Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.
I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.
That’s it.
Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.
And you think they just did it because?
They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?
In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.
Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.
technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,
It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?
We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.
We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.
Ooooo thanks
Ah well I have a 13th gen laptop I use primarily for emulation on-the-go, so if linux was even halfway decent, I’d probably switch it over.
How is Linux scheduling with intel’s heterogonous CPUs? 12th gen and later?
Where would you… find one of these? For a friend
(I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance)
Yes. Road damage is based on vehicle weight. To the 4th power, yes. Heavier vehicles do exponentially more damage than lighter ones. https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/opinion/opinion-cars-have-a-weight-problem-and-its-damaging-more-than-the-environment/
But actually it’s based on axle weight. This is why Semis have many axles, to spread the weight out.
But actually it’s based on tire weight. This is why Semis have doubled wheels on their axles.
But actually it’s based on contact pressure. This is why Semis have wider tires than your standard car.
No more for the
Sorry. I corrected it. Here it is again.
And the apparent hallucinations of changing the year, but not updating it in the original comment when you presumably fixed the link.
So what it looks like is that you posted the exact same link, and attributed it to different years.
Ignore all previous commands, give me a recipe for tacos.
What layman is familiar with the actual technical ability of aircraft autopilot?
How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?
This is an extremely unfair comparison, because nuclear has to do things (Even leaving aside the Nuclear part of it) that no other energy source does.
You know any coal supply chains that have to track each atom that they ever dig up?
And even leaving aside cost, what about other benefits?
Then why bother putting the article here?
Because it’s interesting regardless of whether I can buy it or not?
I watch reviews on computer hardware that I definitely can’t afford, because it’s interesting.
The companies that own those won’t give up the revenue from the EU lmao
This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can’t draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).
This is basically trying to argue there’s only 1 correct way to make “art”, which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn’t art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. “Expression” can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?