Holy ai map, batman. What the shit is that?

I’m on year 5 of mine. Literally no issues

It doesn’t even generate wealth, either. It just denies money to labor and that’s it.

This isn’t someone guessing, man. He’s citing research on the topic.

Essentially, these clouds are 50% opacity to visible light, but nearly 100% in infrared. So they block some incoming light, but reflect almost all infrared from the surface. It’s a net warming effect at these altitudes.

Yes, but the phenomenon occurs at specific altitudes, so you just fly slightly higher or lower.

No, you can fly to avoid the creation of contrails. Ironically, would actually be a boon for the environment, since contrail clouds are massive greenhouse generators https://youtube.com/shorts/qBPwloCdRKw

Dude, I told you I don’t understand how what you’ve written is different from what I’ve said, so maybe start there? I can see the literal words you wrote, thanks. I’m trying to get to the meaning you’re attempting to convey, dude.

Like are you saying “people shouldn’t have given their data to these companies”, then my entire argument until now applies. It’s not really an opt-out situation, unless you refuse to play ball with these companies.

Are you saying “companies shouldn’t have this data”? Like, fair, but I’m not certain how what you’re saying conveys this point.

What are attempting to say because I clearly don’t understand it with those words in that order. Give more context to what you mean, please. I genuinely want to understand but I can’t parse what you’re trying to say beyond what I parroted back at you. And it’s not some failure on your part, I am a certifiable idiot sometimes when it comes to this shit.

Which is why I don’t give anyone my phone number.

Happy for you, chief. I’m sure that makes it real useful to have, then, since no one knows it to call you.

Once again, that never happened, you just made it up, and I don’t appreciate it.

Cool, how am I supposed to read this, then?

I mean it’s a legit concern but, maybe don’t give them your data in the first place?

Does that not read “if they have your data, you’re the one who gave it to them”? Explain it to me, because I’m clearly not understanding

Taxes in the US are overwhelmingly used for the military and to enrich rich fucks, not to help the poor. Don’t be disingenuous. Rich fucks sitting on assets aren’t “not hurting anyone”. Their assets have real world value, that’s why they’re valued like that. By letting someone sit on them to “allow them to appreciate” is letting someone doing nothing accumulate the wealth gains of society that we all work for. Because those assets appreciate faster than inflation, they create inflation pressure as more asseted people have income to burn that doesn’t reflect actual economic movement. Decreasing the value of money that other people need to use to buy things to live.

No one lives in a vacuum and letting people hoard assets has a negative impact on everyone else. So yes, wealth redistribution is a net positive not because “it punishes rich people” but because it allows our money to better reflect who actually produces the value in society. The workers who do the labor of running everything, rather than rich fucks who normally reap all the monetary benefit of that with almost no actual contribution to the effort it required.

If everyone became a laborer with proper compensation, society would thrive. If everyone became an asset hoarder, society would break apart as there would be no one to operate the machinery of society. Increased wealth inequality pushes us towards the second scenario(asset ownership is rewarded over value producing behaviors, pushing individuals towards more asset accumulation in order to not be left behind, increasing the price of those assets, devaluing other ways of earning money, creating more pressure to own assets), reducing wealth inequality pushes us towards the first.

To not give them your data, you can’t interact in their ecosystems. Their ecosystems are the community writ large, so by voluntarily removing yourself from those ecosystems, you’re voluntarily removing yourself from the parts of society that they’ve squatted on. Ergo, removing yourself from society (with a sprinkle of hyperbole, since it was sarcasm)

Without you having signed up to Facebook, if anyone you know who has your phone number has signed up and shared your contact info, then they know your name, who you know, your phone number, which they can then use to associate you to any online interaction where you’ve also given your phone number. They have an idea of the demographics you belong to, political stance (not having a Facebook or Instagram gives them a lot of info for that), and a general vibe of who you are. Source: The exposure after the Cambridge Analytica Scandal

You pointing out that maybe the victims are to blame for their data being in the hands of megacorps surely must imply that you think personal responsibility is the only recourse we have for this. But maybe I read that wrong and you just had no further thoughts beyond what you literally wrote down. Victim blaming for the game of it.

Yeah, man. Why don’t you just voluntarily remove yourself from society at large so that they can’t own your data? /s

Meta has your data, even if you aren’t a part of their ecosystem. This is true of all the rest of them as well. You can’t “personal responsibility” your way out of this.

There is evidence that when you make an llm explain why it did something that it’s less likely to just make things up, but like all it does it make things up in a verifiable way, in that case. It’s a plagiarism machine, not a thinking machine.

Accepting your premise as true, that still doesn’t make the tax valueless. The real value in a wealth tax is breaking up the money from individuals, the revenue is just a bonus. Even if it is all used to pay the accountants, that’s still money that’s now actually moving through the economy rather than zombie wealth sitting in some rich fuck’s paws, doing nothing but contribute to inflation.

Same cloth, boyo

First, any of the third through fifth, and the last one. Second criteria mentions the beginning of the OR options.

Yeah, ya know the fascists from the popular book “Space Fascism is Just as Dumb as Regular Fascism”? They were based as hell /s

I know of this controversy second-hand, sorry.

Not what’s happening. Hasbro isn’t making rare cards more available, it’s printing too many sets. Each new set comes with new keywords and mechanics, meaning the strongest decks always have cards from the latest set. As a result, Hasbro has essentially required players to spend more each year in order to stay competitive.

Hasbro is the anti-player party in this, not the plaintiff.

It’s not that they’re printing too many cards from each set, making the cards less valuable due to a lack of scarcity. It’s that they’re printing too many sets, driving down the value of each set as players get overwhelmed by the volume of new keywords and mechanics.

And most card shops exist because of the secondary MTG market. So this isn’t just card speculators being impacted, but the brick-and-mortar stores that created the popularity of MTG in the first place.

Hasbro is eating their player base in order to secure more and faster profits. Yeah, this lawsuit isn’t the best angle, but it’s going to be a good thing if it works and forces Hasbro to stop this shit.