For me it’s time travel. So many times you’ll see science fiction openly doing paradoxes and causing time wars. Star Trek and Doctor Who are the biggest offenders of this. SG1 had an episode or two with it.

If you attempt to cause a paradox without traveling to another universe (99% of the case in SF), you will fail before you create the paradox. Take the example of killing Hitler. You can’t do it, because you’ve already failed in the past, or at least, your future self failed to do so, which caused your present self to make the attempt. So in the process of the attempt you will fail no matter what you attempt to do. Maybe you get stopped by some guards. Maybe he ducks at the last minute. Maybe your time machine crash lands. At best, you can observe and cause things that you didn’t notice or correlate to the present.

If you do the “oh it’s a different universe” thing, I tend to see that as just a cop out and lazy writing. And it’s rather boring to. What stakes can there possibly be if you can just hop to a universe in which XYZ happened/didn’t happen?

I hope it’s effective.

And now that they’ve made unions all but illegal, we’ll eventually return to that trusted tradition.

Either we settle things collectively and politely, or we settle things not so politely.

The light rail is even totally free, making it easy for everyone to get there.

I gotta say, we could do a hell of a lot better with that.

Edit: Switched to better map

Those tiny red and blue lines is all we have for a city of 300k people, and only just to those few neighborhoods. We could easily have way more, but we just don’t.

I feel like this article is really missing out the part where oil interests are intentionally funding hatred of other modes of transportation. The PragerU video on “The War on Cars” is a good example. They are funded by oil companies, and this is public information that is easy to find. And they use that platform to prevent other modes of transportation from being safe or viable.

Don’t worry, the rich always get golden parachutes.

No it isn’t. It has no tenets, no holy books, no authority figures. By definition it is a lack of a religion.

Atheism isn’t a religion bud.

While they’re both similarly lacking evidence and therefore irrelevant, christianity is unfortunately still relevant, as it is being used as a justification for religious based laws nonstop.

Whether you like it or not, your reproductive rights (regardless of sex/gender) are on the line thanks in large part to christianity. Therefore it’s almodt certainly relevant to you. Same goes for a myriad of other social issues.

I sincerely hope this is a troll or sarcasm.

Jammers only work against remote controlled drones. Autonomous ones have no such issue. And jammers are never a problem against civilians, which tech like this will eventually be used on.

If I had to guess, the government has had this tech since at least the early 2000s. The CIA has been doing shady ass shit since their inception, and shit like that is probably only the tip of the iceberg of what they currently have. Though they’re probably using something closer to grenades than in that film, as 1 drone to 1 kill probably isn’t enough.

That short film is one of only a few that has stuck with me.

I disagree. Ukrainian style suicide drones combined with autonomous robot dogs carrying guns with thermal sensors are the weapons of the future, and it is a horrifying future. Governments will absolutely use both.

Nonsense. You can always use more seedboxes.

It is straight up incompatible with older hardware.

And that’s before accounting for the bloat and telemetry that they have in it, and the shitty changes to the UI, etc.

it’s been a conflict for 70 years.

Oh well in that case it’s ok for Isreal to bomb women and children.

and the palestinian government is no saint either

This is a whataboutism.

Bombing women and children en masse doesn’t make it a conflict, it makes it a slaughter.

They’re intentionally preventing food and water from entering Gaza. It’s a genocide.

every time I’ve worked for a publically traded company I’ve hated it because everything is just about increasing share price no matter what.

This matches my experience quite well. I’m currently working at a place that isn’t traded publicly for the first time ever, and it is significantly better. Granted, it isn’t perfect, I still have plenty of criticisms that are separate issues. And many of those issues could be solved/lessened by workplace democracy, but that’s a different conversation.

OTOH I think investment is very useful for progress though… I’m not sure how investment would work without ownership

End goal would be at most investment works through loans. Somebody has a business and wants to expand, or wants to start a new one? Get some loans, and the interest is how you would “invest”. I am sure there would be loopholes around this to end up with lots of stupidity, but it would be a better system.

It would be a lot slower growth though. And IMO that’s a good thing given that the planet is on fire. Policies and institutional changes that will lessen our impact on the environment is a good thing. We ultimately need de-growth to an extent, and slower growth at a minimum.

The bigger issue here is how to abolish a stock market. When investors catch wind of this happening, they’ll sell as hard and fast as possible, and move their wealth to overseas stock markets. A slow and steady abolishment would probably make it a bit better, but it’s probably worth a scientific study or twenty to look into the long term effects/potential solutions for this.

Yeah, there would be a risk of that happening. But to prevent that, the existing concept of ownership in a company needs to change as well. All companies should be legally required to be 100% employee owned, no other form of ownership allowed.

The switch away from a stock market wouldn’t be simple, and it would probably be quite painful. But absolutely worth it.

Why stop there? Why keep the stock market at all? It’s only real purpose is for the rich to play games with their wealth, to distribute wealth towards themselves, etc. People shouldn’t be making a living off of speculative investment at all. Jobs should contribute to society. Owning is not a job.