich will move their riches to a country that pays less taxes”, I must remind you again that these riches can only be generated through work.
Tax the rich means taxing their companies and stores as well
It means not letting them have half a trillion of a surplus value that they stole from all of us (because one way or another, we are “working” for them even if by something as stupid as writing a comment on a social media).
And if, supposedly, the company desires to shutdown their factories here, the State must simply buy it and reopen the factories (maybe under another company that, but still with the state as the main “shareholder”).
What makes the factories produce goods is not a rich man with billions of dollars.
What make the goods exist is the working from man and woman in these factories.
And doing so, the company that left will also leave the internal market share where they were profiting over us, but yet, the market share will still exist and be filled by those from within the state-company.
to piss both audiences here:
Emacs in graphical mode
how much money would be worth if every person on earth ceased to exist?
What would happen with the economy in this scenario?
Quick question:
how much money would be worth if every person on earth ceased to exist?
Money has no value by itself.
If all humans died today (thanos snap with 100%), the paper-money would still exist, but would you (your ghost, I mean) say that a 100 dollars still holds value in an earth devoid of humans?
I will argue for no. Without humans, money has no value.
Money is the value being priced on labor-hours that was stolen by someone.
When an ultra rich move their assets outside, they are moving the stolen hours.
But even if he didn’t move those stolen hours outside, they would still be stolen hours.
Keeping the ultra-rich in our country is enabling the thief that keeps stealing us.
The true value is made by those who work the fields, academy, construction and all other sectors that keep society working.
The people living on a country and the sites/places/plot of lands can’t be moved overseas.
The rich must choose between getting his money out of high taxes and keeping his access to a country’s internal market if he decides to remove all of his investing (including machinery/real state investment) from a given country.
Is 16 GB still in the market? I mostly find 32 or 64 GB for usb-stick.
8GB is pretty much dead nowadays (and so is CD/DVD)
(Honorable mention: RIP Floppy Disk )
Who the Fuck Casted ICE STORM???
Not sure if high, but OP is definitivelly BASED!
I’d say that only those who manage to write a kernel code that doesn’t upset Linus Torvald are true linux users.
A good anime weeby analogy is that nazis are like the demons from Frieren.
They only learnt to speak the polite words so they can easily lie to us and kill us.
Edit: I sort of missed the first part talking shit about gen x liberals and dirt poor zoomers while also affirming that the republicans aren’t changing ^(Citation needed) and “based”. The nuance there is just a thin veil for hate speech.
It requires a second or third reading to catch on this, but it is surely a bad take
the post of the previous commenter was nuanced.
usually it is a good thing, but since the far-right is blatantly nazi, there are some risk with “nuance”
overall, the previous comment seems to be analyzing how this divide is happening.
my only complaint is that the comment doesn’t make clear who are the fuckers who are driving the social divide (spoilers: the right who is nostalgic about the post-war period and want to create a “new” post war period by, well, going full nazi)
As someone said on reddit they don’t want a safe space for them.
what they want is to be enabled to shit on everyone else’s food and smirk at us while we try to separate their shit from our beans.
It is a power dynamic where they want to force their shit upon us.
they already have their safe space on r/conservative where they go to circle jerk around “the left is bad”.
They do get tired from that and there is no new “left is bad” if the entire political spectrum was composed of them.
Far right and conservative hate is a self cannibalizing movement.
Even if they killed all gay, black, hispanic, asian, autistic, disabled and any sort of “the other”, then, they would need to find new “others” to start to hate and kill. Their fight is always inward, against the enemy within.
They will proceed to kill white people because either they are not white enough or that they are too white (“ginger” people which should’ve be considered the “correct type of white” if racism ever made any sense since they are paler than almost any other ethnicity).
So, they need an existing enemy and a platform that enables them to shit on us.
If they ever come to lemmy, the correct path is to ban as soon as they shou their true colors and start to throw shit around.
It only requires a few probing question to know if someone is in good or bad faith.
When the comment goes into 5 or more replies, it is almost always for sure that the conservative answering is in bad faith (only exception is if they clearly show that they are learning something with the discussion and adapting their viewpoints with each new comment)
I ask you to also be careful!
you don’t need to feed the trolls to help them see the light.
Treat it like an authoritative (but not authoritarian) parent:
You don’t let the kid do whatever inappropriate shit (that is a neglecting parent style), but you do state firmly the rules and give the consequence (authoritative) without making them fear you through spanking or other kinds of abuse (authoritarian).
I agree we should not be authoritarian.
But we should also not be neglectful!
Specific example:
If someone comes saying that trump did a roman salute, the authoritative answer is: “The nazi salute is a roman salute and both are used to promote fascism (link to wikipedia)”.
Simply and blunt, yet “non-judgemental” answer
Now if they reply saying shit like how they are actually different, then just call their bullshit off by saying things like: “I see no reason for someone to defend a roman or nazi salute unless that someone is a nazi. I really hope you aren’t a nazi, but if you are, know that you’re in the wrong. Period.”
Then stop any sort of further replies and start reporting if they keep harping on this (it would be similar to the time out that parents do to younger child).
I kinda agree with you tho. It is way more realistically to have asteroid mining facilities before what I said in the previous comment
(And of course, earthly mining already exists and will get more efficient in the future anyways)
I really feel the urge to correct the “infinite power part” because it hurts my soul as a (wannabe) physicist.
There exist no thing like infinite energy generator because energy is always conserved (well, there are some weird corner cases this isn’t true, but that is another lesson).
There are massive “transformators” of energy known as stars (like our Sun)which expel radiation in massive quantities thanks to its humongous size and will take billions of years until it grows into a giant red star and more billions of years until it explodes into a white dwarf (If I recall it correctly).
Billions or even “measly” millions of years is basically “infinite” for human lifespan, I agree.
But it still is finite.
Fusion won’t be “infinite” (billions nor even millions of years) because it will be basically a “microscopic sun”
We’d need something a bit bigger than Jupiter to get something closer to a “infinite-red-dwarf-energy-generator”.
And Jupiter’s diameter is around 10 or 11 Earths diameter, so it is something that is already a big massive for humans to do.
I’d say that photovoltaic cells for solar energy would be easier to make “infinite energy” becuse we are copying what the best “infinite energy users” (also known as plants) have been doing for millions of years.
Also, Tony Hawk is a goddamn excellent game!
Dare I say that it was a pro skater too!
I’d even say that it would make it “easier” to generate elements that are rare on earth for aplication purposes.
The first example already sort of feasible is production (and storage) of Helium.
And if we master (in the far, far future) both fusion and fission, then we can make almost any element “with ease”.
Basically we would be able to do what the alchemist dreamed and be able to “turn stones to gold”.
But nowadays, one of our “new gold” are rare earth like Neodymium for making magnets
And there are other elements that are even rarer and would have massive applications only if they were little bit more abundant than they are now
Now, again, that would be only true in a far, far future if (and a big if) we can truly master both fusion and fission (what I actually want to mean is that my comment is basically an “hallucination” similar to those on r/futurology)
verbose?
So a debian stable user then…