Try enjoying reading for purposes other than spending as few brain tokens as possible to acquire maximum info. It takes time to understand another persons perspective. Sophie’s Choice wouldn’t be as good a movie if you watched the 30-second TL;DR.
To each their own, I found it tedious and annoying. I quit reading maybe 1/4 of the way in. By then already I had loud alarms going off that I need to read the comments because I'm sure many of the points are easy for a real expert to debunk - too much feels off.
Well I found the text to be obviously inflated with AI, becoming much more verbose than necessary, even if syntactically, grammatically and structurally it was correct.
I would write that prose. It’s very powerful to use small sentences with small words to drive a point home. Like when you are in some drawn out argument about th future with your spouse and your child comes in the room. She says quietly, “please stop fighting I’m hungry”. How do you argue with that? You can’t, it’s just true.
"Framework" means "strategy". This bill is more likely than not a tactic in a much longer insidious campaign to erase anonymity to gain power and profit to normalize taking other rights away a little at a time. We've seen this before with the Clipper chip initiative. I feel sad and bad for anyone on the side of token Karen parents / useful idiots, limousine politicians, lobbyists, billionaires, and people okay with surrendering their and other people's rights. I don't want to live in a society with Flock everywhere, dragnet cell phone tracking, social credit, own nothing, an internet license, de-E2EE, transparent walls dwelling, zero privacy, and absolute proof of birth parents and citizenship every time, long lines, in-person only voting.
If you read TFA, you'll find that the author agrees with you - at least on your first point.
While I agree "AI is bad", well-written posts like this one can provide real insight into the process of using them, and reveal more about _why_ AI is bad.
I think you'll find the luddites to be a more informative historical analogy. A new tool arrives in an industry staffed by craftsmen, providing capital a lever to raise profits at the expense of quality. Is it surprising that worker co-ops would choose not to pull that lever?
The mistake here with both the Luddites and this is to mistake the tool for the actual problem (depending on where you sit), which is mechanization and automation and ultimately capitalism itself.
Opposing the machine does/did nothing.
Political organizing around unions, state regulations of the labour market, agitational political parties did (and can again).
Political organizing around unions, state regulations of the labour market, and agitational political parties did nothing to prevent the severe decline of clothing quality that was the Luddites were advocating against. But of course, propaganda has very successfully reduced their entire platform to "worker's pay" alone, which is an even easier line to feed to people that over the decades have become accustomed to literal slop as apparel. And I mean that very literally - clothes that straight-up lose their structural integrity after a handful of laundry cycles.
Of course, there's definitely absolutely nothing about the state of the garment industry that's applicable to the current discussions about AI re: software quality and worker compensation. It's not as if this industry has not already seen its fair share of quality going to the dogs with only a small handful of people still knowing and caring enough to call it out while most others cheer for the Productivity™.
So because there is no requirement for the age to be accurate, it would be pretty easy to say "all student accounts are the age of the youngest allowed school entrant for that school year", right? That resolves the age issue and also prevents both PII leakage as well as possible school bullying opportunities.
Neat! I think the website could use a bit more information about how the "global" Effect handlers work, and whether it's possible to opt-in to that functionality yourself when writing Effects.
That being said I took a look at the roadmap and the next major release is the one that focuses on Effects, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun a tad. Maybe I'll whip this out for AoC this year!
> They voted for a promise of a return to a world where they were on top.
Very few were on top during The Gilded Age and it has been EXTREMELY clear for quite a long time now that the "Great" in M.A.G.A. is a reference to the 1880s, not the 1950s.
Where THEY were on top. Trump voting men wanted the world where they can rule over women. Trump voting whites voted to be over minorities. Trump voting christians want their religious state.
And so on and so forth. In each case, vote for Trump was to harm someone you look down at and to dominate over another group.
Begging for a 12h day of work every morning on the docks as a stevedore in crowds among hundreds of other men begging for the same job does not give one power to "rule over women".
They'd be too underpaid and exhausted to rule over their own dinner before falling asleep for the night.
When you vote, you vote for an entire platform and you especially vote for central campaign promises. You don’t get to say “I voted for a world where I’m on top” and then say “but not for the primary method the candidate promised to use!”
tariff were promised and implemented by Trump in his first mandate too, if you voted for him, you mostly voted for America Great Again Through Tariffs.
After the liberation day tariffs were announced, 34% of the people thought they were good.
Project 2025 was publicly available prior to the election. Tariffs were one of the many policies within the larger plan. If you voted for Trump you are responsible for the Tariffs, this is not a hoodwink where Trump rug pulled everyone after getting elected — it was literally there in the open.
Even beyond/disregarding Project 2025, tariffs were a well-known part of the GOP platform in 2024; it was even included and discussed at the Presidential Debate. The Harris platform even called it a tax at that time, to attempt to make it quite clear to the voter who, in the end, would bear the cost, and the Trump platform equivocated on who would pay the tax to distract from that Harris was right.
Even if you knew nothing of Project 2025 (somehow), you were warned.
On top you have news outlets and educated people not being clear what they are. See from the article:
He has long argued tariffs boost American manufacturing - but many in the business community, as well as Trump's political adversaries, say the costs are passed on to consumers
It’s reported as if someone still needs to figure out who pays the tariffs in the end. I’m aware that tariffs are a lever to potential move buying behavior and give incentives to move production locally. But in this instance and how it’s/ was implemented it’s clear who is the paying for it.
“ Even beyond/disregarding Project 2025, tariffs were a well-known part of the GOP platform in 2024;”
The tariff stuff is just a variation of the republican dream to replace income tax with a sales tax. Big tax cut for higher incomes while raising taxes for lower incomes.
reply