TreadOnMe [none/use name]

Unironically, do it. Let the flourishing of a thousand websites begin again.

So one of the like, libertarian one world government conspiracies that came out of the 1970’s was that the government wanted to document everything so that way they could feed it into a giant database and then arrest you for ‘future-crime’ and ‘thought-crime’. It was one of their big pushes against welfare programs and other government services that ‘documented free citizens’, and they would argue that is why the government wanted everyone on welfare, so they could track us like the communists did to their people.

It’s pretty quaint now, but those undercurrents are what powered dystopian sci-fi in the U.S. Most popular sci-fi in the U.S. is very wrapped up in libertarianism honestly.

I thought the whole ‘future crime’ thing was something libertarians used to argue against communism?

This is half correct, imo. America is ‘re-industrializing’. However, that doesn’t mean that we are going to be major producers or actually produce what we consume (obviously), due to Wall Street. What it does mean is that the job market will continue to shift our economy from a sizeable petite-bourgious class and large service sectors, towards more easily value extracted jobs whose labor value extraction efficiency is multiplied by robotics. We won’t make or design actually high-tech things, but we will make over engineered things we can throw through a mostly automated process. Even if there is more value in stock market games and assets, the only way to consistently accumulate that wealth to play with if you don’t have it is through industry, so there will always be people gambling on it. Not the smartest people, but people who can throw away billions on failed capital vestment.

Intel is facing the same problems many tech giants have before it, ‘over-hiring’ (by capitalist standards) to rush a shit product line due to rushed scheduling on design and production and a general degradation in quality practices all around. This obviously isn’t going to be fixed by Intel, but they will do the usual stock buy-back, firing then rehiring rigamarole they usually do.

What if my robot was just a guy?

You are being idealistic and giving into American exceptionalism.

However much you or I hate it, it is a matter of taste. Interfaces can be made to work intuitively, touch screen phones prove you do not need to have fixed analog buttons, and screen brightness is easy to program to adjust automatically. Our shit doesn’t work because tech bros are addicted to a million unneeded features and menus. If you are just looking for a style you can vastly simplify your interface and limit your options to what is strictly nessecery. Most Chinese people will not be driving these kinds of teched-out cars.

I think it’s ugly as sin, and I hope it is a passing trend, but that doesn’t mean this stuff is impossible to do well. It just means we can’t do it well.

I am here to tell you that america communists are wildly out of touch with the consumption tastes of the average Chinese public.

Not that we aren’t right to be cynical about our own engineers achieving the same results as Chinese manufacturing.

Nah, that’s just scary and pretty par for the course, not sad.

I think the saddest thing about modern American engineering and tech is that they would all be fucking psyched about Chinese tech and cars if they were born in China. Like, the only reason these people are so blinkered about China is because they were born in the U.S.

They are so sure that they can see past the propaganda, that they are just eating shit the whole way down.

You can say that, but they’ll find some old, unused because it was non-viable at-scale product like the block-chain or distributed ledgers, dust it off and then hype it up for the next go-around, all while we get passed up by companies and countries that actually understand how to nvent and engineer things. This IS the market cycle for tech now.

It’s the typical ‘Privatization and concentration of profits, socialization of costs and responsibilities.’

“Don’t be evil”

“Ok you can be a little evil, as a treat.”

This is stupid, but not for the reason you think. It’s not stupid because he ‘can’t recognize who is sueing him’. That is a typical stalling tactic by attorneys that know that you are boned but you have money.The idea is that you can outspend the other party for fees. This usually doesn’t work at these level s if the other attorney isn’t stupid and is working for a winning payout, and not for billing.

It’s stupid because if this ever goes to court, it will look really bad, either he is purposefully stalling or he is incompetent. He took some really short-sighted legal advice.

They are wrong, China isn’t waiting to catch up to the leading edge, they ARE the leading-edge. The things that Chinese student robotics teams are able to come to international competition with is genuinely crazy, with the amount of programming that is required. If there is any gap it is the technology waiting to catch up to their expertise.

Not only that but China is really the only country that does genuine quality control outside of their automotive industry because they are willing to completely redesign their factories and processes around it.

It is crazy to me that people still genuinely underestimate China.

They aren’t counter productive, the point is to obfuscate enough to pretend that there are real consumer changes in a stagnant market.

It is counterproductive to product innovation and consumer selection, it is not counter productive for capital accumulation, which is the only thing that matters.

The highways weren’t just magically placed there by the grace of God, they were built and expanded by the government using eminent domain. A highspeed rail system could be built using the same legal precedents, and would likely keep the highways from having to be expanded (ever).

What you are saying is that we could never build a new system in the same way that we built the old system, which is patently false, which is still different from your claim that China can avoid red-tape when the U.S. does not which is also false. The U.S. picks and chooses when it decides to uphold ‘private property’ because it only cares about the private property of those that buy the political system, it demonstrably does not care about general private property rights of those that inconvenience whatever the agenda is. Which means that the agenda COULD be High Speed rail, and it is not ‘the law’ or ‘the government’ getting in the way but private companies.

Also, for someone with a tenuous grasp on legal reality, I don’t think you should be discussing the realities of rail-based civil engineering. Highways aren’t particularly known for being good to work with on complex landscapes.

I am saying that the literal incentives of a profit-driven capitalist economy will always inevitably degrade the commodity process, incentivizing profit generation and rent seeking over industrialization and economizing commodity processes. It has nothing to do with ‘corruption’, ‘power’ or ‘politicians’, nor did I ever indicate that is what we were talking about. It is the system working as intended.

What is hilarious about your argument is that it takes far more land to build and maintain a highway, and yet we somehow never had any problems with forcing land sales with eminent domain clauses doing that.

It’s almost as if the government is owned by a series of interests that are not actually interested in investing and maintaining efficient consumption minimum and economical modes of transportation, and instead focused on making a system that is efficient at creating profit for it’s ownership class. It’s almost as if, instead of a focus on the money to commodity cycle, there is a perverse incentive for a money to commodity to money cycle that means there is no real incentive to ever substantially invest to improve your commodity production.

Weird.

I know this is the second time this shit has been posted, but most rail-less nations are not building railroads because they do not have the nessecery capital intensive industry to build railroads, let alone build a poor man’s railroad and then redevelop it, because the world is being purposefully choked of development funds by the IMF and World Bank. God forbid demand gets fulfilled.

Ah yes, as if anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism or really any other human ideology and methodology centered entirely on egoism don’t engender some strange communal cargo cult behavior. It’s almost as though they too are full of shit?

It is funny to believe in ‘self-determination’ when you can’t even recognize that all the important decisions have already been made for you. It is rich to pretend to fight against the nihilist when you only believe in yourself. So go egoist, live your life as you please, blissfully unaware that you are just as stuck the very herd of individuality that we all find ourselves in.

Ehh, kinda, but not really. It’s pretty standardized (which is hilariously rare for these disciplines) within sociology, anthropology and even economic theory. At most economics would label it an ‘inefficient market’ but even they are stretching their definition to the breaking point when there is no actual expectation of reciprocity for most transactions.

You absolutely need an army to sustain market economies. Somebody has to collect the debts. Why do you think America spends more money than anywhere else on it’s police force? You have to have a monopoly of force in order to sustain obviously unfair and arbitrary property relations. Why does America have military bases across the globe and sanction countries that refuse to engage on it’s market terms? Because we need to have the potential to place a boot down or provide training for those that will do our enforcement for us.

Look at crypto, without centralized financial support it all but crumbled, to only resurge as a speculative asset, only to dip again. Maybe it will make a resurgence, but it is capital with no army, never to break the bounds of the fin-tech industry.

Force is what drives and has always driven market economies. To believe otherwise is to be an-cap, to separate the historical development of markets, capitalism and the state.