I should clarify. I think increasing technological complexity can lead to progress, but I don’t think it always does. I think progress from increasing technological complexity often follows an s-curve. I’m not denying the progress that has come from the significant technological advancement of the last few centuries, I’m just not sure continued technological advancement will lead to that same level of progress over the next few centuries.

Technological progress isn’t free.

I’m just not convinced progress scales 1:1 with increasing technological complexity. In fact, I think progress might be better achieved by lowering costs and complexity, rather than increasing them. Maybe more isn’t always better.

Extremely complex and expensive engineering and technology development for 400 MW of net electricity generation. Why not just build a 400 MW solar farm (with battery shortage, of course)? There’s a massive, natural fusion reactor in the sky blasting the Earth with petawatts of energy every day, for absolutely free.

Nah, the bubble will have popped by then. Honestly, most people will probably be using fewer resources because the post bubble recession could be severe.

When people finally realize that AI, robots, big space rockets, and self driving cars are not feasible and/or not enough to sustain our infinite growth economy, it’s going to be kinda like realizing you forgot your parachute just after you jumped out of the plane.

The right in the US only says what their cult leader tells them to say. If he says the government is bad (which he often does when he’s not the one running it), it’s bad, but when he says it’s good, (which he often does when he’s the one running it) they say it’s good.

I like Gnome. I like KDE, too. I actually think they’re both great, in their own ways, but I personally prefer Gnome.

It is. And so is American football. You don’t believe that because you’re ignorant, but just because you don’t like or understand a sport doesn’t mean it isn’t a real sport.

Thank you for the clarification.

What we call AI today isn’t really artificial intelligence. When you have a conversation with an AI chat bot you’re not talking to another thinking entity, you’re interacting with software that has been designed to give the illusion of conversing with another intelligent being. The technology has advanced enough that the illusion can be very convincing, but it is still only an illusion. That’s why I don’t fear LLMs being self aware and taking over the world, because they’re not real intelligences. They don’t have the ability to think for themselves because they don’t have the ability to think.

Edit: please read ricecake’s reply for an important correction to my comment.

So should rugby be called handegg, too?

Everyone being a billionaire is the same as no one being a billionaire.

First, we’re comparing a candid photo to one that looks like it was taken at a film premier. Cruise knew he was going to be photographed, so he was probably assisted by a makeup artist, hair stylist, and likely a wardrobe consultant. A fair comparison would be between two photographs where each subject has equal opportunity to prepare.

Second, Cruise is one of the top movie stars in the world. He has access to personal trainers, nutritionists, private chefs, stylists, etc. As a world class movie star, Cruise also has a significant professional and financial incentive to maintain a youthful, well manicured appearance. As such, Cruise has almost certainly had some cosmetic surgery or other work done. At very least, he’s dyed his hair.

Looking your best, especially in your 60s, takes a lot of work. Cruise clearly has a strong incentive to put in that work. McGillis doesn’t necessarily have that same incentive. As a middle aged man myself, I could be doing a lot more to look my best, but why bother? Again, it’s a lot of work and for what? So that maybe if someone snaps a candid pic of you the internet won’t see it and think you’re fat, old and ugly? I mean, who gives a shit, but also they’ll probably think it anyway. And let 'em. Fuck 'em.

Complete with fold down basketball hoops.

I don’t really get what libertarian socialists and libertarian anarchists are.

I’m not sure I understand it myself. There’s a lot about libertarianism, both left and right that I don’t fully understand or agree with.

I think many of them are left libertarians, like libertarian socialists and anarchists. It seems to me that libertarianism, whether left or right, is just liberalism taken to its logical extreme. Libertarians do seem to be focused primarily on individual rights, liberties and freedoms. I think that focus on individual freedom can impede their ability to really organize with a lot of other working class people, because it seems to me that often working class people tend to be more “conservative,” as in they have a less, let’s say, permissive attitude about individual expression.

So, what, if we’re all going to be assholes, some of us should at least be rich? Ok, well, chances are it ain’t gonna be you or me who are the rich assholes, so what’s the point? For everyone to be miserable, but a few people get to be rich and miserable?

No.

You’re better off. Rich kids grow up to be assholes.

Edit:

Everybody thinks becoming rich will solve all of their problems. But even if it does solve some of your problems, it’ll just create new ones. Money is not a panacea that fixes everything. I mean, you look at the richest people and they’re not just assholes, their fucking psychopaths. That’s what you want? You wanna be a fucking psychopath? Oh, but, I know, it won’t be you. You won’t fall into the same trap as them. You’ll be one of the good ones. Money won’t corrupt you like it has them. Bullshit.

And what about everyone else? Not everyone can get rich. There are only so many resources on the planet and the more you have the less everyone else can have. It’s a zero sum arrangement. But, who cares about them, I got mine. Right? Congratulations, you’re well on your way to being a rich psychopath.

That could be, but the sub-heading makes me question that.