Well yeah, you flattened the most complex problem of human history into a glib statement. When you remove nuance, you can make anything sound however you want.
SCOTUS overturned roe vs Wade, which normally doesn't happen in the American legal system (contradicting previos precedent and jurisprudence sort of opens a Pandora's box of "well does this system even work if you can do that").
Donald Trump was just convicted on all 34 counts in his NY court case and his followers are calling for the judges execution.
Yes. That's literally the platform. They say whatever they have to to cover their asses because all they really care about it being able to do whatever they want while forcing everyone else to do live by their rules.
They don't care when you point this out because that is their goal. They're shameless about it.
Love how we went from "AI needs to be controlled so it doesn't turn everything into paperclips" to "QUICK, WE NEED TO TURN THE PLANET INTO PAPERCLIPS TO GET THIS AI TO WORK!!"
O man if you hate that don't think about how WW I basically happened the way it did because everyone spent the previous few years building up their militaries "just in case."
There's a theory that part of the problem is that social media aggregates too many different people in one place. Our brains naturally create in groups and out groups, making conflict and toxicity inevitable.
I'm making a prediction right now that real self driving will eventually rely on people from impoverished countries remotely operating the cars of wealthier countries. Sort of like how AI training data is combed through.
This is not the result of a prolonged investigation. It's the result of shifting precedent from a neoliberal, Chicago School, interpretation to a more "new deal" era interpretation of monopoly laws. For the last 30 years, monopolies could only be broken up if the corporation bought other companies "with the intention of of forming a "monopoly." We literally had to get rid of all the followers of the Chicago School from the government and replace them with people that aren't as friendly to corporations.
Basically, think of companies forming monopolies as drunk driving. If a court of law were to determine drunk driving manslaughter cases like they've been determining monopoly cases, you'd have to prove that the drunk driver left his house with the intention of killing someone inna drunk driving accident. So they'd always be able to say, "well I didn't leave the house thinking I'd kill someone!" And get away of it. That's how companies and the judicial system have been treating monopoly laws.
Well yeah, you flattened the most complex problem of human history into a glib statement. When you remove nuance, you can make anything sound however you want.