thebestaquaman

Thanks for answers! I have some follow up if you don't mind: Did you have any human contact while they held you? As in, was anyone watching you, bringing you food, etc. or just was it just you in the room with food being pushed through the door?

They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it’s going to stop driving.

There's also the point that, while AI has gotten quite far, the human brain is still fairly superior at accurately interpolating and interpreting limited information. This may have changed in the past year or two, but my impression is that humans are still far better than machines at handling new or "corrupted" information, like driving in poor visibility, or suddenly having road markings disappear, etc.

How were you held? Did you ever attempt to escape? Did they tell you at the time why they were holding you? Were you ever threatened by them regarding what would happen if they didn't get their ransom?

The guy on the left has a hand on his shoulder. It can't be the guy in the middle's hand, so it appears the guy on the right has a very long arm. Or it's a hovering "extra hand".

I was about to mention what this comment said: The best boots I've had are some pairs that have lasted me 10-15 years, and haven't given in before I'd worn out 2-3 pairs of outer soles (tread). I know some brands (like Salomon) give out certifications for cobblers that can replace tread, which involves giving specific courses to the cobblers. Most of these will let you mail in your boots and will mail them back to you with new outer soles.

My experience is that this is 100 % worth it. It's like getting a brand new boot, except it's already broken in. If you do some searching, you can probably find someone that does this near you.

Would not having 30 dresses make you unhappier, if you have time to spend doing things you enjoy instead of consumption being the only thing you have to show for all the time you spend at work?

It feels like you're attributing to me an opinion that a decrease in the availability of goods and services would be a universally bad thing. I never said that.

For my own part, I don't own much excess stuff. I use whatever clothes I buy until they're worn out, and the only furniture I own is a couch, a bed, a kitchen table and two chairs. However, I do enjoy climbing, hiking, and skiing, all of which require a bit of equipment to do. Lower productivity would likely imply that those things become less available/more expensive.

As for food: Saying that it "has the amazing ability to just grow without much human intervention" just makes you seem unaware of the fact that loads of people would literally starve if it weren't for modern farming equipment, synthetic fertiliser, preservation methods, and transportation. For people to rely on "a small garden for some of their food" is not a practice that works at scale with the population density in the world today. There's a reason the population on earth was relatively stable until the industrial revolution, and has grown exponentially since: Modern technology makes it possible for us to feed very many more people with a lot less land and resources.

IT services: Yes, I'm on a platform run by volunteers. I'm on it using hardware that was built by workers, with materials developed, extracted and refined by workers, on electricity produced and distributed by workers, over an internet that is possible because of workers. All these workers are reliant on their own corporate IT systems in order to be as efficient as they are today. You can't just extract the last link in a huge web of dependencies, and act like it could work on its own.

Anyway, all these things are side-notes. My primary point (which I still believe stands) is that we cannot expect to reduce productivity across the board (i.e. everyone works significantly less), and expect that there will not be a price to pay. Whether that price is worth paying is an open discussion, which I haven't really decided what I think about myself.

I see your point, however

Armies should be a deescalating force, building bridges between nations.

I don't really agree on this, I think that's what diplomacy is for. Armies are for when someone shows up with weapons, trying to kill you and your family, displace you from your home, and take everything that is yours. Armies are the backstop when diplomacy fails and you have no choice but to defend yourself with violence.

Yes, armies can't defeat an ideology completely (as you say, Nazi ideas are still with us today, and North Korea is still a threat to the South). However, armies did ensure that a bunch of people that would have been purged by the Nazis have instead lived fulfilling lives. Armies did ensure that a lot of Koreans actually don't live under the oppression of the Kim regime. An army is currently preventing Putin from taking Ukraine, displacing Ukrainians, and wiping out Ukrainian culture.

The last example is perhaps the best, because we can see in real time that Ukraine would obviously prefer not to fight this war. They would have preferred to build bridges and friendship with their neighbouring country. That is the job of diplomats and politicians. The army is there for when that neighbour decides to invade, because they don't want bridges and friendship, but complete control.

You seem to agree with my last point, which was that

the distribution of wealth in society, and how it’s shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning

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.

Also completely neglecting that not all the energy in a slap will be transferred to thermal energy in the chicken.

There have definitely been unjust wars, where various propaganda has been used to get people to fight for corporate or imperialistic agendas.

Acting like the people that died fighting Nazis, or the people that died prevented North Korea from taking the South, didn't die protecting others is just disrespecting those people. Imagine how many people that have survived, lived, and prospered on the European continent and in South Korea because soldiers and resistance fighters were willing to lay down their life for a greater cause.

This isn't a black-and-white issue.

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.