Seems more like you’re explaining why you think others shouldn’t like it.

You mean Timvidia?

“Hey guys, if we trade money back and forth for a couple years people will think we’ll be worth more and we can leverage our stock options to make shitloads of money we can use to take even greater control of the economy”

Tell that to California, who just decided it didn’t want to tax billionaires by a landslide.

Probably taking meetings (that he sleeps through) about how to nullify the elections so the new congress doesnt get seated.

Well yeah, they wanted a new twitter, not something different and potentially better.

They wouldnt be the audience, theyd be the product.

But do still stay informed, so you know what you dont know ;)

What self-checkouts have you been to? Typically there’s a bunch of people fumbling through trying to get them to work. They don’t know where barcodes are, if it’s unmarked food they spend so much time trying to figure out how to search for it.

People who don’t understand self-checkouts are the worst part.

Its literally just an Assassin’s Creed or Arkham game but with more web-swinging.

We could also go back to hunter-gatherer times and have a mortality rate in the thirties.

Technology and innovation arent inherently bad, especially if they have many potential uses. The problem arises when adding the human element of how its used.

On that front… right now I dont think a use case has been proven for wide use of a lot of recent technological innovations. They are investor (and/or pervert) bubbles that are liable to explode soon.

I cringe at the thought of blanket bans being seen as a solution instead of a temporary patch, as its really just trying to ban aspects of human culture without directly banning (or relearning) it. Which just means those awful aspects will just find another avenue and we end up playing whack-a-mole instead of actually trying to better the world.

That has about as much to do with reality as me believing I sing well in the shower.

Reactionary legislation is not safe, and often quite destructive.

Thank you Freddy.

The final part of Kif Kroker’s species lifecycle?

Does it? It seems to me that it implies that he did quite a bit of other things in addition to this, but that this was the most lucrative.

Popular for Linux, not popular for Marvel movies.

If we’re being technical, the article is saying someone told the writer that its the dumbest way to do this particular thing.

Hayden Panettiere died the other week :(

Sure, if you remove the profit motive they wouldn’t provide resources.

Certainly not morally defensible… but also not outright evil either. Just absent any ethical compass.