it’s between North America and South America

You’re thinking of the Caribbean sea, the gulf of Mexico is bounded by the united states to the north, Florida and Cuba to the east and Mexico to the south and west.

It being called the gulf of Mexico or gulf of America isn’t really going to change anything

It will literally require changing every map and GIS database in the country. Think of all the work NOAA will have to do deal with this BS. Even besides the annoyance and cost of updating all of those it will cause confusion with the rest of the world who will still call it the gulf of Mexico.

They received $80B but haven’t spent it yet. Looks like they’ve spent $7B so far , and it looks like the Republicans rescinded $20B of it already.

Still not a great ROI but they could be spending the money on building infrastructure to recover more. I’m guessing they require some pretty good software to catch the cheats and that costs a lot to create but less to maintain. That plus general growing pains might mean they’ll take a bit to ramp up, but we might start seeing more ROI gains in the following couple years.

Also they’re using some of it to improve operations like creating the new free tax portal so you don’t have to pay through turbotax, h&r etc. So that’d be nice, maybe not worth $1B, but nice

To be fair, if that is a woman in the bottom panel then she probably would’ve had just as much luck in the 70s

Demand goes up but not production. Adding UBI doesn’t increase the amount of wood harvested, or bricks produced or construction workers. In fact some construction workers may quit and go on UBI, lowering the production.

If demand goes up without production increasing, and thus supply, prices go up. This is part of the reason for the latest round of inflation, demand shot up after the pandemic but production was still at pandemic levels and yet to ramp back up.

Production in a lot of other places can ramp up relatively quickly to match demand if the infrastructure is built out already. In housing though production in general is slow and also slow to ramp up. It can take 2-3 years to build a house, and housing production takes years to increase. That’s part of the reason housing is still so high right now, housing production plummeted after 2008 and we haven’t gotten back to that even though prices and demand has skyrocketed.

All this is to say if UBI goes in it’ll take years for the supply to increase, I think they’re estimating housing production won’t get up to match the current new high prices now until 2030. Meanwhile your landlord is increasing your rent as soon as you renew, and rents don’t tend to ever go down after they’re set. This is if new housing can be built at all, a lot of places in America are zoned for single family housing and all the land is taken so no new housing can be built, housing production is limited by desirable and developable land and that just doesnt exist in a lot of places.

This is all if you don’t increase production, which the government can do, but they don’t right now and they definitely won’t if UBI comes in and replaces section 8 and all other welfare. If you do a universal jobs program though you can use those people to build affordable and public housing.

It won’t drop to zero since someone else will come in who will give them the extra $1000 because they need a place to live. Market forces don’t dissappear with UBI, that’s why when aggregate demand goes up and supply stays fixed, such as with housing, prices go up.

Say you pay $1500 for rent and there’s another guy who pays $1200 and wants to upgrade to your apt. They get the $1000 UBI and now they have enough to bid up to $2200 for your apt. Now either you pay $2300 or your landlord evicts you to get the higher paying tenant. This percolates up and down the housing ladder from the homeless person who gets $1000 only to see rents increase to $1500 to the millionaire who now has to pay an extra $1000 drop in the bucket for there high-rise in Manhattan.

In capitalism your standard of living is determined by your ability to outbid the person on the rung below you to maintain that lifestyle. If everyone moves up a rung then nothing changes.

I’ve soured on it recently, if you gave everyone $1000 a month then your landlord is just going to raise your rent by $1000.

If full socialism is out of the picture, and we could enact something like UBI I think we should expand disability and social security for those who can’t work and then do a universal guaranteed jobs program for those who can work because:

1. It’s way more politically viable. It’s going to be almost impossible to convince a majority of Americans to “pay people to sit around all day”. They’d be way more open to it if they’re doing a job.

2. We could use the labor on fields that the market doesn’t value, such as building green infrastructure or social work for low income individuals. This would go along with expanding the definition of a job to any work that is benefiting society. If you’re a parent spending all your time caring for a young or disabled child then that’s a job and you should get paid for it.

3. It you increase the wage for these guaranteed jobs that effectively raises the minimum wage since the private employers have to compete with the government. Why work at McDonald’s for $10 an hour when the government is paying $15. If you raise UBI that may decrease wages as employers will use it as an excuse to pay less.

4. Even for people making above minimum wage it gives the worker more bargaining power since your employer loses the threat of throwing you onto the streets. This is also true for UBI but only if it’s enough to fully cover a comfortable life which I don’t think will happen due to the inflation it may cause.

5. It increases production which can help to increase supply and cover for the increase in demand giving people that much money will cause so inflation is checked more.

6. People neeed a job, as in the expanded definition I gave above, it’s a big part of how people make meaning in there life. The best case for someone not working would be they just play video games all day, worst case they turn to drug use.

I was sort of lumping storage and compute costs together as “compute” but compute itself is probably astronomical too.

Even if it was just a CDN, a cdn at that scale streaming that much content simultaneously would require a huge amount of compute just to handle the streaming request traffic.

There’s also the recommendation algorithm which is powered by ai and takes a shit ton of parameters, at that scale that would be a massive computational task in and of itself.

Even video processing they probably send it through a couple Ai pipelines to add subtitles, make sure it’s not porn, check if your discussing topics with high misinformation so it can put that Wikipedia link below the video, etc.

All that plus probably another million other little problems that comes with running a service at that scale.

You forgot the part where they pay the video creator 50% of the money and use the other 50% to run one of the most computationally expensive and complex services on the internet.

There was a falling out between them after the board picked altman instead of Elon as ceo.

Now Elon is suing openai nominally because there renegging on the whole non profit thing, but really because he has his own xai that is competition and because of the grudge because he’s a petty manchild.

He said “Fuck that, I’m going to make my own Islamic state, with blackjack and al-qaida… you know what forget the al-qaida part”

Pacemakers have batteries and modern ones broadcast a lot of telemetry, and last up to a decade. Not sure how much more power would be needed to broadcast to a satellite or cell tower though.

Another L for bidens lame duck. Why not just say your going to do full climate reparations and make us not look like asshats on the world stage. Yeah trump will just repeal it but at least we can blame it on him and not the entire country.

Yes, marx always thought a socialist revolution would come in the late stages of industrial capitalism. Everyone thought it was going to be in Germany up until WWI. The problem is capital becomes entrenched and people become comfortable, especially if they benefit from imperialism and exploitation abroad or of a minority racialized underclass.

Another problem with skipping the first revolution and industrializing under socialism is it gets blamed for the the horrors of industrialization. The early stages of industrialization are always horrific with long hours, bad working conditions and slum living conditions. Combine that with general conservatism and desire to stick to a traditional life and you have to coerce the peasents into going into the cities to become industrial laborers. Capitalism did this through enclosure and farm consolidation, the soviets did it more blatantly, sometimes at gunpoint. Either way it builds an animosity with the system that robbed you of your traditional life.

One thing I’ll add that I haven’t seen mentioned is communisms relative weakness in the propaganda department. If you look at democracy as a bunch of competing interest groups i.e. parties trying to win the masses over to there side to win, then there main tool / weapon is information that will make the opposition look bad and your side look good, i.e. propaganda. Good propaganda requires intimate knowledge of people’s desires and a knowledge of how to shape those desires to the benefit of your program. Capitalism is very good at this due to competition forcing them to better understand there customer so they can sell them more. Capitalism creates great salesman which is fundamentally what you need to create good propaganda. You can see this expertise most plainly in advertising pushing the message that consumption is good, fulfilling and will make you happy.

This expertise combined with the large amount of resources capital can Marshall to push there message makes electoral politics extremely difficult for communism or any program that goes against consumption like environmentalism. Even if you completely eliminate capital and it’s control over media in one nation foreign actors will still come in using the same expertise and resources to try and bring back capitalism. So since communists can’t compete electorally with a free press they go towards autocracy to keep power.

but you have many capitalists competing, so the power is kinda distributed inside the capitalist class.

This isn’t always true, and is arguably not the natural state of capitalism. Capitalism, without state intervention, will tend towards monopoly as economies of scale and market power push out any competition.

Note: all of this is steal manning dengism, I am not a tankie advocating for it

They are in the first stage. Classical Marxist theory divides development into two revolutions / stages:

1. The first revolution is the bourgeoisie overthrowing the feudal order, eg. The American revolution, the English civil war, French revolution of 1830. After the bourgeoisie take over they will use the proletariat to industrialize and develop the means of production. This will eventually lead to a boom in efficiency and production, the peasants moving from the countryside to cities, and abundance of necessities. Eventually though everyone’s needs will be met and without an expanding market to profit from capitalist will be forced to produce more efficiently with less labor to get profits from there now limited market. This will lead to mass layoffs and unemployment which leads to

2. The socialist revolution where the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie and sieze the productive forces. They will then distribute labor fairly so you have 8 people working 10 hours instead of 1 person working 80 and 7 others unemployed. This then leads to communism where people have control over production and use it to guarantee well being and leisure instead of profit.

In order to get to this communist phase though you need to industrialize and develop the means of production so you can provide people with basic needs with little labor. The problem is the two major countries where socialism took hold, Russia and China, were still largely agrarian feudal societies. So they had to develop the means of production, Russia, and maoist china did so with 5 year plans, which had some success and some catastrophic failure but was ultimately pretty inefficient. So after mao a new leader in China named deng Xiao ping took over and followed a policy of allowing capitalism into the country to develop the means of production and industrialize. This unleashed powerful forces in the country that needed to be tamed by an even more powerful state, otherwise they would take over like they did in other capitalist countries. Then all the bloodshed from the original Chinese revolution would be for not as they would have to do another revolution to remove the bourgeoisie again. So the state maintains tight control to avoid “regressing” into a capitalist democracy until they fully develop and industrialize. At which point they will use that powerful authoritarian state to disposses the capitalist class and usher in communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to describe the will of a fully conscious proletariat majority being executed by and with the consent of that class. In other words a democracy unclouded by bourgeois interest and false consciousness.

The problem was that at the time of the Russian revolution the proletariat weren’t the majority, the peasants were, and what proletariat there were lacked full class consciousness. So Lenin used the vanguard party to emulate what a dictatorship of the proletariat would do, but that wasn’t an actual one as Marxist would’ve described.

He’s president, not prime minister. Removing him would require an impeachment, which usually has a higher barrier then a no confidence vote, though I’m not familiar with Korean government.

Not in this case, Elon does have some standing here. He was (is?) A significant investor in openai and he made those investments when the company was claiming it’s goal was to advance safe ai, not make money, so this transition to for profit is sort of a bait and switch.

That combined with his interest in a competing platform make it so Elon should at least be heard. I hate Elon as much as anyone on here but in this case I think he’s in the right.

To all the people in this thread claiming he needed to pardon him or trump would do something, without naming what that something is or using hyperbole, trump doesn’t care about hunter. The hunter case was about

1. Dragging the Biden name through the dirt and making them seem like a crime family. They don’t need to do this anymore because Biden hasn’t been a threat to trump since that last debate. Its not like he’s afraid to run against him in 2028

2. To call out them dems for there hypocrisy and try and make some equivalence with trumps convictions. This pardon plays perfectly into that narrative and now gives trump an excuse to pardon himself and all his accomplices.

Hunter is of no use to the trump administration now, don’t try to sell this as anything but a powerful father bailing out his failure of a son.