Judging by the current state of DALL-E, the generated software will look good at first impression, but have lots of weird bugs when examined closely. So yeah, not much different to current software dev.
The bias of this mathematician and the rest of the Royal Society working group regarding vaccination is irrelevant to the subject of these papers, which analyse how and why misinformation is spread, and how correct information can retain credibility.
Reflexively trying to discredit them while being too lazy to read beyond the headline is a great way of making your own position look highly dubious though.
Dubious assumes that my agenda is based on laziness which is in itself lazy. I read the article and my opinion is in alignment with the question everything that you don't understand camp which is the majority of anti-vax arguments regardless of the efficacy of the thing you are arguing against. No one ever claimed that these "vaccines" where a permanent solution. Everyone intelligent and capable of following along knew that getting "vaccinated" was not going to be for more than 6 months due to the fact that this was a rushed operation. No one claims that this was a tried and true solution and most agree that it was and still is a stop gap until we reach a greater immunity. How you choose to reach that is truly up to you. You can catch the virus multiple times and take a higher chance of possible death or take the vaccine and still catch it with a lower chance. It should be your choice but it also has ramifications for your pocketbook and further chance of "getting ahead" within this western healthcare system that so obviously is a bane to the income potential of individuals. When I argue for "vaccination" I'm not just advocating for your health but for your future income and that you should not succumb to the powers that be that will happily take your money downstream but in larger sums. I find it hilarious that people argue for questioning something that potentially could up their odds for getting bamboozled down the line.
EDIT: it boggles my mind when people argue against censorship yet they hit the down-vote button ever.
No and this is where I disagree. The people that disagreed with my opinion believed that I was trying to censor theirs with my own. I posted my opinion and a lot of people made assumptions about it without asking questions and made their own response. I have an extreme opinion according to some people. I'm also not the best authority on all of this but the people that pile on are assuming my opinion is an affront to their safety/security. Do I care that these people may have a chance of a high hospital bill if they catch this thing when they could just as easily get something for free to protect them against this disease that right now has high cost of care once that care is codified. Hell yeah! Keep arguing against one thing when it can ultimately keep you safe from catching a cold that is lucrative for the healthcare business at the moment due to political division. My opinion isn't based in propaganda and is based more in a concern for the long term financial ramifications for most. Watch how many people have to claim bankruptcy, furthering their descent into wage slavery after catching something that can be postponed until it becomes endemic.
Feudalism is about the localisation of military and legal aspects of government. Libertarianism is about trying to restrict the power of government. Slavery requires a strong central government to be enforcible. Feudalism and Libertarianism are both anti slavery.
According to the article, the video in question "featured clips of Black men in altercations with white civilians and police officers.", so the primates label could just as well apply to the white civilians or police.
It is anti-Marxist, in that Marxism requires that the whole proletarian class of a society unite, whereas wokism pretty much guarantees that society will be shattered into thousands of mutually suspicious parts.
Can you explain that further? I'm interested in the idea that our understanding of an idea like Marxism can improve the further away we are in time from it. That seems counter-intuitive.
It doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me that understanding improves with time. Quite the opposite. It's odd that you think that. Why wouldn't our understanding deepen with time to reflect, more information, and with the unfolding of events in history to reveal mysteries?
I don't agree that our understanding of ideas improves with time. For example, do we understand the teachings of Jesus better today than someone who heard them first hand?
I would argue no, because we don't have anywhere near the same life experiences as that audience. In addition, all our information has been mediated through the accounts of others with their own biases and every recounting makes it a little bit worse.
With this in mind your statement that someone "has an outdated view of Marxism" sounds odd to me, like someone saying "You have an outdated view of Christianity". Says who? Marx?
Maybe people will learn to no longer believe partisan information sources, and organisations whose reputation is based solely on the veracity of their content will predominate.
Tucker Carlson spent the month of October pushing Russian disinfo on Hunter Biden, all for it to culminate in "losing" his documents, re-finding them and then suddenly, inexplicably backing down.
Capitalism's basic meaning is that the means of production are owned by private parties.
Putting them under government ownership instead doesn't seem like the solution to anything, unless you are very sure that the government will follow your ideological beliefs, not be corrupted by its newfound direct power over peoples lives, and not get taken over by populists.
> unless you are very sure that the government will follow your ideological beliefs
And even if you are very sure, you have to be sure the future government will follow your idealogical beliefs as well - people die; power changes hands; social movements and political fads come and go...
We also need to remember that new inventions often emerge because there are lots of bad ideas and an extremely small number of good ones. Before the ideas are put into practice, it's hard to know which are which.
That's why we have so much innovation in capitalism, but we had so little in communism. Just like in evolution, we need hundreds of companies doing hundreds of pretty similar but slightly different things. 90 will fail, 9 will survive, one will become the next Google or Facebook.
The government is no better than us at predicting success, it may even be worse, but it usually prefers a small number of big and ambitious projects over lots of small ones. Instead of embracing failure and thinking what to do about it, it tries to prevent failure, no matter the cost.
>Putting them under government ownership instead doesn't seem like the solution to anything, unless you are very sure that the government will follow your ideological beliefs, not be corrupted by its newfound direct power over peoples lives, and not get taken over by populists.
Don't forget that you have to be sure the government has the perfect knowledge to price things correctly even it's otherwise a good government. This is actually the main reason that centralized planning is frowned upon by capitalists. Without competition to drive price discovery, the market ends up being super inefficient and people end up under-served or output resources don't collect enough input resources to sustain themselves.
One problem with the term "capitalism" is that it means such different things to different people. For example, feudalism is not generally considered capitalism by those that are anti-capitalist, but feudalism was still private ownership of the means of production.
Or, in the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders railed against capitalism, whereas Elizabeth Warren embraces the term, and they both had very similar policies. They were talking in different ways to appeal to different crowds that have different definitions of capitalism. And it creates tribal responses for some supporters.
Feudalism was not private ownership of the means of production.
Indeed, uner feudalism, the means of production were not commodified, and de facto the lord did not have the right of ownership to the land, because he was only allowed to use it in one very specific way. Therefore, lacking the right of exclusive control, feudal property does not fulfill the definiton of private property.
This is why feudalism is universally understood not to a form of capitalism.
Well that's a very different definition than "private control of the means of production," however. People focus on different aspects of the myriad definitions of capitalism, and the term becomes meaningless unless some part of the conversation first defines what sort of definition or aspect of "capitalism" one is talking about. However, people often experience a tribally-motivated response to the word before the meanings can be focused on. I'd doesn't make the word "capitalism" useless but it does make it difficult to start a discussion with a general group of people when leading with the word rather than the specifics that one would like to address.
I agree, we do need a very specific and structured definition of capitalism which analyzes it as a social and political system. Which has been done and achieved consensus almost two hundred years ago, but now it's become almost taboo to mention :)
But yes, confusion about these definitions is due to the fact that we haven't had a serious remise en question of the social order in the anglophone world since the end of WW2.
As for my definition of private control of the means of production, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that if someone may not decide how to use something then they are not owners of such a thing, but merely hold a license to it. It's the same argument for why you can never own a copy of proprietary software, only own a license to it :)
