Also completely neglecting that not all the energy in a slap will be transferred to thermal energy in the chicken.
thebestaquaman
joined 2 years ago
when the 5 day a week, 40 hour work week began there was a specific level of productivity. As technology increased the output increased.
Exactly, so following this argument, we can choose between living at our current (increased) productivity level (40 hour weeks), or trading off the technological advancements for more spare time at the cost of going back to the productivity level we had previously.
I won't argue for which of these two is "correct", I think the tradeoff between free time vs. more access to goods and services is considered very differently by different people. However, I do think that a major problem we're facing today is that the increased productivity we've had the past 50 years due to technological advances has benefited the wealthy far too much, at the expense of everyone else.
I think it's more fruitful to first try to take care of the wealth distribution, such that we can actually see the quality of life our current productivity level can give everyone. Then we can make an informed choice regarding whether we want to reduce the productivity in exchange for more free time.
Sure, I agree with that. However, we also need to consider what a "net decrease in productivity" actually means for the population as a whole, and whether it's something we want to accept as a trade-off for more free time. Briefly, we can collectively choose to work four, three, or even two days a week, despite seeing a decrease in overall productivity. However, a decrease in productivity means that stuff like clothes, transport, food, IT services, and pretty much everything you can think of that someone has to produce becomes more scarce.
You basically need to answer the question of "would you prefer two days off per week with current access to goods and services, or have more days off with reduced access to goods and services". Of course, there may come along technological innovations that change this in some ways, and there are studies showing that a lot of people can be sufficiently productive on a four-day work week. On a society level, I still think the point stands as an overall tradeoff we need to consider when talking about whether we should reduce the work-week.
My point is that it's not just a "capitalists are bad, and we're owed more free time" thing. If we produce less, then goods and services become scarcer for everyone. I would say the distribution of wealth in society, and how it's shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning than the fact that we're working the same hours as we were 20-50 years ago.
Aha! I can tell I am totally unqualified to speak on what they do and do not address. Thanks for informing me :)
How many are there now? I didn't know there was more than like two (maybe three?) movies, is there more?
They don't address any of that. It's essentially an "every person for themselves" situation, where those that can afford it hole up in highly secured homes, while people living on the streets are hunted for sport.
The do mention crime within households when this one guy sneaks into his girlfriends home and tries to shoot her father though. However, nothing like what you're mentioning.
Not only are there warnings: Around a month ago, a fund that has funded some students at top US universities quite literally evacuated several of the students they were funding.
We're talking about Norwegian students in the US getting a call telling them to "get your passport, and get on the first possible flight home, don't worry, we're paying." This was just around when people with certain skin colours, political opinions, or sexual preferences started getting snatched off the streets.
That's when I realised how absolutely fucked shit has gotten over there. When Norwegian citizens on student visas were literally told to evacuate the country.
Still remember the first time I saw this. It was the last time I touched YouTube for a looong time.
It would cost them absolutely nothing to show a feed of hot/high rated/popular videos. Throwing in some entropy such that it doesn't only show the most viewed videos globally wouldn't be hard at all either. They're just openly stating that they don't want you there at all if they can't track your viewership.
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they've openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).
However, two wrongs don't make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If "we" want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just "right of the strongest", we can't accept these kind of violations of international law.
This is where you're dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there's not even consensus that they're amassing the weapons you say they are.
This is just absurd to claim. It's like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It's like saying that you're justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched "preemptive" strikes on Israel, or conducted "preemptive" assassinations on Israeli soil?
If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting "preemptive" strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that "Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities."
Saying Israel has no right to exist is covered in an isolated sense in every EU country I can think of. It only becomes a problem if you say or imply that committing genocide against Israelis is a "solution", or otherwise advocate for violence or hate crimes.
Saying that "a two state solution can never work, Israel should be absorbed by Palestine and other neighbouring countries" is a legitimate political opinion that is protected by free speech.
I don't really know if this fits in this community, if not just take it down. The map is from the BlackBird group.
Regarding the recent strikes on the Seim river crossings, I've been speculating what Ukraines plans are. Not too long ago, the Ukranian advance around Korenevo slowed a bit. Then they started systematically hitting the Seim river crossings, of which ISW assesses there is only one left.
If the goal was to encircle and trap Russian units, I would assume that Ukraine would make a hard push through Korenevo to the river. As it looks now, it seems like they are leaving a small corridor open. Whether that is due to Russian resistance or Ukrainian planning I have no idea.
This makes me wonder whether they are intentionally leaving a small opening (See: Sun Tzu) to try to make Russian forces low on resources funnel through the opening where they can inflict heavy casualties, or whether they are trying to force the Russians to expend resources trying to prevent being cut off before they close the net.
In any case, I can see Ukraine wanting to secure another major road towards Korenevo that they can use to supply the offensive.
Of course, I don't want anyone to reveal anything that could violate OPSEC, everything I read is based on OSINT. I'm just interested and would like to hear other peoples speculations.
view more: next ›
You seem to agree with my last point, which was that
That is: The major problem we have today is that the increase in production we've seen the past 20-50 years has primarily benefited the wealthy. This needs to change. Once we have decent wealth distribution, we can make an informed decision on whether we want to reduce our total productivity in order to have more free time.