4k3aa4

9 ms·

1.
by 4k3aa4 3y ago
I dunno I can think of a couple of ways to make them economically nonviable...
2.
by 4k3aa4 3y ago
Wait, so you are saying that any time the public pushes back on a new potentially dangerous technology it's a "vetocracy"?
3.
by 4k3aa4 3y ago
I feel like nuclear energy is a bad example, because when it goes wrong it's "one big scary thing" as opposed to the papercuts that would add up with dangerous robotaxis. Also the benchmark for car danger is already so incred
4.
by 4k3aa4 3y ago
> It has become very clear that WFH workers take extra time off at random intervals during a day Bob Slydell: You see, what we're actually trying to do here is, we're trying to get a feel for how people spend their day at work.
5.
by 4k3aa4 3y ago
I mean, in an alternate universe where atomic weapons were a little easier to manufacture at home would it not have made sense for governments to aggressively crack down on anyone doing anything even remotely resembling building them? I gue
6.
by 4k3aa4 4y ago
Also most of the upper class don't have much money left, those houses cost a fortune to maintain.
7.
by 4k3aa4 4y ago
The goal is to make silicon valley engineers part of the downtrodden proletariat. Lots of jobs used to be high paying until they weren't.
8.
by 4k3aa4 4y ago
Let's be honest, a big part of the goal of the fed action and these layoffs is to even the playing field between labor and capital. Silicon Valley type engineers especially were getting dangerously close to escaping precarity (and did
9.
by 4k3aa4 4y ago
I think it's easy to mistake the concept of fads within technology with the application of arguably necessary abstractions. Most of what is new and faddish is just another abstraction around some (probably, relatively) archaic system.