Honestly, we won’t likely see cheap energy in our lifetimes. A fusion powerplant could come online that is able to power the entire eastern seaboard of the US with some leftover for millionths of a cent per kW and we would still be getting charged just as much if not more for it. The general populace will never see the benefits of nearly infinite, nearly free power because the company that owns it will just see it as a higher profit margin. Sure, they may underbid fossil fuels or other renewables by just enough that they can’t operate, but it will still be orders of magnitude more than we should be charged. The only way the population sees the benefit is if the reactor is publicly owned and the government is prevented from converting it over to privatization because that has ever gone well for us.

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in > which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.[1][2]

Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services.[3] Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.[4][5][6][7]

It can mean that if you cherry-pick your clauses, but if you actually take the entire text into account, you are absolutely wrong. Tell me what “basic needs” are met cheaply or freely to the general population of the planet? And I mean all of us. From the children in Beverly Hills to the grandparents in Mozambique. Food, shelter, water. At a bare minimum, those three are available cheaply to everyone on the planet on a post-scarcity planet. We absolutely do not live on one of those at this point.

Why the fuck are you broadcasting a beacon to come hack your network? Of course they are going to find it if you light it up like a Christmas tree with a giant neon sign. I said you set up your cameras to record locally. Only an idiot would set up a camera system with an unsecured exposed port. Hell, set up anything with an unsecured exposed port for that matter. Especially one that is an always broadcasting system. It doesn’t even matter if you use a cloud provider at that point. All they have to do is hack an network hop near your home and install a man in the middle and they don’t have to bother hacking a server farm to get your videos.

Just gonna point out that by definition, a world that is post-scarcity is post-scarcity for all of its inhabitants. Your assertion that there are “less developed” nations that “don’t get basic resources” means we are not post-scarcity.

Ok… But cloud services are centralized and have a lot more content to obtain, so that fundamentally makes them a more valuable target. This alone adds a level of relational security to maintaining a home backup of the information. Unless someone happens upon your home network and decides to hack it, or you download a file that sends up a flare, nobody is going to seek it out unless they know you have something specific they want.

Does “whatever is on the Hamburger Helper box” count?

I think they spelled “refugees” wrong. /s

I kinda wish it were possible to overclock a single core and be able to direct single-threaded processes to it. I understand how CPUs and clock speed works, I’m just saying it would be cool.

That said, as I sit here thinking about it, it might he possible to have a core that uses a higher-frequency harmonic as part of the architecture of the chip. It might need a larger L1 and some special transport architecture to step the processed data back to the lower clock speed, but I don’t think there are any physical or computational reasons it shouldn’t be possible.

I once recognized the sounds of a girlfriend deleting texts by where her nail was hitting her phone screen in a specific pattern. That is more sad than impressive, I understand. Just saying that this makes sense and is not beyond human capability on its own.

His logic chain may have been flawed for his argument, but his premise is not wrong. YouTube providing a distribution platform for any type of music video means that content holders are putting music on there and suffering the same rules as anyone else. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not pay any additional license fees to content owners should they elect to upload a music video to the platform. The owner makes ad revenue just like all other creators. This effectively circumvents the costly licensing agreements that the likes of Spotify and Pandora have to enter into.

I think the best I can come up with on the fly is “You have defeated me. My only regret is not being able to stop them.”

Gotta put the first part in so there is no mistake that he was talking about someone other than the party.

Yeah, that is easy enough to build into the algorithm. Deprioritizing that sort of nonsense effectively would mitigate it gaining a foothold. The only reason why the current platforms don’t (in fact they prioritize it in many cases) is because discord is being equated with engagement and they see that as good for business. If you aren’t worried about business, then you can set up your priority algorithm to be more rational and egalitarian.

This. They may be unnecessary for the company, but they are necessary for society to maintain function and for the economy as a whole to continue smoothly function. Consider an analogy for the economy to a food chain, you have to have the bottom rungs of the food chain that are plentiful and prosperous to continue to maintain the larger predators. If you start taking out the bottom rungs, it may take a while, but the apex eventually starves. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The more money the poor make, the better the economy will function.

Yo ho ho

They would end up shooting themselves in the foot. They are on shaky ground already and it would only take a new platform that can entice a few of their top content producers over to lose enough chunks of their revenues to hurt. And all they have do is keep fucking around to find out what a tech-literate group of nerds who hate big corps can do when they are aligned in a certain direction.

I fundamentally hate self-checkouts because they were an attempt to eliminate an essential job in the company. I refuse to use them. Frustrares my wife and stepdaughter, but it is my little way to give the corporations the middle finger and force them to have to employ people.

I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn’t. Such is the curse of my superpowers.

Captain Pedant AWAAAAYYYY!

While I don’t disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.

It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with “big words” as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.

Valve is one of those companies that I genuinely believe makes a strong argument for ethical capitalism being possible. Sure, they have some shitty things, but overall they do treat developers and customers reasonably well, they provide hardware and software that is easy to use and non-abusive (not filled with spyware and data harvesters, doesn’t use advertising, is well maintained, etc.). If we could obliterate all of the other major conglomerates and replace them with people/companies that understand that you don’t have to be a massive pile of shit to make money the world would be better off.