"Most of the internet"
Ah I get it, the link redirected me to The Onion! For a moment then I thought you were serious ;-)
64 posts • joined 4 Apr 2016
"it's no surprise that in the last 50 or so years the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer, a trend that has been accelerating in recent years."
Manifestly untrue, indeed mankind has seen an unprecedented increase in prosperity almost everywhere over the last 50 years. Many of the 'rich' have indeed have got richer, and most of the 'poor' have got richer too. Moreover, someone else getting richer does not make someone else poorer as economies is not zero-sum games, which is why socialist 'economics' are such arrant nonsense.
Well other than the whole pervasive corruption on a scale few Brits can even begin to fathom, yeah sure, pretty much the same. Oh... but drier? Rather depends where you are, Africa is a large place & many parts are more or less constantly soggy and smell of rotting plant litter and garbage ;-)
"I've read the full memo not just the synopsis"
Well that puts you in a tiny minority.
I read a couple critiques of this thing, then actual read the memo... and then went back to check I had read the correct memo because it did not have much in common with what the outraged protests were ascribing to it.
So this seems to be suggesting that the problem with algorithms is they are not reflecting the *correct* political biases? That they might actually reflect reality in unpalatable ways, for example by daring to notice that in the real world fewer women are less interested in STEM for perfectly understandable preferences?
And you are right to be uneasy, Net Neutrality, particularly as structured in the United Snakes, make it harder for new market entrants to get a toe hold with some innovative new approach to things, so naturally large established players just love these regulations to bits (see what I did there?).
Seriously, how did people not see that from the beginning?
"That claim would not stand up in court as the koran (and bible and, and ad nauseam) actually contains the items you mention."
Your faith in courts is touching. Once the state passes a law against hurt feelings (i.e. branding free speech "hate speech"), the truth of a statement becomes irrelevant, only what emotional effect the statement has.
"Corporations and individuals should stop trying to use laws and procedures to avoid taxes."
Why? Only an idiot allows more of their money to be appropriated by the state than they have to. The state uses laws to tax people, people use laws to minimise that tax. Nature of the issue.
Excellent way to ensure no over-seas money get involved in any UK based investments. And also a great way to ensure investors in UK keep their money well away from the Sceptred Isles & safely overseas, never to touch these shores if they want to invest in various things and would rather not get taxes for just moving the money.
People who have a lot of money are almost as mobile as their money: if you make it expensive for them to move that money, they will either move it before the law gets imposed, and then probably move themselves as well. And good luck implementing such a tax at a global level as the places that do not reap huge benefits for avoiding such foolishness. Merchantalism was cutting edge thinking in the 16th century, but now it suggests a breathtaking lack of understanding how modern wealth creation actually works..
You mean people still willingly travel to the USA? I have lots of friends there but I just wait for them to visit me, or just use Skype, as it is just not worth the hassle of getting felt up with some barely intelligible officious drone with a below average IQ to get into the country. There are plenty of other places to visit for a great deal less effort.
A "robot" is just a machine and machines have been a facet of manufacturing for a very long time. Health and safety laws and minimum wage regulations (and other taxes on job taxes like social security) motivate companies to get rid of human workers *entirely* as the technology becomes available, because that is what state regulations are incentivizing companies to do. Of course that might also put a few lawyers at Pinsent Masons out of a job as well, but that is just a happy consequence of automation rather than its primary objective.
"You can see why the medical practitioners and the police are very concerned."
Who cares? Since when can medical practitioners and the police punish a man without either sectioning him under the Mental Health Act or convicting him of a crime? The "concerns" of the police and medical practitioner is utterly irrelevant or we *are* living in a Police State.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020