Eli Bishop

I had a boss who did this and it resulted in an unintentionally sarcastic appreciation card that went out to employees, saying: "THANKS" FOR EVERYTHING YOU "DO"!

Muting this thread instead of blocking so you can keep on arguing as much as you want, I don't care

I realize it's impossible to say a thing (Keynes & Graeber are making an extreme claim about how much work tech should have saved) without someone responding as if I said an absurdly absolute version of it (that it saves zero work). But I'm done with this.

Again you are arguing against a strawman that I didn't say, and that as far as I can tell, no one has said. Please argur at someone else. If you require me to literally say "yes, of course productivity gains should increase leisure time": sure, you got it. Nothing to do with my comment on Keynes.

I'm not here to pursue a larger argument about what is the right amount of free time, and I never said that the way things are is great or inevitable. Just that Keynes's assumption that automation should've logically eliminated almost all work seems very hand-wavey.

If there is a big dangerous hole some idiots have been digging, and we all agree that we have to make the digging stop *and* fill the hole in ASAP-- and you point out that the 2nd part is tough because we anti-idiots have a lot of broken shovels, so we have to also replace those-- that's relevant.

The authors are describing barriers that make access difficult for even a highly motivated and well-informed parent. That is worth talking about in a medical journal. It's not helpful to say that they should not talk about this just because there are also bigger problems-- which they are aware of.

Again, what you're saying up till your last sentence isn't wrong, but it makes no sense as a criticism of the article you're reacting to, which specifically acknowledges the huge problem of misinformation and is just saying the UK has these specific other barriers that do need to be fixed.

I agree with your first paragraph, but the linked article isn't "pretending" anything. The authors are clear about what they're saying and why it's relevant to the current situation in the UK.

I never said machines save *no labor at all*. But Keynes had no basis for the idea that they should've got rid of virtually all labor by now, and your "we didn't *need* to..." is just as arbitrary. We didn't "need" to have bookstores before we could mass-produce books; so, should we not have them?

It's very easy to tell the difference between the boosters and people who think it's useful but are worried about it. The former group are either not worried, or pretending not to be, and they have no problem telling you to your face that if you don't manage to adapt and succeed, it's your fault.

If you haven't met them, you're lucky, but you can't tell me this is not a thing. And that includes employers who are literally telling their employees "soon we'll have fewer of you, supervising a larger amount of work, with no juniors" and expecting each of us to think "cool, I'll be one of those!"

I am one of those, but you are deeply missing the point of the post. There are tons of people in tech who are 100% undeniably AI boosters *by their own description* who are also happy to tell you how it'll put you out of work and who honestly seem to think you should think that's cool.

What you just wrote is a fair summary of what Tapper did, and it's the same impression I got from Rupar's paraphrase, so... not sure why you're saying Rupar's post was unfair to Tapper.

Susie Bright wrote something similar. In both cases it's weird to me that anyone would think a movie loosely based on a wildly satirical Pynchon novel, set in no particular time period, is presenting itself as an accurate picture of the Weather Underground or any other specific group.

I imagine that one reason for the large overlap between just-asking-questions contrarians and AI superfans is that a bot will never, ever get tired of their musings or tell them
they don't really have a point.

But in reality, if I invent a machine to make it a lot easier to do tasks A & B... that also creates work of maintaining & improving & distributing that machine. And it may also open up a new field where task C is a thing we want to do, which wasn't possible before because A & B were such a hassle.

That's related to what always bothered me about Keynes's famous "technology should've given us all lives of leisure by now" idea. I feel like that comes from a magical view of technology where once you have it, 1. it takes care of itself, and 2. the set of things you want done won't change.

This is minor but: the example of the form you had to print out and bring in for someone to type it back in - that shit doesn't happen because someone made up a job. It happens because putting a fully integrated system online takes work to build & maintain, and they didn't make it a priority.

By the time she was convicted, she had already resigned and her career was toast - rightly so. Between that and the whole "not being in a conspiracy to subvert democracy" thing, it's not really hard to see how she'd get a lenient sentence.

The Wikipedia article on Lewis describes what she got busted for: basically, faking some letters of support to try to get sympathy during an ethics investigation for some self-serving use of staffers' labor. Sleazy, but petty, affecting only her own reputation.

It's worth mentioning that it's *not* the same charges Peters was convicted on - just one of the charges matched, conveniently the vaguest and least maicious-sounding one. Polis knows that of course; his phrasing is very dishonest.

I really can't imagine a worse patient to have. He's probably not competent to make decisions, but nobody's allowed to say so; he's vindictive & will try to cause you trouble if you piss him off; and any care you're trying to provide, officials will lie and say it's nothing & that he's a superman.

You just said "impeachment for lying under oath" immediately after saying there was no point in having them testify at all because they lie. You've answered your own question. Getting the lies on the record matters.

Of course there are some conditions that could make that unfeasible. But it would also be 100% in character for Trump to just be like "nah I don't want anything that stays in, it doesn't matter, I'm not really that sick."

If you had a regular peripheral IV in your arm, then yes they would draw blood from your other arm or hand, but I'm talking about a central line which can be used for both infusions and blood draws without any additional punctures.

By 2024 the Covid spike was over, with crime rates lower than they were before Covid... with the sole exception of car theft. Unless you're saying that the specific stats in the linked article are wrong.

...so I can easily imagine him refusing a central line because 1. it'd be like admitting he has a serious ongoing health issue and 2. he thinks it looks weird & gross.

As a former oncology nurse, when I see the "he must be getting IVs/blood draws in his hands all the time" posts, my first thought is "huh? if someone is going to need that many ongoing infusions or blood draws, you would just put in a central line." But then I remember that Trump is insane...

But in any case, the post that you feel was misleading was posted by... The Atlantic. So Kalman-Lamb is correct to say that "they think we are the dumbest people who ever lived." He didn't say Rosenberg was necessarily the one who thought so.