The Next President is...

[Pooter]

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug. 
 

It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil  Floridas of the world.  But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that. 

The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly. 

[ViperMan]

On 1/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, jazzdude said:

Makes two of us then. You're assessment is spot on.

It's been frustrating though seeing so many conservatives against net neutrality because they viewed it as anti business, and that the free market will self correct to deliver the "best" product or service, not realizing that regulations should be in place to stop exactly what is happening now with ISPs. That, or they just accept dealing with Comcast and their monopoly in many markets as a fact of life.

There are other tech issues that are interesting as well. I mentioned the shift to electronic banking earlier: should the government have some form of electronic banking not reliant on private banks or credit card companies to complete financial transactions? What about email and the servers to support it (after all, the federal government funds USPS for mail delivery, and email is much the modern letter)? It helps support our right to openly communicate. You could even argue that extend to social media platforms, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented (not sure how the government can regulate Facebook without giving Facebook a list of things people can't say, which would violate the spirit of the 1st amendment). I don't have the answers to these questions, and they are small issues, but they are interesting enough to merit more investigation/discussion on how technology changes our society, and what government needs to do to ensure our basic/fundamental rights are upheld.

Sure, some conservatives may chuck spears saying that's not the founder's intent, but times change and new technologies are being invented. It's just like when the left says the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms that existed in the founder's times: it's stupid, and misses the original intent of the founder's by being over simplistic and taking an overly literal interpretation of the constitution.

Some interesting analysis, to be sure.

In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.

In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.

Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

[ViperMan]

On 1/12/2021 at 8:13 PM, jazzdude said:

The other crazy thing in all of this is our election timelines. With faster modes of travel (or the ability to telecommute), modern communications, and technology to help speed up counting votes, why is our election so far from our from the actual inauguration?

I can see in the past needing time to:
- Manually count votes by hand
- Travel on foot or by horse to aggregate results at multiple levels
-Having electors gather and vote
-Having congressmen travel to deliver that vote to Congress
-Time to communicate the overall electoral votes and winner back to their home states and to the candidates
-Travel for the winning candidate to DC (if they aren't already there)

I can see why that took months originally, but maybe we should shorten it given modern technologies we enjoy now, versus keeping lame duck administrations who's only reason not to do something crazy in that time period is tradition (which arguably has now been broken).

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process.

The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot.

Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.

[pcola]

For all the folks complaining that Trump has been muzzled, ya know, there’s a way for him to get his message out:
When’s the last time this podium was used? Seemed to work fine for every president preceding Trump. Sorry, but I always thought Twitter was an inappropriate place for presidential messaging anyway. Let’s see the man show his face and explain himself. 

Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets?

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[pcola]

And my apologies for the old reply that may as well be 10 years old given the pace of modern attention spans. But still relevant. As is all this old stuff:


[/url]
IMHBAO, this rhetoric over the last 4 years has done more to cause the insurrection of last week than anything coming from the White House.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

I’ve seen social media/news splattered with “getting kicked off for violating a TOS isn’t suppressing free speech, get over it cry babies!” What these people haven’t grasped is the majority are pissed about the double standard. Kick Trump off, that’s fine, but you better be kicking everyone else off too who violates TOS, regardless of political leaning, party affiliation, group affiliation, etc. If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression. The double standard is what people are pissed about - to the point the ACLU is concerned about it, and the Twitter CEO admitted they need to work on being more uniform across the board because not doing so is dangerous. I’m sure Jack only said that to save face after the recent backlash. 

[jazzdude]

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

The time to prepare and adapt is only because that's how it's always been for us, and what we are used to. It makes it hard to really do anything major (like prepare budgets, or major initiatives) when you know what your working on doesn't matter because as soon as the new administration is sworn in, you'll have to redo it all with new guidance. So it creates a lot of wasted time in government. And for the average citizen, it just doesn't matter. If you're candidate lost, it doesn't matter if you have 1 day or 2 months to adjust, you'll just have to come to terms with it (preferably without violently storming the Capitol, but I digress).

And assumes the incumbent won't do anything out of spite, especially with how much executive power has grown. What happens if the president decides they are done with North Korea and orders a nuclear attack on them on Jan 19? Singlular authority placed in the President, with no check on their decision, outside the missleer in the capsule deciding to disobey the order to launch.

If we shorten the time, we'll adapt our processes and norms. A candidate that has a good chance of winning should have a list of appointees for key positions going into the election, but if not, all of those positions usually have a career deputy that can keep everything running while appointments are sorted out.

I do like ranked order voting. However, implementing would be challenging. Do you eliminate party primaries? Do you allow anyone that meets the qualifications to get on the ballot? What happens to political parties? We'll never get it though because it means the political parties will have to give up a significant amount of power and control over the election process. They lose control over the narrative, and would lead to a fracturing of the party's position and ability to vote as a block. All of this is good for the voter though, but when have the political parties really cared for the voter except as a means to access power?

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality.

 

In advance, maybe.  Two and a half months in advance seems excessive.  Keep the vote where it is, have the next president in office before Christmas.  Plenty of time to do swapping out.  And not much gets done in government around the holidays anyway.

[jazzdude]

Some interesting analysis, to be sure.
In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers.
In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me.
Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

[slackline]

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

We’ve worried about automation taking people’s jobs at every new innovation that simplifies/eliminates jobs people used to do, and guess what, it’s always for nothing. The market adapts, new markets/niches appear and those people find different things to do.

You sound smarter than me in this topic, so I imagine you already know about how this happens. The US has long since moved away from a production based economy to a services based economy. Maybe we’re moving a little back in that direction by bringing some of that production back to US soil, but it’s never going to be like it was in the 80’s and earlier.

It might be a rough transition, but our society will adapt and create different jobs for those middle men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arg]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

In advance, maybe.  Two and a half months in advance seems excessive.  Keep the vote where it is, have the next president in office before Christmas.  Plenty of time to do swapping out.  And not much gets done in government around the holidays anyway.

FIFY

[jazzdude]

We’ve worried about automation taking people’s jobs at every new innovation that simplifies/eliminates jobs people used to do, and guess what, it’s always for nothing. The market adapts, new markets/niches appear and those people find different things to do.

You sound smarter than me in this topic, so I imagine you already know about how this happens. The US has long since moved away from a production based economy to a services based economy. Maybe we’re moving a little back in that direction by bringing some of that production back to US soil, but it’s never going to be like it was in the 80’s and earlier.

It might be a rough transition, but our society will adapt and create different jobs for those middle men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree that the market adapts, and people will find new ways to make money.

The hard part is that automation and the job shifts it can cause increases the wealth gap in our country. It can also make it difficult for new businesses to complete against established competitors who can make full use of technology to drive down costs to a point a new entrant can't compete.

This allows for an accumulation of wealth, which then brings power/influence to the those at the top of the business. It begins to give them increased access to and influence on political leaders, since the business executive's business decisions can have big effects in an elected official's district over you standard constituent.

Automation and technology significantly boosts worker productivity, but workers generally don't see pay increases with that increased productivity, unless there is a union/collective bargaining happening.

We've been moving to a services based economy like you mentioned. But we've also seen service companies start to move toward the extensive use of "independent contractors" to execute their businesses as a core businesses model. And since they are independent contractors, many worker protections aren't granted, and benefits like medical care, which have traditionally been obtained through employers in the US, or sick leaves, are now the responsibility of the individual. So great for business, not so great for the individual.

There's been a lot of resistance from Republicans to increase corporate taxes, or tax increases for the wealthy (income or capital gains). And those that might support it are afraid that the Dems will squander that money on what they see as government overreach. So this gives those at the top of major corporations a twofold advantage: their business is taxed less, driving up profits and their bonuses, and those increased bonuses from the company profits aren't taxes at what they used to be. Meanwhile, they are protected by the police and the legal system (funded by taxes) from their workers banding together and striking, or threatening to "burn down the factory" in response to poor working condition or wages. They could pay their workers more, but why? They don't have options to move to a better opportunity, otherwise they would've done so already.

I guess I'm saying that maybe we should think proactively regarding the effects technology has or can have on our country, both at the macro level and for individuals, rather than waiting for a crises to develop and scrambling for a solution (just like in the whole "is internet access common infrastructure, or a modern luxury" debate). But I'm not going to hold my breath that Congress will be proactive, and that large businesses won't be pitching their financial interests to Congress through lobbyists. But one can hope.

[Negatory]

14 hours ago, brabus said:

If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression.

https://www.newsweek.com/former-aclu-lawyer-says-course-twitters-ban-trump-censorship-1560970
 

Suppression and first amendment violations are literally only offenses if the government does it. Not a private organization. Twitter is a private organization. The government, whether you like it or not, had no part in this decision. In fact, I’d say that they would have chosen the opposite result. I don’t think your legal argument or points really have much substance here.

Also, Twitter has no legal requirement to follow their terms of service how you understand it - they can interpret it however they want. The free market principal here is that if they abuse their power, you’ll totally go find another service. Technically, they could kick off all conservatives. You are ALLOWED to suppress free speech if it’s your own message board. Do you think some of the conservative message boards would let AOC and Bernie spread their messages easily?

But from a moral perspective, I get that it’s messed up. We have handed over a lot of trust and the keys to people who run the internet, while not ensuring to make sure it stays fair or regulated. And these tech companies have been allowed to gobble up all their competition and essentially become monopolies. Caveat emptor and the free market doesn’t always work out in the long term. Especially not in this cases And I agree that I would have preferred to see Trump not be banned. But i still don’t think it’s illegal under our current law.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Negatory

[brabus]

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

[slackline]

55 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

I for one fully support him, and even feel like he was baited by the "woke" crowd just to point out there was someone who didn't agree with them. If you look into what they did, it was clear they were goading the bakery.

[ViperMan]

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Checking accounts are free, but often only if you maintain a certain amount of money in the account. If you're struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck, a checking account could be an extra expense you have to deal with. Same with ATM fees. Or buying checks. And this assumes you have a device with internet connectivity to check your balance instead of maintaining a checking ledger and going it adds up at the end of the month. And you may have to pay for paper statements.

I agree we're seeing a change due to technology, but I don't think it's so much a decentralization as it is a flattening of the system and eliminating the middlemen (which you've mentioned).

Better communications technologies and automation allows the end users more direct access to core businesses. This is great for both the consumer and for the business providing that core good or service.

However, so many businesses fill the middleman role, or employ a large portion of people acting as middlemen (just processing paperwork). What happens when those jobs are eliminated (or outsourced some where cheaper)? Where do they go to earn a living? A lot of outsourcing concerns have generally been to overseas, but the pandemic has shown US companies they can outsource within the US to cheaper cost of living areas and drive down personnel costs (much cheaper to hire an engineer living in Kansas than one in California). This can also drive significant changes in worker's lives, as they may be forced to move (without assistance) to compete for potentially their own job, or just suck up the hit on income and make it work. AI and machine learning is still in its infancy, but as those technologies mature, they risk eliminating creative work (like engineering, analysis, and design), further exacerbating technologies impact on the workforce.

The free market doesn't really care what happens to those people that are out of work due to automation or outsourcing, so long as there are consumers out there to but their products or services. And as long as the government protects the businesses from violence (though maintaining normal law and order), businesses don't have an incentive to care about what happens to their former workers or their impact on society. But desperate people will resort to desperate measures, so unless we as a society (either through government, or "ethical" employers) make changes to adapt to how technology is changing society, we probably will see more civil unrest in the future.

What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing.

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.

One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

[pawnman]

51 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing.

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.

One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

Agreed.  You won't find many people bemoaning all the stable hands and carriage drivers put out of work by the automobile, or all the phone switchboard operators put out of work by VOIP, or all the typists in what used to be called the steno pool becoming obsolete.

Sure, people are likely to get hurt in the short-term.  But the vast majority will be made better off by the technology.  This isn't a new argument...just read up on the original Luddites to see how long people have feared these new technologies.

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

@Negatory There you go again responding without actually reading what I wrote. I never brought legality or the constitution into my statement even remotely, I simply said picking and choosing who is suppressed (e.g. double standard) is what most people are pissed about. The group who actually think Twitter did something illegal/unconstitutional is wrong (we agree there). I hope you vehemently support the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Seemed to me that implies legality. Glad to see we're on the same page.

And I do support the baker in that it’s 100% his legal right. It’s also 100% my legal right to personally hold that against him.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Negatory

[jazzdude]

Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it.
One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

Agree that eliminating middlemen creates short term pain, but it's often necessary for long term good. But government should be proactive. As those middleman industries start to die, people will be in transition, so how does government help get them back working faster? Someone that has their basic needs met (food, shelter, security/safety) met has much more energy available to innovate or invent. And don't forget that in the US, healthcare is largely tired to employment, so how do people in transition gain access to healthcare if needed? Again, a healthy worker is a more productive worker. So you can think of things like skills training and unemployment benefits as society's investment in individual citizens, so that they can get back on their feet and contribute to the economy (which is the payback to society).

And I think you misunderstand my stance on technology and automation. It's coming, and it's going to cause change, maybe significantly. I'm not advocating for slow rolling the transition, but rather to embrace that things are going to change, possibly faster than we'd like, and to adapt our society to those changes much faster than we have been. Change is happening faster, but our policies and laws have not caught up, and are only falling further behind. This exacerbates the middleman problem, because technology can bring about changes much faster than it had in the past, and could affect a broad cross section of industries at the same time, vs a narrow slice of an industry.

Patent law probably also needs revisiting, because of the pace of change in technology, and how much faster inventions and innovations happen.

Like it or not, cell phones and internet access are essential in modern American life, and not having either places you at a distinct disadvantage for jobs. Internet should be regulated as common infrastructure-most banking is electronic and online, and much of our communication is online. Access to government services and information is largely available online, reducing the cost of government. Employers expect employees to be reachable off hours, if nothing else for schedule/shift changes.

But many people, particularly Republicans, see those as luxuries, and the older ones hold onto their experiences and say they got by fine without internet and cellphones, so the new generation can as well and just need to stop being so lazy, which completely ignores how society has fundamentally shifted online. Your cellphone is likely more important than your computer. I know the only thing I use my laptop for is going school papers-pretty much everything else is in my cellphone. A $300 smartphone gives a lot to a person: multiple communication methods, the internet (job/skills training, job hunting sites, banking, news, education), and entertainment; it's the most important device for the average person.

We also tend to not fund legacy infrastructure, much less new infrastructure. And when were do, we are bad at maintaining it, often kicking the can down the road with a waiver.

China will just steal whatever they need that they can develop at home, and it doesn't help that many companies don't see the danger in cutting corners to secure their data from a determined adversary. No one is going to call them out on it; they gave strong economic ties around the world and can use that as leverage, and can absorb hours due to their authoritarian form of government. China also has the advantage of operating from pretty much one vision and direction, allowing them to be much more responsive than we are, and to make long term investments and strategies.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Agreed.  You won't find many people bemoaning all the stable hands and carriage drivers put out of work by the automobile, or all the phone switchboard operators put out of work by VOIP, or all the typists in what used to be called the steno pool becoming obsolete.

Sure, people are likely to get hurt in the short-term.  But the vast majority will be made better off by the technology.  This isn't a new argument...just read up on the original Luddites to see how long people have feared these new technologies.

Interesting argument that is legitimately making me rethink a lot of assumptions. My typical argument to post modern society is what happens to the truck drivers when trucks become automated? Why should all the money from that industry go to just a few people with automated trucks while everyone else goes out of work?

But I guess in reality the majority of profits would be dwindled down by competition and passed on via cost savings to the consumer.

Still would probably be nice if there was an easier way to switch professions in America, but modernization may not be as bad as I previously thought.

[Magnum]

13 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Let’s not pretend you weren’t talking about legality.

https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248

[ViperMan]

13 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

And I think you misunderstand my stance on technology and automation. It's coming, and it's going to cause change, maybe significantly. I'm not advocating for slow rolling the transition, but rather to embrace that things are going to change, possibly faster than we'd like, and to adapt our society to those changes much faster than we have been. Change is happening faster, but our policies and laws have not caught up, and are only falling further behind. This exacerbates the middleman problem, because technology can bring about changes much faster than it had in the past, and could affect a broad cross section of industries at the same time, vs a narrow slice of an industry.

Patent law probably also needs revisiting, because of the pace of change in technology, and how much faster inventions and innovations happen.

Agree wholeheartedly that our laws are woefully under-prepared to deal with much in the modern era. Too bad we don't have a legislature that seems very interested in ensuring they keep up.

[brabus]

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

You implied that suppression would lead to involvement from the ACLU. Seemed to me that implies legality. Glad to see we're on the same page.

And I do support the baker in that it’s 100% his legal right. It’s also 100% my legal right to personally hold that against him.

I didn’t imply any legal action by the ACLU (you inferred that, incorrectly), and the ACLU has taken notice and does not support what’s going on with the tech giants.
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-capitol-riot-twitter-ban-aclu-b1785626.html.

ACLU: ”it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions...It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.”

Glad to hear you support the baker from a legal standpoint.

 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/14/2021 at 1:54 AM, pcola said:

Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

 

 

 

That's not a press conference in which the President himself needs to directly respond to questions.  It is a scripted speech.  As we've seen, it is nearly impossible for Trump to answer questions logically.  He instead tends to hurl pejoratives and non-sequiturs. That's the point being made by some folks on this thread.   

The above was shown on CNN, MSNBC, as well as Fox and Newsmax.