“Work for each other and against wealthy investors” would result in a smaller economy, but the focus is on the positive thing built, instead of just sabotage.
“Smaller” if you’re a billionaire. When they say “the economy” just insert “rich people’s wealth”. It wouldn’t be a smaller economy in reality, because what drives a healthy economy is people spending money. Rich people don’t spend money, regular people do. Regular people getting paid more and having a larger piece of the pie, counterintuitively means there’s more pie.
Only to the extent that withheld labor during a strike affects it. Once the strike(s) are over, an economy that puts more spending money in more pockets will be a bigger one
It turns out that the size of the economy is related to how well-distributed the wealth in it is. If most of the money goes into wealthy pockets and everybody else lives in a sort of poverty-imposed austerity, that depresses a lot of that economy’s potential.
What the UAW are after is not a smaller economy, but a more-robust (likely larger) one that includes more people in it.
I think the problems (of high inequality, of unsustainable resource use) are distinct, but related and can probably be gone after by targeting the same things: price gouging and suppressing wages.
If capital can’t do those things, labor will have the choice to work less if it doesn’t need the money to survive. We’ve long-since passed the point Keynes predicted (at which, productivity would be high enough to support people at a high standard of living without them working full time) in terms of production, the obstacle to that happening is that capital gets to allocate those surpluses and it keeps most of them
I’ve spent my career in the tech industry, specifically around open source software.
Corporate powers helped fund the work of individuals for their own purposes, but I can ways we can use them to rebuild local economies instead.
We just need to change how we’re using the tools. This can be done by existing skilled workers who are willing to make new choices around who to work for, or by motivated new engineers who have access to the free tools and free training material.
I always say that owning a house is mostly water management - making sure water goes where it’s supposed to go, and doesn’t go where it’s not supposed to go.
Educated in history here (history should have no bias), while there are a greater number of slaves today they represent a smaller portion of the population than during the 1800s. In addition modern slavery is not the same as chattel slavery which is infinitely worse given that it denies the slave’s existence as a human being. Im not saying slavery is OK Im just saying your claims aren’t entirely accurate.
Automation means that proportionally fewer slaves can provide more. That “denies the slave’s existence as a human being” bit is rather vague. Are you saying modern slavery is not denying the slave’s existence as a human being? What does that mean?
The way they’re viewed really isn’t the problem. Someone being imprisoned and forced to work really isn’t affected by the man with the whips opinions of them, because of they slave away they don’t get whipped. They’re existence has been stripped too bare for such distinction to make a difference. Slavery is like war and war never changes.
That simply isn’t true. When your slaver looks at you as less than human they can justify a lot of mistreatment they would not do to another person.
There’s a reason why Western chattel slavery is so vilified because almost every other nation still thought of slaves as people. Chattel slavery thinks of them like livestock.
Point to the time where prisoners in the U.S. were stacked up on boats and shipped across the Atlantic for months at a time.
You don’t see prisoners treated like cargo here. Don’t get me wrong, they aren’t treated well, but there are certain factors here that I don’t think you’re considering.
Responses from historians will rarely make you feel better, but will help you understand the complexities that people without that specialization often overlook.
Trying? Abolished? Sigh. Words. Slavery never left. Put all the pretty paint you want on those bars. It’s the change of perspective that comes with wisdom. Use that power well.
@darth_helmet@47_alpha_tango I like Ortegas a lot, but I think it is kinda silly that a huge starship would need (or could use) a hotshot pilot. The ship is like an aircraft carrier, which generally don't make fancy moves.
This is something that’s been a problem with space combat in media forever. It’s the size of an aircraft carrier, but combat is more exciting if we pretend that everything in space maneuvers like a fighter jet.
Pretty much only The Expanse gets that stuff right.
The astronauts in the ISS predominantly conduct science research and maintain the station. The only maneuvering it does is orienting itself for thermal management, orbit raising and occasional collision avoidance. A ship like Dragon 2 is highly automated. Yet a lot of astronauts are still pilots and many from the military.
Nobody would be surprised to travel on a commercial aircraft flown by an ex-military pilot.
Star Trek space combat doesn’t seem very realistic but I can understand the value of having an experienced pilot who can function under pressure. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than handing the helm of the flagship full of families over to an unqualified teenage Wesley Crusher. Picard was fortunate there aren’t more mountains in space or that could have turned out like Aeroflot 593.
100% agree. She’s got a confidence that is often annoying, but I think that’s the point. She thinks she’s hot shit (and maybe she is – she’s at least a competent pilot).
I see her as a kind of version of (early) Tom Paris.
She’s a more seasoned pilot by far than early Tom Paris.
But she’s exactly what I expect and know experienced combat pilots to be like. Some are sober and subdued like Sulu or Detmer, but the in your face types are common and tolerated.
Season 1 Ortegas was hard for me to like. She was far too cocky for a Starfleet officer, talking back and too informally to superior officers. She felt like she didn't belong in Star Trek, or at least in that kind of Starfleet command structure.
Season 2 Ortegas has backed off from that a bit and is now far more enjoyable. She's got spunk, but she doesn't come off as insubordinate or rude.
Not using it at all would be better, sure, but if you don't have that option for whatever reason, reusing it is the next best thing. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
You raise a great point about comments being seen as a counter by default. And if you try to give a disclaimer in your comment (like saying you agree) you still get downvoted for some reason. I'm very cautious about participating in any serious topics because of this, jokes, one-liners and sharing (unimportant) personal experiences are pretty much the only safe comments.
Come on over to Beehaw, where we don't have downvotes, then!
It forces people to actually take time and effort to disagree with you, rather than just hitting one button, and somewhat unsurprisingly, that deters a lot of "drive-by" negativity.
At all costs present only your true little freaky weirdo self in all social situations, flaws and all. If you pretend to be something else to impress, hide what makes you uniquely you, you might meet someone who is okay but one day one of you will realize that your different enough that it won’t work. On your journey of being the real little freaky Kolanaki, plenty of people will pay you no mind and move right along but one day you’ll meet someone like you. Might not be your little freaky weirdo but will give you confidence to be even truer to your little freaky weirdo self. That cycle may keep going for sometime, which will almost certainly result in some new freaky weirdo friends. And then one day you’ll find your own little freaky weirdo and it is at that point, baby, you’ll be cooking with gas.
It’s rough but not a bad way to phase it, if you try to be someone else you’ll eventually discover there’s problems later on. Most importantly people have to remember to be patient, it’s a slow process with high rewards if you stick to it. 👍
I’m almost positive it’s a flashing/counter flashing failure on the roof above the soffit. It almost always is. One bad piece of flashing halfway up that roof could be it. Check that the gutters aren’t holding water though. If the siding detail behind the gutter endcap is bad, and the gutters endcap is leaking, that could do it. And remember water doesn’t always run downhill. That shit can and will go straight up a wall if the circumstances are right.
Central banks can be good, ours is not. It bails the financial class out time and time again and hikes up rates to ensure interest earners are unaffected by inflation at the cost of workers.
What I find fascinating about this episode, is that it illustrates how cultural misunderstanding is a huge driver for continued tensions between the Empire and Federation.
The Federation and humans especially try to be pacifists and explorers and are ashamed of their ability to be fearsome warriors. Ashamed of the barbarity they are capable of. The Klingons misunderstand this, and think the federation are either weak or duplicitous. That the federation is pretending to be peace loving so they can stab the Empire in the back, or wants to avoid war because it is weak.
Meanwhile, humans think diplomacy is always the answer. When dealing with Klingons, being honest about humanity and the federation's capacity towards violence would go a long way to easing tensions. If the doctor was known as the butcher of J'Gal, this would have helped the federation seem more like a worthy opponent and therefore potential ally. Instead he allows a Klingon to take the credit, and the federation ends up being represented by the worst kind of Klingon, a coward who ran from battle. What the doctor did was arguably very honourable in Klingon eyes. He killed a coward, who killed children, but ran when faced with a real warrior.
It's also politically relevant today, where pacifism is seen as a weakness, while others underestimate how strength and the threat of violence often prevents wars or the fact that sometimes extreme violence ends wars and potentially prevents further suffering.
i.imgur.com
Top