I propose that the thing that’s already looming on the horizon not be called an AI “bubble,” but an AI “pimple,” not least because it’s going to be so satisfying when it pops.
I propose that the thing that’s already looming on the horizon not be called an AI “bubble,” but an AI “pimple,” not least because it’s going to be so satisfying when it pops.
It’s safe to assume that one could graph the atrocities committed by the Israeli military, duplicate it, shift it a day or two down the timeline, and one would get the graph of news articles censored by the Israeli military.
When Tom Cotton says “little Gazas,” what he means is “little communities of people I reflexively hate and want to see die, and you should hate them and want to see them die too.”
Undoubtedly.
And that in no way contradicts, or even really addresses, my point, which is not about overall expenses, but about the distribution of them - the portion that goes to employee wages vs. the portion that goes to executive compensation packages.
They thought by raising wages, owners would cut into their own bottom lines.
I don’t think anyone actually thought that.
They’re simply making the point that the problem is not the wages paid to the employees, as you imply, but the obscene salaries paid to executives and franchisees.
That the American execurives and franchisees are not going to take the necessary steps to correct that problem pretty much goes without saying, but that doesn’t in any way change the fact that that is the problem
Why would Gazans attack a pier being built to being them aid?
It’s far FAR more likely that the attacks were carried out by Israelis. It wouldn’t be the first time they attacked people trying to provide aid to the Gazans. Hell - it wouldn’t even be the first time this month.
Yeah - the whole dynamic of claiming that you don’t intend to do the specific shitty thing that you then intentionally and specifically do is infuriating already, and “yuck your yum” just adds an extra layer of cringe to it.
It’s cynically amusing that we’ve reached a point in US history that Supreme Court justices with no integrity don’t even bother trying to hide the fact that they have no integrity.
I think that’s actually part of the vetting process when a new nominee is chosen. Most of the public focus is on ideology, but that’s likely just the first phase of it for the people reviewing possible candidates. It’s likely that after they get a pool of candidates who are ideologically acceptable, they actually look for a particular combination of arrogance and an utter lack of integrity, so they can, it is hoped, end up with somebody who will not only be corrupt and dishonest but defiantly and determinedly corrupt and dishonest - somebody who can just be set on whatever path they’ve been bribed to follow and then set free, and their own egos will take over and keep them on that path.