Show newer

>> @peterdrake @lucifargundam There are some people who argue that an income without a job would lead to despair or a lack of meaning in life, but I think if it were common to have a reasonable income without a job, we would learn to cope…

<< You're addressing the taboo in laborless income. The problem most people have with that is that laborless income is funded from the taxes of those who work comparatively harder. And those latter individuals are significantly more concerned about someone who's abusing access that tax fund(which is assumed exponentially more than non-abusers) than someone who genuinely needs it.

>> @peterdrake @lucifargundam To be clear I do not think it’s a bad thing when technology “destroys jobs”.
<< I mean... My agreement to that would be context-sensitive.

>>People think it’s a bad thing because, IMO, they confuse costs for benefits (since practically speaking you need a job to get an income, people think they want a job rather than an income).
<<Every time I reread this, I reinterpret it going in a different direction. Could you please rephrase?

@peterdrake @pganssle

A had the most advanced technical knowledge
B had some technical knowledge(hence the construction)
C did not have any aforementioned knowledge.

If A had skipped to C to do the construction and promised a lesser bargain than would have been given to B, C would have had more benefit than B regardless.

However, because of that scenario- B would likely feel jilted and betrayed by both sides. This furthering the conspiracy, should the 3 classes continue to interact.
####################################
Why did these hypothetical classes exist in the first place? Resources. In the end, whoever has the best/most tech(knowledge in this case) comes out on top. The goal was to have the most water access as possible. Those who figured out how to make it easier for themselves, did so- but at the cost of others. If such resources as mentioned in the entirety of the preceding example be plentiful- there would hardly be any excuse for having classes.

@hackernews@die-partei.social

Results:::
Testes masses of PEP-2, COC-1 and COC-2 were greater than those of PEP-1 and CG (P < 0.05). On day 15, testis longitudinal diameter (TLD) of CBs-treated mice was increased as compared to CG. TLD, testes transverse diameters (TTD) and AR proteins levels of PEP-2 and COC-2 were increased in comparison with CG (P<0.05). Serum testosterone concentrations of PEP-2 were higher than that of COC-1 and CG (P < 0.05). Levels of AR mRNAs of four CBs-treated mice were increased by 60.18%, 67.26%, 65.93% and 78.76%.

Conclusions:::
A high concentration of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola could raise TLD and TDD, enhance testosterone secretion, and increase serum EGF concentrations.
Keywords: Epidermal growth factor, Carbonated soft drinks, Androgen receptor

@hackernews@die-partei.social

Results:::
Testes masses of PEP-2, COC-1 and COC-2 were greater than those of PEP-1 and CG (P < 0.05). On day 15, testis longitudinal diameter (TLD) of CBs-treated mice was increased as compared to CG. TLD, testes transverse diameters (TTD) and AR proteins levels of PEP-2 and COC-2 were increased in comparison with CG (P<0.05). Serum testosterone concentrations of PEP-2 were higher than that of COC-1 and CG (P < 0.05). Levels of AR mRNAs of four CBs-treated mice were increased by 60.18%, 67.26%, 65.93% and 78.76%.

Conclusions:::
A high concentration of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola could raise TLD and TDD, enhance testosterone secretion, and increase serum EGF concentrations.
Keywords: Epidermal growth factor, Carbonated soft drinks, Androgen receptor

@Tim_Eagon
The Yuba County Five were a group of young men from Yuba City, California, with mild intellectual disabilities or psychiatric conditions, who attended a college basketball game at California State University, Chico, on the night of February 24, 1978.

Four of them—
Bill Sterling, 29;
Jack Huett, 24;
Ted Weiher, 32;
and Jack Madruga, 30
—were later found dead;

the fifth, Gary Mathias, 25,[1] has never been found.[2]

@peterdrake @pganssle

Here's a very watered-down example:

--Class A (wealthy), B(mid), C(low income)

All classes drink water daily. Only class A does not get water for themselves. Class B and C get water for themselves, but B only sometimes. C gets water for all classes depicted. In exchange, C gets a small enough portion of income to barely sustain itself.

One day, A decides to design a system for B to construct that will allow both parties to retrieve water without the need for C. This gets implemented and C no longer has income and less water than before.

In this predicament, C can either retaliate against B and A- or improvise into a new market and adapt to new market. The only other option is for C to try and usurp B and try to compete with an already existing market.

@peterdrake @pganssle

Yes and no. It makes life easier and makes tasks require less work- but we had people to do that work we didn't want to do.

Those people who did unsavory jobs are displaced and now have to elevate themselves. This shifts the social class ladder upwards each time technology progresses.

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.