“Robotic productivity” is taxed in every country, including China — the profits go to some entity, to some company. With exceptions for the companies that manage to wrestle themselves in paying virtually nothing in taxes, that profit is taxed somewhere down the line. Nothing special about AI productivity, it’s just money.
“Robotic productivity” is taxed in every country, including China
Only by taxing the humans and human-based corporations that ultimately pay for it. On a longer timeline, the robots are going to become full-fledged economic actors in their own right.
It’s both superior engineering-wise and morally. The moral framing is probably more popular with folks that don’t care about engineering superiority, too.
No, we're supposed to hate all passively-surveilling cameras. Except for dumb ones that dump to local storage. Dash-cams are often pretty dumb, so they’re fine; your phone only takes photos when you ask it to, so it’s fine. :)
They definitely shouldn’t. Mozilla has talented engineers, but it’s been catastrophically mismanaged for almost 20 years at this point. Keep Firefox, but let Mozilla finally die.
I’m curious where you start it. I was thinking about it a couple of weeks ago and decided “more than a decade” was safe to say, but I was thinking towards fifteen years, not twenty.
> Or maybe you know enough people are just generally mean and jerk enough that you don't want to listen to their silly criticism and over-the-topness.
Yea, that’s lacking the bravery. Thickening your skin and sharpening your tools is 100% beneficial to you, at least for your personal development. It’s good for culture and society, too, to have more fledgling and amateur artists and creators put themselves out there.
Because when you are in a country, you are subject to it’s jurisdiction. Can you be arrested for petty crimes? Yes? Then you’re under that country’s jurisdiction.
That's what the justices said. That has generally been how modern courts interpret it, with a textualist interpretation. But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated. So to go back to my original point, it's not an obvious conclusion.
> But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated
You've stated it, but not evidenced it. This is certainly the right-wing talking point, but never strongly sourced. The meaning of this phrase was viciously debated. Would it surprise you to know that many in Congress hated it for similar reasons as nationalists today?
Let me say this again: the meaning of this phrase was openly and viciously debated in the public record! Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy.
It must be that the Gypsy element is to be added to our political
agitation, so that hereafter the Negro alone shall not claim our entire
attention.
As I said, the 14th Amendment Clause 1 was primarily centered around whether enslaved people and their children were citizens and it seems the question of whether literally anyone born here was not taken very seriously. This question actually came up in a later case a few decades later and the court affirmed it. But I don't think there is any evidence the people who wrote this ever expected large numbers of "anchor babies". They literally dismissed that scenario as a way to prevent formerly enslaved people from being citizens.
So then it just depends how you want to interpret the meaning of this law under the present. The UK, with common law tradition, abolished birthright citizenship decades ago to combat exactly the problems we are having with it now. So what was intended by jus soli birthright citizenship in 1866 could be viewed differently now.
Do remember that without the government, there very literally would be no forty-hour work week. Individuals don’t have the same bargaining power as employers, not by a long-shot.
I have never worked 40 hours or less in a salaried role. That should be my choice. That has afforded a level of expertise that has given me a lot of bargaining power. People should be free to unionize, and I should be free not to.
To your point about government needing to backstop working conditions, the minimum wage in Indiana is 7 dollars an hour, and yet I can get a job paying 18 dollars an hour at Taco Bell. Why do you imagine that to be the case if employers have so much bargaining power?
These laws may not do much protecting when the economy is relatively good and people may have a lot more freedom in changing out abusive jobs.
There is something I call the restaurant quality economy measure, a tracking method of how the economy is doing. If you go into a place like Taco Bell, or some otherwise middling restaurant and the service is really bad, and take this as a trend over a lot of eateries then is very likely you live in good economic times. Now switch that, if the average crappy place you go into has really good service then that's a good sign things have gone wrong.
Quality workers have moved down the economic ladder of employment. These people would gladly be doing something that paid more and had more prestige, but that employment doesn't exist.
What does that have to do with your statement. It's when the economy goes really bad employees realize they are in the position of power. It's this pretty much this way right now in most computing related employment, most companies have tightened down and invested more in AI than people. This means your workers will put up with a lot more bullshit in order to not be fired. And when the economy is doing bad all over, that's when the employers break out the abusive bullshit because they can? Are you going to go get a different job?
Top down laws from the government preventing people from entering contracts that they are eager to take 1. contribute to the "bad economy" you refer to as if it's some unpredictable moon cycle and 2. affect my ability to find a good job if the economy does turn bad.
Not sure why you are deliberately misrepresenting the proposal here. You're free to continue working the extra hours. Maybe spend a few fewer hours working and repalce it with practicing basic reading comprehension.
I think you are misunderstanding what the implications of the proposal would be in practice. It says I can increase my hours on my own accord. Cool. I can't leverage my willingness to do so to my benefit because the proposal will make being the counterparty in that discussion illegal. A company may want to hire someone who can be always available, but they can't find that person, i.e. me, because they legally can't make it a job requirement.
I got a perfect score on the SAT reading comprehension section. Thanks for that valuation contribution to the discussion.
reply