The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.
The US Director of National Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) has a very public history of backing Assad and Iran during the Syrian Civil War, and any mention of the DNI without mentioning it's currently Tulsi Gabbard is clearly a bad faith discussion.
First, there are some platitudes or outright stereotypes that are presented as profound insights, e.g. “men do not connect emotionally as well as women”. Whether this is or is not true is up for debate in the first place, but either way, it’s hardly a novel or interesting statement. Discussing the causal relationships that yield this emergent phenomena, and using that to synthesize a solution, is far more interesting.
Second, these issues primarily affect lower or middle class men and boys. There’s just something off-putting about an Ivy League-educated lawyer and politician, who is not a man, writing op eds about men’s issues and how to address them. Like… what exactly makes her think that she would have any valuable insight that’s not inherently obvious to the median American male? Cynically, I think it may be good for us to have women spearheading this, because it’s politically incorrect for men to raise these issues. That right there illustrates one of the central cultural illnesses that is resulting in the enshittification of men.
But most of all, I find it patronizing that this piece refuses to acknowledge that men have legitimate complaints in some respects. Eg during my undergrad, there was a TA room where students could go for help on CS projects. There was almost always a line down the hall because of the popularity of the major. However, female CS students had their own special TA room, with an equal number of TAs, despite women making up like 10% of the major. For another example, look at the female-exclusive career fairs and resulting employment opportunities, like at GHC. Men and boys see this stuff in front of their face all the time. They know it’s not fair. It’s obvious that it’s not fair. But nobody wants to say it, because you’ll be labeled as all sorts of horrible things. That is emblematic of the core, central issues in our modern gender roles and expectations as they relate to men. And I hate to say it, but IME, these harmful attitudes towards men are primarily perpetuated by women (in particular, the very-online crowd)
> Not to mention the current token cost.
You of course have to train the AI from ground up and on material that is as much as possible only related to the topics that are in the game world (i.e. don't include real-world events in the training data that has no implications in-universe).
Answer those two questions and you will realize why your idea doesn’t work.
Robot run iron mine that sells iron ore to a robot run steel mill that sells steel plate to a robot run heavy truck manufacturer that sells heavy trucks to robot run iron mines, etc etc.
The material handling of heavy industry is already heavily automated, almost by definition. You just need to take out the last few people.
While working at Google I worked with many many amazing H1B (and other kinds) visa holders. I did 3 interviews a week, sat on hiring committees (reading 10-15 packets a week) and had a pretty good gauge of what we could find.
There was just no way I could see that we could replace these people with Americans. And they got paid top dollar and had the same wlb as everyone else (you could not generally tell what someone’s status was).
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jamesfobrien_tech-jobs-have-d...
The problem is that the left, which was historically pro-labor, abdicated this position for racial reasons, and the right was always about maximizing the economic zone.
The real reason is that they are totally beholden to powerful business interests that benefit from mass immigration, and the ensuing suppression of American labor movements. The racial equity bit is just the line that they feed to their voters.
I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them.
Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.