I like how you mixed a few notions together in a way specifically designed to induce chaos.

Even assuming that AI can take away jobs, which is itself I think inaccurate, and provably so, that has nothing to do with people lacking money. In an ideal world, we could use technology to improve productivity so that we would need to work less.

So then what you are actually asking is a different question. What you’re actually asking is, what happens if we create an economic system that takes away most money from most of the people, to much larger degree than is currently happening. And for that, all you need to do is go look at the history books.

Finally, your question as posed is partly self-contradictory. You’re talking about AI being competent enough so that it can fire everyone, but improvements in technology are not always monetized. They can also lead to extreme cost savings. If for example, if I don’t have the money to hire an accountant, but I don’t need to because the software package is good enough to handle all of it for me, then there’s no problem to be solved. And this is true for any number of so-called white collar jobs.

So then what we actually see is that jobs change and evolve over time. The word computer used to talk about a person who did arithmetic and other such operations. Now it’s used to refer to the machine itself.

Well that’s kind of funny. You’re right that white people cooked up her image. And they did so specifically with the idea that she would fit that stereotype of the older slave woman who has always worked in the kitchen, and is happy to do so, and because of that she’s really good at cooking.

By the way, the word “aunt” was not used to be respectful, but rather specifically to be disrespectful. That particular nuance has faded over time, but the history is real, and once you learn it you can’t forget it.

The sad thing is, you could have inferred this without looking it up. You could have asked yourself why they didn’t use a cartoon character of a white woman, with a white sounding name. The fact that you didn’t, and that you didn’t bother doing a web search, shows how much you want to avoid seeing racism in the modern world. But just because you don’t want to look at it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Reality is not that kind, my friend.

Finally, don’t take my word for it. Ask the company itself why they changed the name. They have documentation on the subject.

You can’t use the English language in an openly misleading fashion and expect that people are going to go along with it, not in a situation like this. The expression “someone set this up” clearly implies the existence of a second person.

What made you think that another person is involved? Nothing. If we were to look at historical evidence, we would find that a lot of these situations are done by so-called lone wolf attackers. So if we’re going to blindly speculate, we should at least be consistent with historical evidence, and we should certainly speak unambiguously.

I totally agree with you. My speculation is that people in power in the DNC didn’t want to push for a younger candidate because then that candidate would immediately seize a lot of power. Perhaps they were disagreeing on who would be the best person, and they figured that some old man is low risk because he’s going to retire soon enough anyway. But that’s all blind speculation. A lot of what the DNC does happens behind closed doors.

We saw mass media and the Dems pull the same thing in 2004. Decide a candidate is unelectable, before the election, and then make it happen. What happened to letting the voters decide? What happened to democracy? Meh.

It was sick then, and it is sick now. If the man is too old, OK, but we all knew his age a year ago. To pretend to be surprised and concerned now is laughable.

My friend, you know exactly what they mean. Don’t push a “well maybe somebody set it up because …” theory unless you have facts to back it up.

No. That question will be answered in November. But asking it, and pretending it is meaningful right now, that has another purpose.

We should never assume the best in cases of homicide. The cops have taught us that quite clearly. Maybe he wanted to be a hero, or maybe he wanted an excuse to shoot someone and took the first chance he got.

He doesn’t need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a civil suit. Essentially, his face value evidence is strong enough to win unless the hotel can provide clear explanation of how it did what it did, for example if they had different people processing different stacks of papers. At the same time, the plaintiff will have a chance for discovery, so who knows what will happen on that front.

It’s very important to be precise. Depending what country you’re in, there could be full professors, assistant professors, associate professors, instructors, and other positions. Some of those positions might be well paid, but it’s a safe bet that some of the others are not. So if you’re looking at one full professor’s salary and thinking that most other people with the word professor in their name make the same salary, depending what country you live in, you would be mistaken.

Actually wait a second, that’s true in every country.

Yes, every article should mention his horrible crimes. It really is that bad. Where’s the apology? Where’s the rehabilitation? … Without those, you have a horrible criminal who’s unfit for any public service job, and it’s the duty of media to repeatedly bring it up.

Windows 98. In the meantime I’ve also used BSD, though not in a few decades.

Using a third party YT front end is a medium run fix. Your home screen is your subscriptions, and you won’t see mixed or shorts unless you want to.

Plus, you won’t be logged in, so you can’t easily comment, and YT comments suck anyway so your life will be happier.

I predict failure but applaud the effort. We need to expose anti-worker Democrats for the corporate cheerleaders they are.

It’s much worse than 50%. Non partisan is pro establishment. And the establishment doesn’t give a damn about most Americans most of the time.

Zomfg the airlines are poorly run. Great! Let’s regulate them again. Bring back the 70s. MAGA by regulating those mega corporations, busting those monopolies.

Ask yourself why Aunt Jemima was chosen long ago. What stereotype did she represent? What is her back story supposed to be? … That is the obvious starting point.

I don’t think it’s hard to connect the dots on this one.

As a general position, hiring a minority to produce art doesn’t mean that all uses of the art are positive.

The appearance of corruption is corruption. Judges know that. Everyone knows that.

We can explain away things, but it was his job to make sure we wouldn’t need to. This is not an edge case. And if it were, why didn’t he disclose it, as basic CYA? … Oh, yeah, we know why.

Faith is insanity.

Your question is a little too narrow for my tastes. Some of the best cheap purchases that I’ve made are things that I still have now. They haven’t worn out or broken or become useless.

In 2001 I bought a new cast iron fry pan for $20 that I use on regular basis and it’s marvelous. Around the same time, I bought some used silverware from a thrift store and I still use that everyday.

Two other purchases that go back more than 20 years are my pocket knife and my 1/4 inch hex driver, both of which I bought new but were not particularly expensive and they are working wonderfully to this very day.