If enough researchers talk about the problems then that will eventually break through the bubble and investors will pull out.

We’re at the stage of the new technology hype cycle where it crashes, essentially for this reason. I really hope it does soon because then they’ll stop trying to force it down our throats in every service we use.

Capital calls its own theft “innovation” and that of the individual “crime”.

Friend of mine who’d been in the room for bone surgeries said it was basically just carpentry. All saws, drills & screws.

I don’t understand why you’re taking this so seriously. You said yourself it’s insignificant.

So if that’s the case why not let it go? Is getting the last word important to you even though the discussion isn’t?

https://lemmy.world/post/1853818

Lemmy uses pretty standard markdown, so this works in lots of forums besides lemmy.

As you wish.

I came here looking for it, so I may as well follow through on the prompt.

So you have no point and should be ignored. Thanks for confirming that.

At a certain point I realised I was explaining the super obvious, and I wanted to point that out.

If it offended you, sit with that feeling. Maybe it’s trying to tell you something.

Because it was on video, it’s easy to digest, and it reveals something about his character. It especially makes clearer his reasons for dragging the kid everywhere he goes; it’s clearly not because he gives a shit about the kid. It makes the abuse a lot more obvious, and detracts from the humanising effect of the kid.

Like if you thought the issue was that people thought the moment had some serious material impact on the kid’s wellbeing, or that he actually lost his kid in a crowd or something, then I think you just missed the point of it entirely.

Also if you thought context makes it better, the people who were physically there and were presumably supporters of him said “you’re leaving your kid”, so it’s like… obviously an issue, by admission of people who wouldn’t want to admit it.

Like you could ask the same thing about his Nazi salute. We focused on it because it tells us something about who he is. The exact posture of his hand in that moment didn’t physically hurt anyone, it’s about the message it sends, and that message is going to hurt people.

And yes bad parents are everywhere, and Elon is unsurprisingly among them.

This is super basic stuff.

I’ve watched it too. The image it paints is of someone who has no concept of how children actually behave, presumably because he’s never had a reason to spend time with them before.

It’s not about needing to helicopter over the kid. If I was with a friend and we were walking somewhere together I’d pay more attention to them than that. That kind of full back turned walk away when you clearly expect to be kept up with is disrespectful unless you are actually intending to walk away and leave the person. The fact he felt the need to turn back and hurry the kid along shows he just gave no consideration to the kid.

He does it multiple times too. Walk away; hurry up; walk away; hurry up. This guy is herding this kid he just doesn’t know how to do it, like he expects a retinue or something.

Like you can read it differently if you want but I don’t agree with your assessment. The body language is pretty clear to me.

Just wait till he walks off negligently ignoring the child. Boom, no more human shield.

This is a valid rebuttal, as I was talking completely literally. I apologise, I thought they were a civil engineering and construction firm.

I would expect in that case “hell” is just a lie anyway, like an abuser telling you you can’t live without them. It’s classic controlling behaviour.

Realising that helped me walk away from the whole thing: Why are we told hell exists if it isn’t real? Control.

Yes, they are unreliable. The fact that this is typical of software companies doesn’t excuse the behaviour or make it a sound business strategy.

You’re not actually arguing with what’s being said, you’re just normalising it.

“This river doesn’t need a bridge because almost nobody ever crosses it.”

Also is there a reason they can’t just distribute proton? It’s open under BSD, so they’d be free to do it.

I’m not going to get a meaningful exchange with you, I can already tell. I think I made that pretty clear, as well as my reasons. Your reply is empty of anything but a very unsubtle attempt at emotional manipulation, so I’d say I’ve made the right call.

It’s not about force or having authority to define something, this is about being able to have a real conversation, and you left the main term undefined except in your own mind, and then when I asked you for it you gave an absolutely wild definition that makes no sense and which I can’t find anybody else using, and yet you still called it “the” definition and not “your” definition.

If nothing else that means you’re not someone it’s worth trying to talk to, because you’re not even trying to communicate effectively. I don’t care if you have your reasons, they’re not good reasons but I feel like in the spirit of this conversation I just shouldn’t fucking bother to explain why, because based on precedent you’ll just insist I’m wrong for your own inscrutable reasons and carry on as you were, and if I try to wrest those reasons out of you they’ll be nonsensical. Also you’re not worth trying to convince because you’re not somebody anyone else will listen to for long before they realise you’re completely full of shit.

Goodbye.

That definition of authority is so immediately, obviously wrong that I don’t even know where to start dealing with it.

It’s so uselessly broad. I literally said at the start that authority isn’t just any inqeuality, and you didn’t address it. You should have if you thought that was wrong, because that’s literally the definition of the thing that we’re talking about.

I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition. If you want to see my justification for my definition, I would invite you to look it up in any dictionary.

I need you to define the word “authority” in that case. I’ve given my definition, so what is yours and how does it differ, please? Because I already addressed the fact that an imbalance doesn’t create a hierarchy, and your description of imbalance does not fit my definition of authority.

Power imbalance doesn’t automatically create the conditions for domination. For that you would need both expertise and monopoly.

And the solution to a misunderstanding isn’t to concede the definition of the word “state” but to educate. The state is any entity that has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a region. That applies regardless of the system of government that rules it.

Your definition isn’t a definition, it’s just a collection of categories that gives no useful information.

We don’t need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.