[–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Something that robots might not be able to do is to create value, from which profits are then taken from. An employee is tasked with doing X and over the course of doing X for three decades they've found an efficient way of doing it, which has maybe enabled them to do X + Y or X^2^. This is something that automation can not do (yet). The work of a robot is a constant and often very slow (when the environment is not fixed). Value creation has terminated and value is suspended until it's touched by another human-worker who will either add or negate value. Just a random thought.

A fully automated-factory hasen't just annihilated the labour bill to $0.00. It's also destroyed any capacity for value creation and therefore surplus profits or maybe any profits. If ten entities can all assemble autonomous factories how will they compete? On price? How? Everything is fixed. Inputs go in and inputs go out. People designing ever more efficient machines? There comes a point where scale surpasses that of an entrepreneur or any business man. This is where socialism should step in...

AI 'creations' are inherently value-less. What will a market do when everyone can tell an AI to write a photoshop clone. Who is then buying photoshop clones? No one. Who would buy AI music when anyone can prompt their own computer for a song? These markets will collapse. What about bridge designs?

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago

    I think it was an attempt to normalise the killing of political opponents. Such violence is already normal and legitimised in America, the land of school-shootings and capital punishment.

    As of 2023, only 2 out of 38 OECD member countries (the United States and Japan) allow capital punishment.

    Such murder needs to remain behind closed doors as to be polite in American society. Please enjoy the following entertainment-products:

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I seriously question the idea that death is inherently traumatic. History is littered with public-executions, ceremonial killings and death for entertainment. People are eager to pay for and play GTA 6: a murder- and crime-simulator. People love violence. People are unfazed by death when the victims belong to an out-group--those that are deemed not to be people.

    "Oh that's just an actor. The character died, not the actor."

    "They're not real; it's a video-game."

    "They're jews."

    "He was a pedophile."

    "She's a nazi."

    "He's a murderer; it's comeuppance."

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Genuine question: what are the doing with that money? Buying future components from sellers? Buying land? Paying labour? That's a lot of money going into something that is essentially a 'service' entity. They're not producing anything tangible.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit—and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth. There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificates—died of malnutrition—because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

    The quote's from The Grapes of Wrath. I haven't read the book, but I had read the quote and it has stuck with me.

    I did play Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee as a child. That stuck too. It's a bleak satire of corporate America. The director--Lorne Lanning--saw firsthand the waste in the production and sale of food on a mass scale. I recall a video-interview where he stated that a large amount of good produce was dumped into a river, turning its water orange(?). The details escape me, but food waste is a 'cost of business'.

    Capital has its own logic and it's inhumane. I don't know or care about this particular incident, but if the food had rotted before it was noticed it couldn't be consumed--freely, at profit or not.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    This seems absurd. How did the government get to this point? Were there prior frameworks before they decided on this one?

    I can't see any other result than to deter economic activity that uses computers and "the internet". I feel this is incredibly reactionary. I sympathize if the goal is to capture economic flows that are disproportionate and outwardly foreign. Facebook as an example: it's a foreign company with a net negative on France. American 'internet' companies dominate others because the governments of the past allowed it. Out of sight and out of mind. China's the only nation that has been doing it correctly. They have domestic equivalents and more. Compare that to the rest: it's just America rofl stomping everyone and extracting capital.

  • source
  • submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/lemmy@lemmy.ml
    :ablobcatrave: 1 :ablobcatrave: 1
     

    People act and speak differently depending on who they're with.

    Web-forums of old didn't unify a user's identity like Lemmy does. One forum was held at one domain, hosted by one set of computers and administrators; another forum had a separate domain, set of machines and administrators. Identities on one forum were not correlated to another. A forum dedicated to cars had no reason to know about the you that also posted to a forum about crocheting.

    Software has been trending towards centralized identities. This never made sense to me as it's diametric to how identities operate in real life. Your employer knows one side of you and your friends another, which is still different to the you you might show to your partner.

    This centralization stems from surveillance-capitalism's desire to surveil and tie independent pieces of information to one real human, creating a higher-resolution profile of that individual from which the subject becomes easier to exploit. Monied software has been the impetus. Free-software is affected by that dominant culture of surveillance-capitalism. The temporal context is pertinent and Lemmy functions with one central-identity interacting with a multitude of separate communities.

    Creating separate identities on separate instances of Lemmy is possible, but it doesn't change Lemmy's design and that design seems to be a reflection of surveillance-capitalism. The very fact that you can view a user's previous posts appears voyeuristic, being pointless outside of that context for users.

    I am a proponent of anonymity. The ability to write posts anonymously or under different identities would be welcome. That central-identity (that is the Lemmy account that's established on a particular instance) could still exist for the purposes of administration. I would also like to see finer grained controls for the user's content and profile.

    What if the user does not want a public profile at all? What if the user does not want a long-term identity? Creating a multitude of identities on one instance could be perceived as spam or malicious activity. Allowing the user to create sub-identities that are not publicly attached to that central-identity would still allow for ordered administration whilst empowering users to share what they want to share with a particular community without also exposing the entirety of an identity.

     

    I'm looking for sites that host open data. It'd be nice if they were collaborative projects too, like a site that tracks prices of domestic-groceries that's updated by users. By "open" I don't mean monetarily-free, but rather data that is free from restrictive-licenses. A website that hosts free data, uploaded by its users, with the agreement that all data uploaded then belongs to the entity that hosts it is something I am not looking for. OpenStreetMap is a good example of what I'm looking for, I think... I'm under the impression the data uploaded by the user still belongs to the user. I may be mistaken though.

    A cursory search found this website: https://library.bu.edu/bizdata/free-data . I haven't gone through the links on that page yet, but in case I can't find what I'm looking for there I thought I'd also ask users here.

    Originally I wanted to find a repository of currency-conversion prices, but then I began to wonder about libre data repositories in general.

    view more: next ›