So we're talking about the complete destruction of the consumer economy.
Hard to see how Google or Facebook keeps their advertising models in that environment. There aren't enough construction workers and data scientists to buy everything.
> If it's any consolation, in the end it will destroy capitalism too.
That is hardly will be of any consolation. AI will probably destroy capitalism, but not because it will replace some useless f.ucks from their useless computer jobs (most of them will perfectly fine find another more useful job, if only way less paid), but because with surveillance and totalitarian control that AI capable of, socialists like Stalin or Hitler will build resilient and durable society where no member will have any way for resisting.
Odd that you mention that, China is afraid of exactly the opposite. Their systems are so centralized for surveillance purposes that an AI seriously breaching their systems could destroy their control.
Of course it is afraid, and because of that AI will be banned for many use cases and severely regulated by the government for other use cases.
That is like one of the first steps to build the ultimate totalitarian regime. In the USSR bolsheviks were grate proponents of civilian weapons right until they have got power. And then civilian weapons were banned.
> There aren't enough construction workers and data scientists to buy everything.
There will be, when two third of the office workers will be replaced by AI.
It is astounding why so many people does not understand how consumer economy works. I think it is more a matter of the copium, because, well, it is generally hard to accept the truth that in five years you will have to haul bricks as a job, and the guy who used to put that bricks on one another and make three times less than you in your tech job now will be your new boss.
And advertising models in that environment? Why should something changed for it?
Honestly I'd report it to the state insurance commission. Did they call out any specific issue with the roof at any point? Some kind of new code they were mandating an upgrade to or anything?
Yeah, I probably should have reported it at the time. They didn’t cite anything specific even after we requested what in the on-roof (not drone) inspection indicated an issue or was missing from the inspection.
Though to be precise, this was over a year ago so I’m not remembering their exact wording. But it likely wasn’t literally “drone footage alone,” but probably something more like “our drone footage and associated analysis” — in any case the effective interpretation being “we don’t care about installation date or your inspection. Replace it or lose coverage.”
Not that it makes it right, but there’s enough providers in my area it was less effort to get new coverage than continue to fight them.
> Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?
You're right - I really should be paying less due to the unpatched holes in one section of my roof. I obviously need no coverage on this part of the house, as the damage (both already occurred and ongoing) are not covered causes of loss. If you know a way I can express this to my insurance company to receive a discount, without them going "this is weird, we're actually raising your rates", please let me know.
> Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?
Because otherwise the insurance companies can just look at your completely maintained roof that will last another 20 years and ask for a full replacement because it is 10 years old. And if you don’t comply they will drop you. (Happened to me)
Well yeah, abuse can happen. But the general principle of some people paying higher premiums than others because they're higher risk isn't a bad one.
If we mandate that insurers keep premiums equal for everyone, get ready for a lot of people to have zero access to insurance as they're deemed too risky to cover.
> But the general principle of some people paying higher premiums than others because they're higher risk isn't a bad one.
So someone with cancer should be charged $20k/month then? I am completely healthy and haven’t used my insurance much in the last 10 years. Why are my premiums so high? And why are 65+ year olds not footing most of the bill? I am not advocating for that but just pointing out that were obviously okay with charging for some risk profiles but not others.
If you get into a deep enough "convenience" spiral, you lose the physical energy to engage in things like reading a book.
I was once so depressed that I didn't leave my room except to use the bathroom for months, and in that time I developed lethargy so extreme that I couldn't even play causal FPS video games competently. My brain simply didn't work as well, despite having all the calories it needed.
See nature preserves that are funded by regulated big game hunting of the preserved nature.
It's a fun moral question. At what point do you give up trying to make someone/a population healthier and say "well if you're going to be this way, we might as well get some use out of you"?
You can. It's not because fracking has displaced coal that it's overall a net benefit (I know it is somewhat true for climate change, I don't have an informed opinion concerning environmental pollution) and it's what should have happenned.
For example either renewables + batteries or nuclear could have displaced coal. Just because there wasn't enough money/political support for it doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about both fracking and coal usage consequences.
Yeah, on a long enough timeline we should be moving away from fossil fuels as much as possible, but in the meantime fracking has allowed us to substantially lower carbon emissions without massive societal upheaval. It's like equating hybrid cars with traditional ICE vehicles. Sure they both have problems, but one has a lot fewer.
And no, renewables + batteries and nuclear couldn't have displaced coal precisely due to a lack of money and political support. Why are those constraints any less important? The goal isn't just to build renewable tech, the goal is to build a functional society that uses renewable tech. There also is a technological constraint here, fracking became viable in the early 2000s before modern battery and solar tech existed at its current price point.
No, but we get so much natural gas as a side effect of the fracking that we literally can't distribute it all, it's effectively free. Which is why natural gas plants have been displacing coal plants for the last 20 years.
You... really need to read more before forming your opinions
Solar and wind subsidies have been illegally halted, and are the subject of ongoing litigation.
Solar and wind are commercially viable and provide about 30% of the electrical energy in Texas. Around 50% of California's daytime electrical energy is provided by solar and wind power. New projects are typically hamstrung by transmission permitting constraints.
While subsidies would help substantially, they aren't a necessary condition for continued adoption of renewable energy sources. Storage is probably the next big hurdle to displace fossil fuels once there's sufficient progress with transmission.
No, really, when the fracking boom hit, it was so much cheaper than coal that it made a large dent in the coal industry for energy production. Solar and wind expansion have been far slower to roll out nationwide, but fracking was an almost overnight expansion of gas power production at that time.
In your experience, how do people typically respond to crassness? That's how they'll respond to your argument.
To be completely blunt, fuck your bluntness. You clearly don't care about climate change all that much if you aren't willing to even attempt effective messaging. Go do your revolutionary cosplay with some lesser topic
Politeness hasn't worked, and we are accelerating climate change, not slowing it.
You can act as upset as you want, I am more concerned about the impact to the world around us than I am about hurt feelings on a tech discussion forum.
I'm not entirely sure why you are so upset with me, but I assure you, it's not cosplay. My family lives on the west coast, and are going to be significantly impacted by climate change. My family back east lives in rural Manitoba (southern and northern), and their farms have been impacted by poor harvests due to weather and climate issues. My friends and family in northern Manitoba were evacuated due to forest fires last summer, and other friends in the BC interior were as well.
It's not performative concern and it's not revolutionary, it's just exhaustion from watching people deny and tone police discussions about something having real, human impacts. People will starve to death because of crop failures happening today, and its going to get worse :(
Hard to see how Google or Facebook keeps their advertising models in that environment. There aren't enough construction workers and data scientists to buy everything.
reply